Superpower Syndrome: Sid Harth
chhotemianinshallah
Birth Of A Superpower
By Paul Kennedy Sunday, Jun. 25, 2006
The facts were blindingly obvious, claimed the precocious Harvard
graduate in his book The Naval War of 1812, or the History of the
United States Navy During the Last War with Great Britain. First, in
the eternal Darwinian struggle that took place between calculating,
egoistic nation-states, it was essential for one country--in this
case, the U.S. at the close of the 19th century--to avoid "a miserly
economy in preparation for war." And for a state as dependent on sea
power as America, it was unthinkable that the nation "rely for defence
[sic] upon a navy composed partly of antiquated hulks, and partly of
new vessels rather more worthless than the old." The U.S. was rising
to world-power status, but it could do so only on the back of a
powerful and efficient Navy.
Phew! Who was saying this? The writer in question was none other than
Theodore Roosevelt, then a mere 24 years old. He was just a short time
out of college when his book was first published, in 1882, but already
making waves. Here is one of the few examples in recent history--
Churchill is another--of a young, highly ambitious man who could
foresee his own impact on the future international order. From early
on, Churchill seemed to have possessed a premonition that he would
lead his nation and empire in an age of great peril. In much the same
way, T.R. appeared destined--and felt destined--to preside over, and
manage, the U.S.'s emergence as one of the global great powers. He
believed also that his leadership would be decisive because he had
understood, before many of his contemporary political rivals and
friends, the importance of naval power in buttressing the
international position of the U.S.
Roosevelt was, for an American, unusually familiar with naval history.
Two of his uncles, brothers of his Southern-born mother, had been
involved in the Confederate navy in the Civil War. (One of them, James
D. Bulloch, was a Confederate naval agent who commissioned the C.S.S.
Alabama, the famous commerce raider on which his younger brother
Irvine served.) The young Theodore had grown up with stories about
earlier naval battles and eagerly read works on the history of war.
Yet it would be fair to say that his notions about sea power--build
bigger warships, concentrate the fleet--were primitive until the late
1880s, when he was introduced to one of the greatest luminaries of
naval thought, Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan. At the time of their first
meeting, Mahan, then in his late 40s, was giving lectures at the Naval
War College in Newport, R.I., lectures that would culminate in the
1890 publication of his international best seller, The Influence of
Sea Power upon History 1660-1783.
Mahan's book, which Roosevelt devoured in one reading, is at first
sight a detailed account of the many battles fought by the British
Royal Navy as it rose to become sovereign of the seas. But it is much
more than that, for Mahan claimed to have detected the principles that
underlay the workings of sea power, and had determined the rise and
fall of nations. With great skill, the author showed the intimate
relationships among productive industry, flourishing seaborne
commerce, strong national finances and enlightened national purpose.
Great navies did not arise out of thin air; they had to be built up
over time with the most modern warships, well-trained crews and
decisive admirals. Ultimately, though, it was the man or the men at
the top--those steering the nation through war and peace--who had to
understand the great influence that navies could exert on
international politics. Sea power, if properly applied by such
leaders, was the vital tool for any country aspiring to play on the
world stage.
Here was a road map for the rest of T.R.'s life, or at least the part
of it that would be focused on foreign affairs. In Roosevelt's future
naval policies we see the embodiment of Mahan's larger principles.
Moreover, this conjuncture of Mahan the theoretician and Roosevelt the
man of action arrived at just the right time in the history of the
U.S. Its industries were booming, its commerce thriving and its
merchants fighting to gain markets overseas in the face of tough
foreign competition. All of that pointed to the need for a strong
Navy. And, to be sure, the nation was getting one. The fleet was no
longer the dilapidated collection of small warships it had been when
Roosevelt wrote his book about the War of 1812. By the late 1890s, it
could be reckoned among the top four or five in the world.
But it was Roosevelt, more than anyone else, who turned U.S. sea power
into the manifestation of the nation's outward thrust. His first
demonstration of that counts among his most famous decisions. By 1897
he was Assistant Secretary of the Navy, a position in which he could
act out his ambitions, especially since the Secretary, John D. Long,
was a rather sick man and President William McKinley had no great
interest in naval matters. On Feb. 15, 1898, when news arrived of the
sinking in Havana harbor of the U.S.S. Maine--the event that
effectively set off the Spanish-American War--Roosevelt had his
opportunity.
Roosevelt had previously confided in Mahan his belief that the U.S.
should push Spain out of not only Cuba but also the Philippines,
though at the time acquiring the Philippines was by no means a goal of
the McKinley Administration. Ten days after the Maine went down, on a
late Friday afternoon when Long was temporarily out of the office, his
dynamic assistant cabled instructions to Admiral William T. Sampson in
the Caribbean and Commodore George Dewey in Hong Kong to prepare for
decisive action. Long, though by his own account somewhat bemused, did
nothing later to counter those orders. So when Congress declared war
on Spain on April 25, the U.S. squadrons in both theaters had been
heavily reinforced. The results--the destruction of the Spanish fleets
in Manila Bay and, two months later, off Santiago, Cuba--were
decisive. Spain had been reduced to the rank of a minor power, and the
deeply troubled lands of Cuba and the Philippines came under U.S.
sway.
The naval war of 1898 provided the nation with a complete
justification of Mahan's theories. The firepower of the American
battleships had clearly been overwhelming--a great relief to
Roosevelt, who had feared voices in Congress calling instead for lots
of small, coastal-defense vessels. Most impressive of all was the
performance of the new battleship U.S.S. Oregon, which had steamed
from San Francisco to Cuba to partake in the final battle. In fact, so
enthusiastic was Congress about the importance of the Navy that it
authorized the construction of many more battleships and heavy
cruisers.
But the lesson that most impressed itself on Roosevelt was that it had
taken the Oregon, steaming at high speed, a full 67 days to complete
the 14,700-mile journey around Cape Horn. American navalists and
expansionists--and Roosevelt was both--began clamoring for the
construction of a canal across Central America, one that, given the
turbulent nature of international politics, must be completely under
U.S. control. Facing large potential threats in the Atlantic and the
Pacific, the U.S. had no choice but to shorten the route between the
East and West coasts.
The matter was urgent because Roosevelt and his circle were not the
only people who had discovered the influence of sea power on world
affairs. Mahan's lessons from history had had an almost universal
resonance. Under Kaiser Wilhelm II and Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz,
Germany was building a battle fleet as large as the U.S. one and
equally fast. France and Russia, now in alliance, were also pouring
resources into new construction, as were Italy and Austria-Hungary in
the Mediterranean. The most amazing growth, from virtually nowhere,
was that of the Japanese navy in the Far East. And all these growing
fleets caused the British to spend unprecedented amounts on the Royal
Navy in an effort to maintain its centuries-old naval supremacy. The
U.S. could not afford to slacken its pace.
The U.S. navalists need not have worried. Within a short while, in
March 1901, Roosevelt was elected Vice President under McKinley; six
months later, following McKinley's assassination, he was catapulted
into the highest office. As early as 1902 he demonstrated the growing
clout of the U.S. Navy during the so-called Venezuelan crisis.
