CHINA’ S GRAND STRATEGY TO SPLIT INDIA

Report/ article by Manoj Joshi in New Delhi

Try to break India into 30 parts, Chinese official think tank tells govt

THE GLOVES, it seems are off. After years of masking its attitude with declarations of friendship, China’s hostility has become clear.

An article published by a think- tank with close ties to the Chinese military has declared that it is in China’s interest to encourage the break-up of India into 20 or 30 “ national” units, much in the way of Europe.

This happened on the very day, last Saturday, when representatives of the two countries — National Security Adviser M. K. Narayanan and Chinese State Councillor Dai Bingguo — were meeting in New Delhi to resolve the Sino- Indian boundary dispute.

According to D. S. Rajan, director of the Chennai Centre for China Studies, the article, written by one Zhan Lue, has suggested that the Chinese grand strategy be directed towards the break- up of India.

Zhan’s is not a scholarly analysis which could argue that the Indian federation, which came up only in 1947 after the partition of British India, would collapse because of its own inner contradictions.

Zhan believes that the “so- called' Indian nation cannot be considered as one having existed in history. Hence, he suggests an active policy: “If China takes a little action, the so- called Great Indian Federation can be broken up.” The analysis is pseudo Marxism- Leninism and cynical pragmatism that characterises Chinese official thought. So ethnic groups like the Assamese, Tamils, Kashmiris and Nagas become “nationalities” with whom China can make common cause to bring about a break-up that would modernise India which today is essentially a “Hindu religious state”.

In the process China would recover southern Tibet aka Arunachal Pradesh. The project could also encourage Bangladesh to assimilate West Bengal, or create a rump protectorate. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) would no doubt love that.

How much credence can you put in a think-tank article? When it comes to China, a great deal, say analysts. That’s because almost everything that comes out has the approval of the authorities. Analysts suggest Zhan Lee could be a pseudonym of a senior Chinese Communist Party functionary.

The article has been reproduced in several strategic and military websites in China. According to Rajan, “The authoritative host site is located in Beijing and is the new edition of one which so far represented the China International Institute for Strategic Studies (CIISS).”

India’s ministry of external affairs spokesman Vishnu Prakash issued a rejoinder on Tuesday evening noting, “The article in question appears to be an expression of individual opinion and does not accord with the officially stated position of Beijing on India-China relations conveyed to us on several occasions, including at the highest level, most recently by the State Councillor Dai Bingguo during his visit to India last week.” The CIISS has in recent years been coming up with articles that talked tough with India. On Tuesday, its lead article was on how India planned to spend $150 billion to militarily equip itself to confront China.

There were separate items on Indian plans to acquire Sukhoi 30 MKI fighters and T-90S tanks. Taunting India as a lackey earlier of the USSR and now the US, the article noted that “India has been hoping to expand its hegemony” through various means.

In April last year, Zhan wrote an article, ‘A Warning to the Indian Government: Don’t Be Evil!’, which accused India of adopting the “same old path of confrontation with China” that had led to war in 1962 by reinforcing its troops in Arunachal Pradesh. At the time Indian officials had pointed out that the CIISS was always headed by a senior party functionary and “several senior members from the Chinese Communist Party are known to write under aliases on its website.” They had suspected that Zhan was a senior party member writing under a pseudonym.

Many Indian analysts believe that the hard-line statements are coming from institutions close to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). But, an editorial in June in Global Times, a sister publication of People’s Daily, was equally harsh in reacting to a news report that India was planning to beef up its forces in Arunachal Pradesh.

The editorial noted that proud of its “advanced political system”, India feels superior to China. However, it faces a disappointing domestic situation “which is unstable compared with China’s”. An online poll conducted by the paper at the time bluntly asked the question as to how China should deal with India’s separatist forces. Some 37.83 suggested open support, 43 per cent said covert support and only 15 per cent said China should not get involved. This means that some 80 per cent were advocating covert or overt support for separatists.

Taken together, the Zhan Lue articles and the Global Times editorials suggest serious undercurrents of anti- Indianism in China.

What has created this shift? In part, this could reflect Chinese insecurities unleashed by the Tibetan revolt on the eve of the Olympics last year.

Though New Delhi ensured that there were no incidents in the passage of the Olympic flame through India, Beijing felt that New Delhi had a hand in orchestrating the international uproar that followed its brutal crackdown in Tibet.

The uprising in Tibet was a surprise to China because Beijing believed that development and prosperity would have eliminated separatist feelings there. But, the incidents changed their minds and as a result of that, some in China are undoubtedly arguing that the best way of safeguarding Tibet is to destabilise the country which has the greatest potential to embarrass them.

In the past, China has supported separatism and insurgencies in India. Thuingaleng Muivah, the leader of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak- Muivah), spent several years in China and many Naga insurgents were trained and armed there.

However, since the mid- 1980s there is no evidence of any Chinese military assistance to the Nagas. Beijing never did give the Maoists anything but verbal support.