Venezuela's feckless financial policies and its refusal to pay
international debts had led to a blockade of its coastline by various
European navies, notably Germany's. Urged on by the nationalist wing
of the U.S. press, Roosevelt had instructed Dewey, now an admiral, to
patrol with a large force in waters nearby, ostensibly on seasonal
fleet maneuvers but with an intent that was clear to all.
It was a tactic that seemed to fit perfectly with the President's
motto, "Speak softly, but carry a big stick." Whether it was fully
true, as Roosevelt later claimed, that it was U.S. sea power that
compelled the Germans to back down, is open to some doubt. But with a
compromise debt settlement reached at the Hague, it was becoming clear
that the era of European interventions in the western hemisphere had
come to an end. Long an empty declaration, the Monroe Doctrine, which
had warned Europeans not to interfere in the Americas, was now a
reality as a result of American sea power.
But so, too, as the Latin American states discovered to their dismay,
was the Roosevelt Corollary to that doctrine, which the President
proclaimed in 1904. If we do not want third powers to take action
against wrongdoing regimes in our hemisphere, the President stated,
"then sooner or later we must keep order ourselves." What that meant
was that the U.S. was claiming for itself the right to intervene in
the affairs of hemispheric nations when those nations aroused the
displeasure of Washington.
It was not just the misbehavior of Central and South American
governments that concerned Roosevelt in this volatile region. He was
also eager to prevent any foreigners from gaining a concession to
build the canal that he wanted the U.S. to build. When the Colombian
government turned down a proposed deal for a 100-year lease of
territory in its province of Panama, the President threw his weight--
and the weight of a naval landing party--in favor of one of the
perennial Panamanian uprisings aimed at gaining independence from
Colombia. Twelve days after Washington recognized the new nation of
Panama, in November 1903, it signed with deep satisfaction a canal
treaty with Panama that was identical to the one rejected by Colombia.
While the U.S. was secure now in its Atlantic realms, it was being
forced to increase its attention to China and the Pacific. The U.S.
had long possessed trading and missionary interests in East Asia and
now of course occupied the Philippines, so it naturally had cruisers
and gunboats in those waters. But it was not the biggest player in the
region. Russia, France and Britain had significant battleship
squadrons in the Far East. The fastest-growing naval force of all
belonged to Japan, which was increasingly suspicious of Russia's
creeping territorial controls in Manchuria. In February 1904, Japan
launched a surprise attack on the Russian fleet anchored at Port
Arthur on the coast of China. The 20th century struggle for dominance
of East Asia had begun in earnest.
The Russo-Japanese War was another gift from the gods to Roosevelt. He
had long worried about czarist ambitions in Asia, as he worried about
German ambitions in the Atlantic. He was full of admiration for the
Japanese armed services as they steadily vanquished the larger Russian
armies on land and smashed the Russian fleet in the epic battle of
Tsushima in May 1905. But the President did not want complete Japanese
domination of the Far East either, and so he actively lobbied both
sides to turn to the peace table. Since Britain was diplomatically
allied to Japan, and France to Russia, neither was an acceptable
arbitrator. And the Kaiser's Germany was trusted by no one. By default
the U.S. became the natural mediator. Roosevelt persuaded the two
nations to send representatives to the U.S. for negotiations to be
conducted in Portsmouth, N.H., where he took the deepest interest in
cajoling, often bullying, the two belligerents into ending the war.
For his role, T.R. was awarded the 1906 Nobel Peace Prize.
All the same, the world remained a dangerous place. There were the
German threat to France, the Anglo-German rivalry in the North Sea,
the Balkan tinderbox and the unanswered question of Japan's ultimate
ambitions. Roosevelt decided a bold move was required to send a
message that the U.S. was a global player. In December 1907 he
dispatched from Hampton Roads, Va., the "Great White Fleet,"
consisting of all 16 of the U.S. Navy's modern battleships. They were
embarked on what would be a 46,000-mile, 14-month cruise around the
world. Here was showing the flag, indeed. Almost a century later, that
voyage is still regarded as the apotheosis of Roosevelt's belief in
naval power as an instrument of national policy. The stately
procession across the Pacific and then through the Indian Ocean, Suez
Canal and Mediterranean before returning to the Atlantic seaboard was
an impressive logistical feat, even if it confirmed to the U.S. Navy
the limited endurance of the older battleships and produced a
remarkable number of desertions in Australian ports. But the world
public was not to know of that. A million people had assembled in San
Francisco harbor to watch the fleet depart; half a million Australians
greeted it in Sydney. Even the anxiously prepared visit to Tokyo Bay
had gone well.
A short while after the Great White Fleet's return, Roosevelt
relinquished the presidency. To his successor, William Howard Taft, he
had one message: Do not divide the fleet. The Mahanian principle of
concentrating the main battle fleet in one theater remained in place.
It would still be there in 1914 when the Panama Canal, instigated by
T.R., finally opened. Only during the Second World War, when the U.S.
Navy became the largest in the world, would the U.S. possess a two-
ocean fleet.
But the foundations of its maritime supremacy had been laid, and
firmly, by this most energetic of U.S. Presidents. It is true that
after 1909, the U.S. took a bit of a breather in world affairs,
retreating to the side of the stage as the European crisis unfolded.
But it never stopped building warships. And the country would be
summoned back to the center of international politics in 1917. Despite
the isolationist pressures of the interwar years, the U.S. would never
be able, or willing, to abandon its pivotal role. The country's later
trajectory would have made T.R. feel justified, and proud. He had
always been convinced that it was impossible for the U.S. to avoid
becoming the greatest world power of the 20th century; the only choice
was whether it would do so well or poorly. And the trick was to turn
the theory of Mahan's principles about sea power into effective
practice, for the furtherance of American interests and values. No
U.S. President did that better.
Kennedy is director of International Security Studies at Yale. His
latest book is The Parliament of Man: The Past, Present and Future of
the United Nations (Random House)
...and I am Sid Harth
chhotemianinshallah
China's 60th Birthday: The Road to Prosperity
By David Shambaugh Monday, Sep. 28, 2009
Onward and upward
A new town, Songjiang, rises on the outskirts of Shanghai
Julien Daniel / MYOP
Sixty years ago Mao Zedong stood before a sea of people atop Tiananmen
Gate proclaiming, in his high-pitched Hunan dialect, the founding of
the People's Republic of China and that the "Chinese people have stood
up!" The moment was marked with pride and hope. The communists'
victory had vanquished the Nationalist regime, withstood the vicious
onslaught of the Japanese invasion and overturned the century of
foreign encroachment on China's territory. Moreover, Mao and the
Chinese Communist Party (CCP) came to power without significant
external support — theirs was largely a homegrown revolution.
(See pictures of the making of modern China.)http://www.time.com/time/
photogallery/0,29307,1924825,00.html
Related
Photos
The Making of Modern China
Photoshttp://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1924825,00.html
A New Look at Old Shanghai
Stories
What Does Beijing Want For Its Birthday? Silence, Please.
Can China Save the World's Economy?
Mao brought a vision for China that has resonated from the 19th
century Qing dynasty reformers to this day: to regain China's fu qiang
(wealth and power), dignity, international respect and territorial
integrity. In this regard, Mao and the CCP positioned themselves
squarely with a deep yearning among Chinese — thus earning their
loyalty and the party's legitimacy. His successors have not wavered
from this singular vision and mission.
(Read "Where China Goes Next.")
Tragically, Mao's belief in restoring China's greatness and achieving
modernity was inextricably intertwined with his ideological desire to
transform China into a socialist and revolutionary society. Mao's
social engineering continually convulsed China in unrelenting
political campaigns. These movements disrupted productivity and caused
horrific loss of life. Yet, despite the chaos, the People's Republic
embarked on industrialization and stood up. By many measures, 60 years
on, China has achieved significant progress toward becoming a major
and global power. Mao may recognize it, but he would not be wholly
happy with it.
As the People's Republic of China commemorates its 60th anniversary,
it seemingly has much to celebrate. China is the world's most populous
and industrious nation, is the world's third largest economy and
trading nation, has become a global innovator in science and
technology, and is building a world-class university system. It has an
increasingly modern military and commands diplomatic respect. It is at
peace with its neighbors and all major powers. Its hybrid model of
quasi-state capitalism and semidemocratic authoritarianism — sometimes
dubbed the "Beijing Consensus" — has attracted attention across the
developing world.
This growing soft power of China was strengthened by the 2008 Olympics
extravaganza, and the Shanghai Expo next year will similarly dazzle.
The 60th anniversary celebration in Beijing on Oct. 1 will impress, if
not frighten, the world with an arresting display of military hardware
and goose-stepping soldiers. Less visible is the fact that China is
the first major economy to recover from the global recession and,
indeed, is leading the world out of it.
(Read "Mission Accomplished. Now What?")
China is on a roll, particularly when viewed over time. Visiting or
living in China every year over the past three decades, I have had the
personal opportunity to witness dramatic transformations. When I first
went to China in 1979, vestiges of the Cultural Revolution were still
evident: revolutionary slogans painted on walls and pockmarks on
university buildings from bullets and howitzer shells shot by dueling
Red Guards. Camouflaged, but just as evident, were the personal scars
borne by intellectuals and officials whom I met at the time. I heard
stories of beatings and humiliations, confiscations of personal
possessions and loss of living quarters, and forced hard labor.
I then witnessed the dramatic blossoming of personal freedoms and
economic growth in the 1980s, punctuated by periodic countercampaigns
launched by neo-Maoists in the leadership. One could literally feel
and see Chinese society come alive after its long Maoist trauma, only
to have people quickly recoil when the conservatives in the leadership
reasserted themselves. This seesaw pattern persisted throughout the
decade, culminating in the dramatic Tiananmen demonstrations and their
suppression in June 1989.
In the early 1990s, I again experienced China as a society
traumatized, this time by the aftermath of Tiananmen. But by mid-
decade Deng Xiaoping had reignited domestic economic reforms and China
had normalized its place in the world after its post-Tiananmen
isolation. Politics, however, remained frozen and the heavy hand of
the state remained evident. Only during the present decade, in the
waning years of Jiang Zemin's rule and under Hu Jintao, has the
Communist Party begun to experiment with very limited political
reforms. My discussions with those party officials involved with
crafting the "democratic" reforms makes clear that there are strict
boundaries to how far they will proceed.
Thus, when considering the totality of six decades, the record of the
PRC is decidedly mixed. While its achievements have been momentous, so
are the contrasts and contradictions exposed by those very same
achievements. In many sectors, each reform breeds new problems and
challenges. China has come a long way, but it still has a long way to
go.
See pictures of Remembering Tiananmen Square.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1836952,00.html
Mission Accomplished. Now What?
By Simon Elegant/Beijing Thursday, Aug. 28, 2008
HAPPY HOST: President Hu Jintao, center, stands tall during the
Olympics' closing ceremony
Gabriel Bouys / AFP / Getty Images
ENLARGE +
As most Chinese media were celebrating Beijing's Olympics successes, a
magazine named Southern Window — a highbrow biweekly with a
circulation of 500,000 — broke from the pack. On the cover of the
magazine's Aug. 11 issue, there is no photograph of the sparkling
Bird's Nest stadium, no triumphant Chinese athlete fondling one of the
country's 51 gold medals. Instead, there is an illustration of law
textbooks and a teacher with a wooden pointer giving instruction to a
businessman and a government official. The cover line: "Rule of Law
Starts with Limitation of Power." Sounds boring? In China, it's almost
revolutionary.
The Chinese Communist Party wasn't explicitly mentioned, but since it
holds virtually all of the power in China, the articles are clearly
about curtailing the Party's all-pervasive reach and allowing the
Chinese people some wiggle room. Anything that touches on limiting the
power of the Party is extremely sensitive — and often very dangerous.
So amid the euphoria of the Olympics, it was pretty gutsy of Southern
Window to publish stories with headlines like, "When Administrative
Power Obstructs the Law" and "Putting Boxing Gloves on Police
Powers."
Southern Window was effectively firing the opening salvo in a debate
that started the minute the closing ceremony's last firework exploded:
What now for China? Will Party hard-liners, emboldened by the world's
timid response to their heavy-handed pre-Games crackdown on dissent,
continue to tighten their grip on power? Or will the spirit of civic
activism that arose from relief efforts after the May earthquake in
Sichuan be revived? Could reform-minded Party officials — like those
who approved the publication of Southern Window's special issue — gain
ground in their drive to ease control over areas such as the courts
and the media?
Of course, not all Chinese are asking those questions at this very
minute; many are still basking in the residual glow from all those
fireworks and gold medals. Despite numerous controversies ahead of the
Games — turmoil over the Olympic torch relay, the bloody suppression
of Tibetan riots in March, crackdowns on militant separatists in far-
flung provinces — the Games went spectacularly smoothly. Now they are
over, and China stands at a critical juncture in its tumultuous modern
history. Many scholars and analysts say that Chinese society has
reached a point where maintaining the societal status quo is no longer
an option.
In recent years, China has barely been able to keep a lid on the
social dislocation caused by the country's pell-mell economic growth,
which has brought miraculous progress but also misery to millions of
people working in inhumane conditions or victimized by widespread
corruption and collusion between businessmen and local Party bosses.
Precise numbers are hard to come by, but government officials have
acknowledged that scores of so-called "mass incidents" — protests —
occur every day. These often violent eruptions of frustration were
bottled up by the authorities as the Olympics loomed. Some are now
worried they are primed to boil over. "There are serious issues that
have been accumulating, including ethnic problems in Tibet and
Xinjiang as well as social issues and conflicts, that have been
temporarily covered up by force to guarantee a successful Olympics,"
says Peking University law professor and reform advocate He Weifang.
"I cannot predict whether there will be an immediate outbreak of all
these problems after the Olympics. But there will be an outbreak if
the government does not take steps to tackle the domestic problems."
In the past the Party has taken big gambles at moments like these. It
had to in order to survive. When China's economy lay in ruins after
the Cultural Revolution, Deng Xiaoping abandoned orthodoxy to initiate
sweeping economic reforms. His successor, Jiang Zemin, placed some big
bets of his own: joining the World Trade Organization, allowing
businessmen to become members of the Party, pushing the economic
opening of the country with near-reckless vigor.