As for Jammu & Kashmir, its policies have been quite even-handed and China’s official line is that it will accept whatever India and Pakistan decide. There have been claims that Ulfa leader Paresh Barua is in China, but little evidence that China extends any official support for the outfit.

Alarmingly and coincidentally, on Monday, India’s Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta warned that India cannot match the Chinese, that “in military terms, both conventional and non- conventional, we have neither the capability nor the intention to match China, force by force.” India would be hard- put to cope with any Chinese decision to support the numerous separatist forces in the country. It has always been apparent that coping with China will be one of the biggest challenges India confronts. Only through diplomacy and our own inherent strength will we be able to postpone any direct confrontation indefinitely.

Beijing’s hostile intentions revealed

Think tank says India should be broken up into many nations like the Assamese, Tamils, Kashmiris and Nagas become “nationalities” with whom China can make common cause to bring about a break-up that would modernise India which today is essentially a “Hindu religious state”.

In the process China would recover southern Tibet aka Arunachal Pradesh. The project could also encourage Bangladesh to assimilate West Bengal, or create a rump protectorate. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) would no doubt love that.

How much credence can you put in a think-tank article? When it comes to China, a great deal, say analysts. That’s because almost everything that comes out has the approval of the authorities. Analysts suggest Zhan Lee could be a pseudonym of a senior Chinese Communist Party functionary.

The article has been reproduced in several strategic and military websites in China. According to Rajan, “The authoritative host site is located in Beijing and is the new edition of one which so far represented the China International Institute for Strategic Studies (CIISS).”

India’s ministry of external affairs spokesman Vishnu Prakash issued a rejoinder on Tuesday evening noting, “The article in question appears to be an expression of individual opinion and does not accord with the officially stated position of Beijing on India-China relations conveyed to us on several occasions, including at the highest level, most recently by the State Councillor Dai Bingguo during his visit to India last week.” The CIISS has in recent years been coming up with articles that talked tough with India. On Tuesday, its lead article was on how India planned to spend $150 billion to militarily equip itself to confront China.

There were separate items on Indian plans to acquire Sukhoi 30 MKI fighters and T-90S tanks. Taunting India as a lackey earlier of the USSR and now the US, the article noted that “India has been hoping to expand its hegemony” through various means.

In April last year, Zhan wrote an article, ‘A Warning to the Indian Government: Don’t Be Evil!’, which accused India of adopting the “same old path of confrontation with China” that had led to war in 1962 by reinforcing its troops in Arunachal Pradesh. At the time Indian officials had pointed out that the CIISS was always headed by a senior party functionary and “several senior members from the Chinese Communist Party are known to write under aliases on its website.” They had suspected that Zhan was a senior party member writing under a pseudonym.

Many Indian analysts believe that the hard-line statements are coming from institutions close to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). But, an editorial in June in Global Times, a sister publication of People’s Daily, was equally harsh in reacting to a news report that India was planning to beef up its forces in Arunachal Pradesh.

The editorial noted that proud of its “advanced political system”, India feels superior to China. However, it faces a disappointing domestic situation “which is unstable compared with China’s”. An online poll conducted by the paper at the time bluntly asked the question as to how China should deal with India’s separatist forces. Some 37.83 suggested open support, 43 per cent said covert support and only 15 per cent said China should not get involved. This means that some 80 per cent were advocating covert or overt support for separatists.

Taken together, the Zhan Lue articles and the Global Times editorials suggest serious undercurrents of anti- Indianism in China.

What has created this shift? In part, this could reflect Chinese insecurities unleashed by the Tibetan revolt on the eve of the Olympics last year.

Though New Delhi ensured that there were no incidents in the passage of the Olympic flame through India, Beijing felt that New Delhi had a hand in orchestrating the international uproar that followed its brutal crackdown in Tibet.

The uprising in Tibet was a surprise to China because Beijing believed that development and prosperity would have eliminated separatist feelings there. But, the incidents changed their minds and as a result of that, some in China are undoubtedly arguing that the best way of safeguarding Tibet is to destabilise the country which has the greatest potential to embarrass them.

In the past, China has supported separatism and insurgencies in India. Thuingaleng Muivah, the leader of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak- Muivah), spent several years in China and many Naga insurgents were trained and armed there.

However, since the mid- 1980s there is no evidence of any Chinese military assistance to the Nagas. Beijing never did give the Maoists anything but verbal support.

As for Jammu & Kashmir, its policies have been quite even-handed and China’s official line is that it will accept whatever India and Pakistan decide. There have been claims that Ulfa leader Paresh Barua is in China, but little evidence that China extends any official support for the outfit.

Alarmingly and coincidentally, on Monday, India’s Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta warned that India cannot match the Chinese, that “in military terms, both conventional and non- conventional, we have neither the capability nor the intention to match China, force by force.” India would be hard- put to cope with any Chinese decision to support the numerous separatist forces in the country. It has always been apparent that coping with China will be one of the biggest challenges India confronts. Only through diplomacy and our own inherent strength will we be able to postpone any direct confrontation indefinitely.

Source: Mail Today