So far, current President Hu Jintao has made only one issue the
centerpiece of his term in office: a successful staging of the Olympic
Games. Now Hu may have little choice but to gamble himself by
loosening the Party's grip on power. Some argue that Beijing hard-
liners — having carried out harsh crackdowns with no real
repercussions while under the international spotlight — believe they
can continue tightening controls with impunity and without risk of
backlash. But this isn't a realistic scenario, partly because not all
the pressure for change is coming from the weak and marginalized.
China's urban middle class is also pushing for greater freedom. Their
growing feeling of empowerment is contagious. Last year's protests by
thousands of citizens in the coastal city of Xiamen against plans to
build a billion-dollar chemical factory ultimately forced the
cancellation of the project — and sparked subsequent copycat
demonstrations over proposed megaprojects in Shanghai and Chengdu.
"The pressure is building in the pressure cooker and there's no
current avenue for it to be released," says Nicholas Bequelin, China
researcher for New York City – based Human Rights Watch. Bequelin
believes there may be "many calls both inside and outside the Party to
put some sort of reforms on the agenda again."
These reforms are likely to come first in the legal system, says China
scholar David Kelly of the University of Technology, Sydney. "Chinese
people want rights over what they buy and where they live," Kelly
says, "and at the moment they can't find that through the courts."
However, considerable progress has been made in the past two years in
resolving labor disputes through the legal system, which could be a
model for other issues such as property rights. Kelly argues that the
Party could also cautiously allow the expansion of other rights that
relate directly to people's daily lives, for example by changing the
hukou household-registration system that makes second-class citizens
out of economic migrants who can't obtain official residency rights in
areas they move to for work. These so-called "citizenship rights" are
not politically sensitive like democracy or human rights, Kelly says,
"nor are they inherent like human rights. It's a negotiable area."
While the evolution of China's civil society was put on hold during
the Olympics, Bequelin and others say they think the longer-term
outlook is bright. "It's a battle in which Chinese are trying to get
government off their backs," says Bequelin. "This has nothing to do
with the legitimacy of the Communist Party or debates about political
systems." What's being fought for is access to information and greater
personal freedom, the "fundamental tools Chinese people need to
organize their lives in a market economy. I don't see how progress on
those fronts can be reversed or slowed down in the long term."
The Games showed that outside pressure on issues like human rights and
civil society has little effect on Beijing. Now the world will be
watching to see if the Chinese people take matters into their own
hands and really begin building a new China.
http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1905170,00.html
Sid Harth
What China's Hu Would Really Like to Tell Obama
By Bill Powell / Shanghai
Monday, Sep. 21, 2009
President Obama, right, meets with Chinese President Hu Jintao at the
Winfield House, the U.S. ambassador's residence in London
Saul Loeb / AFP / Getty
Summit meetings, in particular those with 20 heads of state in
attendance, are usually scripted, staid affairs. That's especially
true when these get-togethers involve Chinese President Hu Jintao,
whose private persona varies little from his public style. As befits
someone who is running the world's most populous country, he is
intensely disciplined and extremely cautious. On Tuesday, he will meet
one on one with U.S. President Barack Obama on the sidelines of the
U.N. General Assembly in New York City before heading off to
Pittsburgh, Pa., for the G-20 summit on Sept. 24-25. This is what a
more relaxed Hu might say to Obama, whose first major decision on
trade was to slap a 35% tariff on tires produced in China — an action
that generated a flurry of stories in the media about the possibility
of a U.S.-China trade war:
"One of my aides handed me something before our meeting. It's a quote
from one of the more popular online chat rooms in China, and I'm told
it reflects pretty accurately the prevailing sentiment in my country
in the wake of your decision to discriminate against tires made there.
(U.S. companies, by the way, produce two-thirds of those tires. We all
had a good chuckle about that in the Politburo. Here I am, the head of
the Communist Party in the People's Republic of China, and I'm
apparently more of a capitalist than you!)
"Anyway, back to what this netizen said: 'To fight enemies, you don't
get any advantage by appearing weak!' So now I'm accused of being weak
at home because I didn't go tit for tat with you on trade, and you're
accused of being the 'enemy'— a common refrain, by the way, in the
increasingly xenophobic quarters of our central government's
propaganda department. That's O.K. — for now. We easily could have
immediately stopped imports of U.S. chickens or auto parts or anything
else by concocting some health risk or claiming a failure to meet
Chinese safety standards. Instead, we kicked the can down the road,
launching an 'investigation' about possible trade violations — one
that will be long forgotten by the Chinese public by the time it's
completed months from now.
(See pictures of China's investments in Africa.)
"The fact is, despite what the headlines in your financial press might
say about China's 'strong' growth, our economy is still hurting —
thanks to the financial collapse your country inflicted on the world.
Our export sector is particularly suffering, so the last thing anyone
needs is for us to go all nationalistic and start a trade war. We
understand we need the U.S. market, and we also have a desire for
stability right now — more so than usual. Next month is the 60th
anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China, and
then in November you are coming to Beijing. So I thought it best to
keep things on an even keel and let this tire thing go.
(Read "China's 60th Birthday: The Road to Prosperity.")
"But before you thank me for that, I wanted to mention a couple of
things. Your Treasury Department has thus far been good at keeping its
mouth shut about the value of our currency. As I said, we need our
export sector to recover — late last year I had more unemployed
workers in one province (Guangdong) than you have in your entire
country — so forget about pressuring us to revalue the renminbi. We
allowed it to increase in value against the dollar during the Bush
years, but until there's evidence of a global economic recovery, we're
not budging on currency. So continued silence on that front is golden,
got it?
"Second, we still buy a whole lot of your Treasury debt, though this
is less of a weapon than is often portrayed in your press. (We have to
recycle the dollars we earn from trade somewhere, and your Treasury
market remains the largest and most liquid in the world. Plus, we,
like the Japanese before us, have no real interest in seeing your
interest rates rise and growth slow, particularly not now, and that's
what would happen if we went on a T-bill buying strike.) But holding
your debt does give us leverage, and we have some decisions to make
now. Specifically, we'd like to diversify our purchases because the
dollar is getting weaker by the day and we want hard assets.
Companies, land, buildings, amusement parks, golf courses, whatever.
Our sovereign wealth fund — the China Investment Corp. — is already
looking at possible investments, as are some of our state-owned
companies. A few years ago, one of our better-run companies, CNOOC,
tried to buy a second-tier oil company in Los Angeles, UNOCAL, but
backed off after your own xenophobic politicians created a ruckus. We
hope that in the future your Administration will help explain to the
American people — not to mention the members of Congress in both
parties — that increased direct Chinese investment in the U.S. is in
both our interests. We have so many dollars piling up, we're going to
be buying your stuff for years to come.
(See pictures of China's electronic-waste village.)
"Finally, about North Korea. I've been as annoyed as you have by the
Dear Leader, Kim Jong Il. But last week I sent my personal envoy, Dai
Bingguo, to Pyongyang, and we told him again that the time has come to
sit down and negotiate with you directly. We'll host the talks in
Beijing to give you a fig leaf of multilateralism, if you still care
about that. But I'm assuming you'll now get on with the business
of ... how did your Defense Secretary, Mr. Gates, put it? Oh yes:
'Buying the same horse twice.'
(Read more about Robert Gates.)
"I think that covers it. Thanks for meeting me in New York City by the
way; it saves me time later in the week. I would say I'm looking
forward to going to Pittsburgh, but I'm not much of a football fan,
and my staff tells me you can't get a decent Chinese meal there to
save your life."
See pictures of China on the wild side.
Read "Why the China-U.S. Trade Dispute Is Heating Up."
Sid Harth
India's China Panic: Seeing a 'Red Peril' on Land and Sea
By Ishaan Tharoor
Sunday, Sep. 20, 2009
A Chinese DDG-169 Wuhuan destroyer accompanies merchant vessels.
Zhong Kuirun / ChinaFotoPress / Getty
In recent weeks, public attention in India has reached feverish levels
over what is perceived to be the growing threat lurking north of the
border. Tensions along the Himalayan frontier with China have spiked
noticeably since a round of Sino-Indian talks over long-standing
territorial disputes this summer ended in failure. In their wake, the
frenetic Indian press has chronicled reports of nighttime boundary
incursions and troop build-ups, even while officials in both
governments downplay such confrontations. Elements in the Indian media
point almost daily to various signs of a Beijing plot to contain its
neighbor's rise, a conviction aided by recent hawkish editorials from
China's state-run outlets. This week, leading Indian news networks
loudly catalogued Chinese transgressions under headlines such as "Red
Peril" and "Enter the Dragon."
(Read about China and India's territorial disputes.)
India and China fought a war in 1962 whose acrimonious legacy lingers
even while economic ties flourish (China is now India's biggest trade
partner). Beijing refuses to acknowledge the de facto border —
demarcated by the British empire — and claims almost the entirety of
the northeastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh as part of its own
territory. Indian strategic analysts believe Beijing's stance has
hardened in recent years, perhaps as a consequence of its increasing
economic and military edge over India as well as growing Chinese
influence in smaller South Asian countries like Nepal and Bangladesh.
Comments made last month by India's outgoing navy chief that the
country could not hope to match China's hard power capabilities set
off a bout of national hand-wringing. "There's a nervousness among
some policy makers that the Chinese see India as weak and vulnerable
to coercion," says Harsh Pant, professor of defense studies at King's
College, London, and author of a forthcoming book on India's China
policy. "Indians feel they can't manage China's rise and that they are
far, far behind."
(Read about China and India's high-seas rivalry.)
But the real arena for future confrontation, say most Indian
strategists, lies not in standoffs on remote, rugged peaks, but in the
waters all around the Indian Subcontinent. The Indian Ocean is the
thoroughfare for nearly half of global seaborne trade, its coastal
states home to over 60% of the world's oil and a third of its gas
reserves. Traditionally, India has imagined the ocean as part of its
backyard without investing serious resources in its navy — much more
still goes to an army and air force perched by the land boundaries
with the old enemy Pakistan. And that gap between India's maritime
hubris and real power has been exposed in recent times by China, which
is buoyed by its own sense of historical revival — dating back to the
days when the eunuch admiral Zheng He sailed his medieval trade fleets
to India and Africa, bringing back, among other things, a giraffe.
To safeguard its vast appetite for oil and other natural resources,
particularly drawn from Africa, China has embarked upon a "string of
pearls" strategy, building ports and listening posts around the Indian
Ocean rim. Beijing's projects span from the Malacca Straits to the
Cape of Good Hope, and many places in between, including countries
that were once in India's sphere of influence. A massive deep-sea port
being built by Chinese funds and labor at Hambantota, at the southern
tip of Sri Lanka, has in particular riled Indian analysts. With a $1
billion facility also under construction in Gwadar, in Pakistan, China
will eventually possess key naval choke points around the Subcontinent
that could disrupt Indian lines of communication and shipping. Reports
of a tense standoff earlier this year between Indian and Chinese
warships on anti-piracy patrol in the Gulf of Aden — though dismissed
by both governments — did little to subdue the sense of distrust
brewing between policymakers on both sides.
In response to China's gains, India's navy aims to modernize its own
fleet. It launched the country's first nuclear submarine in July and
purchased new destroyers from Russia and the U.S., yet China's plans
to build aircraft carriers and boost its own submarine fleet far
outstrip that of New Delhi. India has expanded defense contacts and
exchanges with a host of strategic Indian Ocean countries and
archipelago nations such as Mauritius, Seychelles, Madagascar and the
Maldives, as well as engaging in naval exercises with other East Asian
and Southeast Asian nations that are wary of China's growing stature,
such as Japan and Vietnam. But China also maintains solid
relationships with many of these countries — ties that, in most cases,
bind far tighter and offer much more than what poorer India can
muster.
Conflict, though, is not inevitable. It's natural for rising powers to
extend their reach and rub up against each other. China and India,
says C. Uday Bhaskar, director of the National Maritime Foundation, a
think tank attached to the Indian navy, need to "evolve some kind of
modus vivendi as they establish themselves in the Indian Ocean." But
few can divine what that may look like. Part of the problem is that
despite booming trade between India and China, there is little
political understanding between their governments. "They engage very
superficially," says Pant. "There's rarely consensus on any of the
fundamental issues." Comparisons have even been made linking India and
China's current rapport to the ill-fated understandings between the
U.S. and Japan in the early 20th century. Though in a vastly different
context, the two countries, says Pant, are clandestinely probing and
feeling out each other's geo-political intentions in an eerily similar
fashion.
An article in the March-April issue of Foreign Affairs by Robert
Kaplan, a prominent American writer and strategic thinker, suggested
that the U.S., far and away still the world's preeminent military
power, could be the chief "balancer" and "honest broker" in the Indian
Ocean. But that idea has been received icily in Asia, with many
governments seeing the U.S. as a nation in decline, marooned in costly
adventures abroad and led by an Obama administration less willing to
confront the aggressive posturing of a rising giant like China. It
would be better, says Bhaskar, for India and China to slowly forge a
constructive pan-Asian consensus and do away with the "post-colonial
baggage" that animates the current Sino-Indian border dispute. But as
talk of a new Asian "Great Game" gains favor, history and geography
may not be so easy to overcome.
Sid Harth
Why the China-U.S. Trade Dispute Is Heating Up
By Michael Schuman Monday, Sep. 14, 2009
Workers produce a giant tire at the China National Tire & Rubber
Guilin Corp. LTD in Guilin, in China's Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous
Region, on May 24, 2009
Liu Guangming / XinHua / Corbis
The relationship between China and the U.S. may be the world's most
complicated. While the two economies desperately need each other —
China relies on exports to the U.S. to drive growth while the U.S.
requires investments from China to finance its giant deficits —
Beijing and Washington nevertheless routinely spar over a wide range
of sensitive issues. The U.S. has accused China of manipulating its
currency to unfairly promote exports, while China has openly called
for the replacement of the U.S. dollar as the world's premier
currency. But with so much at stake, the two nations have tried to
keep their rapport cordial. In July, U.S. President Barack Obama
called for "cooperation, not confrontation" with China.
Until now. A widening trade dispute threatens to ratchet up tension in
the China-U.S. relationship, with potential consequences for the
entire world economy. The spat began on Sept. 11, when the Obama
Administration announced it will slap tariffs of as much as 35% on
Chinese-made tires, effectively pricing them out of the low end of the
American market. Two days later, China's Ministry of Commerce said it
would start antidumping investigations against imports of some U.S.
chicken products and auto parts. Though the ministry's announcement
made no mention of the tire tariffs, the timing of China's action
appears as an eye-for-an-eye reaction to Obama's decision. On Monday,
China sought talks with the U.S. through the World Trade Organization
to resolve the dispute, while in a speech in New York, President Obama
defended the tire tariff, saying trade agreements must be enforced if
the global trading system is to function.
(See pictures of Barack Obama's family tree.)
Some analysts fear the ill will caused by the tariff dispute could
lead to an escalating round of conflict between the two nations,
souring overall U.S.-China ties. "The action taken by the U.S.
government no doubt will damage the Sino-American relationship
seriously at a time when mutual trust is most needed," comments Yu
Yongding, an economist at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in
Beijing. "This is indeed a very bad beginning for the Obama government
in terms of cooperation" between the two countries.
(See pictures of people around the world watching Obama's
Inauguration.)
The timing couldn't be worse. Policymakers and business leaders have
been looking more and more to a partnership between China and the U.S
to solve the world's most intractable problems, from reform of the
global financial system to climate change to nuclear proliferation.
Most pressing, cooperation between Washington and Beijing is seen as
absolutely crucial to nurturing the budding recovery of the global
economy. The two sides need to alleviate the giant economic imbalances
— excessive debt and deficits in the U.S. paired with excessive
savings in China — to restore the world economy to a more sustainable
growth path.
Resolving the trade conflict, however, may not be easy. Both
governments are stuck in the position of having to be sensitive to
sentiment at home. With unemployment in the U.S. still increasing, the
Obama Administration is under pressure to take more action to preserve
and create American jobs. Beijing's leadership, though not elected,
can also be surprisingly reactive to public opinion, and the days
following Washington's tariff announcement have seen an outpouring of
criticism of the U.S. decision in the Chinese press and on the
blogosphere. "Americans are shameless," noted an Internet commentator.
"They always blame others for their own problems." Critics accused the
U.S. of sacrificing its relationship with China to domestic politics,
and calls for retaliation were widespread. "The Obama administration
is doing a favor for Big Labor in the U.S., but China now has to make
choices of its own," blasted an editorial in the Beijing-based daily
Global Times. "A trade war would be regrettable, but creating a long-
term deterrent to U.S. protectionism may require retaliation."
(See pictures of China's electronic waste village.)
Such sentiments raise the ugly specter of rising global protectionism.
Economists have worried that governments around the world would throw
up trade barriers in a quest to preserve jobs and industries, in turn
undermining a global recovery. The Chinese press was quick to point
out this danger as well. A commentary on the state-run news service
Xinhua reminded readers that protectionism was a key cause of the
Great Depression. "Smarter actions are required to prevent a repeat of
that painful history," the commentary said. "The latest U.S. decision
was not one of them."
(See pictures of China's investments in Africa.)
The world will get an instant check on how the trade dispute could
impact overall China-U.S. relations. Obama and Chinese President Hu
Jintao are expected to attend next week's G-20 summit in Pittsburgh,
Pa., where the world's most influential economies will tackle sticky
issues like the continuation of economic-stimulus measures and
improved regulation of the global financial system. "We all need to be
a lot more alarmed" by the trade spat, says Michael Pettis, professor
of finance at Peking University. "Rising anger makes it more difficult
to cooperate." At a crucial moment for the economy, that's something
the world can ill afford.
— With reporting by Jessie Jiang / Beijing
See TIME's Pictures of the Week.
See the Cartoons of the Week.
Sid Harth
The China-India Rivalry: Watching the Border
By Ishaan Tharoor Wednesday, Aug. 19, 2009
An Indian soldier, left, and his Chinese counterpart stand still at
the China-India border.
DESHAKALYAN CHOWDHURY / AFP / Getty
It's a sign of how delicate feelings are between Asia's two rising
powers that an obscure blog post can cause an international incident.
Just recently, Indian newspapers circulated the incendiary comments of
an essay published on a nationalist Chinese website. The essay —
authored under the pen name Zhanlue, or "strategy" in Mandarin —
suggested that it was in Beijing's interest to support insurgencies on
India's borderlands that could eventually dismember the diverse Indian
federal state. The uproar in India over this provocation forced
officials in New Delhi to respond, saying that "the article in
question ... does not accord with the official state position of China
on India-China relations." That bland assertion, though, does little
to stanch a lingering anxiety, particularly in India, that tensions
between the two giants will inexorably come to a tipping point. "There
cannot be two suns in the sky," warns Zhanlue's post.
The hubbub over the essay came at a moment when Indian and Chinese
officials were engaged in a round of largely futile talks over long-
standing disputes along their mountainous 1,060-mile (1,700 km)
border. A war fought between the two countries in 1962 was brief, but
its legacy remains rancorous, with both New Delhi and Beijing claiming
chunks of land now patrolled by the other's troops. Though sparsely
populated, the contested territories, from a sliver of Kashmir to the
entirety of Arunachal Pradesh, a northeastern state in India that
China imagines is part of Tibet, are heavily militarized.
(See pictures remembering China's Tiananmen Square massacre.)
While both nations are engaged in a budding geopolitical chess match
across Asia—building naval bases abroad and enhancing ties with
smaller regional powers—the rugged Himalayan frontier remains the
chief fault line for potential hostilities. Zhanlue's post recommended
helping militants across the border in Assam realize their separatist
ambitions in the near future—a proposal that feeds into the
convictions of Indian hawks like retired army officer Bharat Verma,
who warned in the Indian Defence Review in July that China would
attempt, covertly or otherwise, to attack India by 2012.
Many China watchers have dismissed the essay as a product of China's
frenetic and often hyper-nationalist community of Netizen bloggers.
The Danwei blog, a respected China commentator, says that elements of
Zhanlue's essay have appeared on Chinese websites since 2005. The
essay's premise —that India can be easily dissolved into its
composite, regional parts—displays a naivete few actual policy experts
would be capable of. Nonetheless, some Indian analysts see Zhanlue's
ambition as part of an internal, chest-thumping dialogue within China
that the rulers in Beijing don't wish to discourage.
Despite India and China's ever expanding trade ties and the occasional
cuddly platitudes uttered by their leaders, the intractable border
dispute is a fundamental impasse in their relations. China has
negotiated boundary settlements with virtually all of its other
neighbors—even with Japan, an old and bitter foe—but refuses to drop
its Indian claims. In India, growing awareness of the gulf between the
two countries, from China's colossal foreign-exchange reserves to its
ballooning military spending, has also heightened concern within
certain policy circles.
(See pictures of China's wild side.)
There's also a disconnect between how the public in both countries
perceive each other. Indian wariness rubs up against what is, at best,
Chinese indifference—at worst, contempt. Ask most Chinese, and they
will tell you India is a backward, chaotic place, bereft of decent
infrastructure and burdened by hideous poverty. It has no part in the
vision projected by Beijing of the 21st century as a Chinese one, a
sense of grand historic purpose accepted by the bulk of China's
population. The confident certainty behind Zhanlue's spurious post
that China could break India with minimal fuss into 20 or 30 pieces
is, if nothing else, an expression of a larger disdain.
But the underlying irony is that China, not India, remains the nation
more threatened by the specter of ethnic separatism. The Uighurs of
Xinjiang and the Tibetans to their south number fewer than, say,
Kashmiris and Assamese in India, yet their aspirations for nationhood
garner much greater global sympathy. This is chiefly the fault of
Beijing, whose uncompromising, authoritarian rule has pushed certain
minorities to the brink and transformed dissident leaders in exile
into enduring spiritual anchors for their people.
Indeed, China could do worse than to look at India, a country that has
managed to live with its proverbial million mutinies by safeguarding
regional languages and cultures and, most importantly, letting the
poor and marginalized throw out their local rulers every election
cycle. Perhaps a time may come, then, when rather than spying
weaknesses in India's multi-ethnic landscape, strategists in Beijing
may draw inspiration from their neighbor's pluralism. In an era of
great-power gamesmanship, that may be wishful thinking. But it surely
is a better path than the one walked by the warmongers and doomsayers
on both sides.
See pictures of China in Africa.
See pictures of China's electronic waste village.
...and I am Sid Harth
Sid Harth
Beyond Pirates: On the High Seas, an India-China Rivalry
By Howard Chua-Eoan Wednesday, Apr. 08, 2009
The Maersk Alabama, a U.S.-flagged, Danish-owned container ship, was
seized by Somali pirates
Maersk Line Ltd / Reuters
These days, the battle for the Indian Ocean seems to be all about the
dread pirates of Somalia. On Wednesday, the U.S. briefly became a
direct player in the ongoing drama, with news that those pirates had
hijacked a U.S.-flagged cargo ship, the Maersk Alabama, and taken 20
American citizens prisoner. But the crew regained control of the ship,
except for the captain, who remains on a lifeboat in the hands of the
pirates. (See pictures of the brazen pirates of Somalia.)
But a drama with more far-reaching geopolitical consequences may be
brewing in the Indian Ocean, involving two of the nations that have
sent warships to fight the Somali buccaneers: longtime rivals India
and China. New Delhi has had at least one ship in the Gulf of Aden
since October, and late last year, with great fanfare, China deployed
two warships to the same area. The ships have been active in
interdicting pirates and coming to the aid of commercial ships in
apparent distress — though they are not part of the U.S.-led Combined
Task Force 151 (usually composed of 14 to 15 vessels from several
nations), which coordinates its activity with the dominant naval force
in the Indian Ocean, the U.S. 5th Fleet, based in Bahrain. But the
presence of the Chinese and Indian warships underlines Beijing's and
New Delhi's intense economic and strategic interests in the world's
third largest ocean. (See the top 10 audacious acts of piracy.)
Both countries are hugely dependent on the petroleum deliveries that
course through the Gulf of Aden and Strait of Hormuz to their ports.
Defending those supplies is one reason both are building bigger and
bigger navies. China's navy, with more than 300 ships, may in fact
soon surpass the U.S.'s as the world's largest. Beijing is certainly
sparing little to stock its ships with armaments. India, in the
meantime, is acquiring several nuclear-powered submarines to augment
its 155 military vessels in the ocean that bears its name.
Already, New Delhi and Beijing seem to be focusing their naval
strategies on each other. China is constructing naval stations and
refueling ports around India, including in Burma, Sri Lanka and
India's nemesis Pakistan; India has transformed a beautiful bay in the
southern state of Karnataka into an advanced naval installation.
Chinese strategic planners look jealously on the fact that India has
an aircraft carrier (the recommissioned H.M.S. Hermes, purchased from
the British Royal Navy and now called the I.N.S. Viraat).
The potential for confrontation is fueled by China's historical
nostalgia. In the 15th century, the Chinese sent seven massive naval
and commercial expeditions into the Indian Ocean to extend the
prestige and power of the relatively new Ming dynasty. There had not
been anything quite like it in history, and the Chinese were
recognized as the masters of the ocean. But a change in emperors and
national policy curtailed the expensive naval forays after 1433, and
China turned inward. As if to declare that centuries-long period over,
Beijing staged elaborate celebrations in 2005 to mark the 600-year
anniversary of the first expedition. The Ming voyages are now an
inextricable part of Chinese nationalist lore — and its populist claim
to the Indian Ocean.
Overheated daydreams about history can be dangerous. Nevertheless, at
least one analyst believes that while there is potential for conflict,
there is also the possibility of a new order for the Indian Ocean —
with a central role for the U.S. In the March-April edition of Foreign
Affairs, Robert Kaplan envisions the U.S. as managing the rival
ambitions of India and China into a workable security continuum, even
as Washington's ability to project naval power recedes. There are
enough interlocking economic interests, he says, to keep tempers and
national interests from roiling the waters. America, Kaplan concludes,
"will serve as a stabilizing power in this newly complex area.
Indispensability, rather than dominance, must be its goal." (Read
about a remote U.S. base in the Indian Ocean.)
That is, after all the powers figure out what to do about those pesky
pirates.
Read a brief history of piracy.
Read "Somali Pirates' Unexpected Booty: Russian Tanks."
Sid Harth
The China Blog
It had the makings of a pretty good story. Three Chinese warships
patrolling against pirates in the Gulf of Aden--an unusually remote
mission for the Chinese navy--were stalked by an Indian submarine. The
Indian interloper is discovered, pursued and eventually forced to
surface by the Chinese convoy. You have two rising powers squaring off
"Hunt for Red October" style, with China proving that its navy can
handle more than a gang of pirates.
There's one small problem though. The story is apparently fiction.
While there are reports of some jostling between the two navies, which
would be expected given China's high-profile mission far beyond its
waters, the story of the submarine surfacing appears to have come from
a faked news report. The original source was a piece in a Chinese
publication called the Qingdao Chenbao. The Feb. 3 story was
republished by some mainland web portals, and picked up the next day
by the South China Morning Post. (The subscription-only story is here,
complete with an editorial cartoon that says, "Captain Singh! I think
they're on to us.") The Indian military denied the report.
One poster on a Chinese bulletin board soon pointed out that story
lifted several parts verbatim from a 2008 story about a training
mission in PLA Life magazine. Then the official media jumped in,
noting that details of the Chinese ships' location on the date of the
alleged confrontation don't match what was recorded in the state
press. And it turns out that there is no publication called the
Chenbao listed for Qingdao.
I discussed the item earlier today with Andrei Chang who edits a
military news publication called Kanwa Asian Defence. "I'm sure it's a
fake news story," Chang says. He notes that some details of the piece
don't make sense, including why exactly the Indian sub would be forced
to surface. He says fake military stories have appeared in China both
under his name and Jane's Defence News. Fake products "are not just
shoes or clothes," he says. "It includes stories."
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/12/26/china.pirates/
China warships set sail on anti-pirate mission
Story Highlights
It's the first time Chinese naval vessels have left Chinese waters in
centuries
They will will join a multinational naval force already patrolling the
area
Pirates have hijacked nearly 40 vessels off the coast of Somalia
Some 20,000 tankers, freighters and vessels pass along the key route
annually
Next Article in World »
Read VIDEO MAP CHART
BEIJING, China (CNN) -- Two Chinese destroyers and a supply ship set
sail Friday for the Gulf of Aden on a mission to protect Chinese
merchant ships from an increasing number of pirate attacks occurring
in the waters off Somalia, state media reported.
China has reportedly been working to rapidly modernize its fleet.
The Navy fleet left from a port in Sanya city in the southernmost
island province of Hainan at 1:50 p.m., according to Xinhua news
agency.
It marks the first time Chinese naval vessels have left Chinese waters
in centuries. They will will join a multinational naval force already
patrolling the area, including vessels from the United States, NATO
member states, Russia and India.
"This demonstrates that the Chinese government is committed to the
international community and a responsible player and a major country
in the world," Rear Admiral Xiao Xinnian told reporters when the
mission was announced last week.
The ships are carrying two helicopters and special operations forces,
officials said.
Figures from the International Maritime Bureau for the year-to-date
show pirates have attacked almost 100 vessels and hijacked nearly 40
off the coast of Somalia.
The all-important Gulf of Aden links the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea.
Around 20,000 oil tankers, freighters and merchant vessels pass along
the crucial shipping route each year.
China's move is one of the latest reactions to piracy in the gulf. A
top Japanese official said Wednesday that Tokyo was considering
sending vessels to join the effort.
Meanwhile, German sailors on Thursday foiled an attempt by pirates to
hijack an Egyptian cargo ship off the coast of Yemen, the German
Defense Ministry said.
The German navy frigate Karlsruhe responded to an emergency call from
the Wabi Al Arab Thursday morning, sending helicopters to the stricken
vessel. When the helicopters arrived, the pirates broke off the
attack, the ministry said.
A crew member on the Wabi Al Arab was wounded when the pirates
attempted to board the vessel. He was flown by helicopter for
treatment aboard the Karlsruhe, the ministry said.
The German sailors captured the pirates and disarmed them, destroying
the weapons, the ministry said.
China's navy is considered a "brown-water fleet" -- designed to
operate almost exclusively along its coast. But the country has
reportedly been working to rapidly modernize its navy for the past
several years.
Chinese officials have said their mission would last as long as is
necessary and in accordance with U.N. Security Council regulations.
The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution last week aimed at
combating piracy along the Horn of Africa by allowing military forces
to chase pirate onto land in cases of "hot pursuit."
The Security Council resolution, which passed unanimously, expands
upon existing counter-piracy tools, including a stipulation that would
allow for national and regional military forces to chase pirates onto
land -- specifically into Somalia, where many of the pirates have
their bases.
Among the victims of pirate attacks have been cargo ships, oil tankers
and luxury yachts.
At least one major company pulled its ships from the Gulf of Aden
region this year, meaning cargo bound for Europe had to round the
African continent rather than use the Suez Canal.
Sid Harth
Indian sub stalked China warships?
Rajat Pandit , TNN 5 February 2009, 01:53am IST
NEW DELHI: Jostling for the same strategic space in Indian Ocean
Region (IOR), a cat-and-mouse game reminiscent of the tussle between
US and Soviet
navies during the Cold War is taking place between India and China in
full earnest.
Indian submarines, maritime reconnaissance aircraft and warships
closely tracked, "buzzed'' and photographed two Chinese destroyers and
a supply ship making their way to the Gulf of Aden off Somalia
recently for anti-piracy patrols.
Chinese media reports, however, now contend that the two Chinese
destroyers, Wuhan and Haikou, among the most-powerful in the People's
Liberation Army-Navy fleet, had "forced'' an Indian Kilo-class
submarine stalking them to "surface'' after cornering it following a
chase.
The Chinese warships even "launched'' a helicopter, armed with
torpedoes, against the Indian submarine during the "tense standoff''
near Bab el-Mandab Strait, which separates Yemen and Djibouti, on
January 15. After surfacing, the submarine left without any further
confrontation, said the reports.
Asked about this, the Navy spokesperson only said, "No Indian
submarine surfaced in that area. Moreover, nobody can force anybody to
surface in international waters.''
Sources, however, said the Indian Navy had indeed "spooked'' the
Chinese warships "several times'' during their transit, right from
Malacca Strait to the Somali waters. "Every advanced navy does it.
Most of the times, it does not become public knowledge,'' said a
source.
The Chinese themselves engage in such activities. In October 2006, for
instance, a Chinese Song-class submarine had popped up close to the
huge American aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk in Pacific Ocean.
The encounter had stunned the US military brass since the Chinese
submarine had slipped undetected past several American warships with
advanced sensors to surface right next to Kitty Hawk. Moreover, it
indicated the rapidly-expanding Chinese submarine fleet's growing
sophistication.
This latest incident is not the first time Indian Navy has spooked the
Chinese. As earlier reported by TOI, Navy had photographed three new
Chinese submarines in the Mediterranean region as well as a new
destroyer off Yemen's Socotra Island in separate incidents in 2006.
"It's an ongoing process. The idea is to record acoustic, propeller
and electro-magnetic signatures and data of foreign warships. The data
is then processed by intelligence before ending up in a central
library, accessed by all our platforms for future use,'' said a senior
officer.
"It's like a fingerprint for a specific vessel. Such information is
crucial during actual operations to keep track of hostile warships and
their capabilities. Our anti-submarine helicopters have even detected
a US nuclear submarine in Bay of Bengal some years ago,'' he added.
Though India and China have stepped up "constructive military
engagement'' in recent years, which led to their first-ever joint
exercise in India last December, New Delhi remains suspicious of
Beijing's long-term military objectives.
For one, the 2.5-million strong PLA is modernising at a furious pace.
For another, China has build staggering military infrastructure all
along the 4,057-km Line of Actual Control. Then, of course, there are
close strategic ties between Chinese and Pakistani militaries.
In the maritime domain, the Chinese continue to make efforts to
encircle India by forging linkages with eastern Africa, Seychelles,
Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Cambodia, among others, in tune
with its "string of pearls'' strategic construct.
There is, of course, stark asymmetry between Indian and Chinese
forces. India has only 16 ageing conventional diesel-electric
submarines compared to China's 57 attack submarines, a dozen of them
nuclear ones.
With its rapidly-modernising Navy, which already has 74 major warships
and a robust SSBN (nuclear submarines armed with long-range strategic
missiles) programme, China's offensive maritime power is bound to be
worrisome for Indian security planners.
Sid Harth
India denies Chinese sub reports
The Indian navy says none of its submarines surfaced in the area
Indian naval officials have denied media reports that Chinese warships
forced an Indian submarine to surface in a stand-off in waters off
Somalia.
Reports in China said that after the submarine was detected by sonar,
it was pursued by two Chinese destroyers and an anti-submarine
helicopter.
The Chinese ships had been on passage to take part in anti-piracy
patrols.
The two sides were reportedly trying to test each other's sonar
systems for weaknesses.
However, the Indian navy says none of its submarines was forced to
surface in the area.
"None of our submarines surfaced in the Gulf of Aden region as
reported in a section of the Chinese media," a naval official told
Indian reporters.
Several Indian newspapers reported the allegations, and cited Indian
naval sources as admitting their submarine had tracked the Chinese
warships. "Every nation does it," one was quoted as saying.
Chinese submarines surprised the US navy in October 2006, by
successfully tracking the USS Kitty Hawk in the Pacific Ocean.
Stand-off?
Several versions of one report on the incident were circulating on
Chinese websites this week, including Sina.com and QQ.
These claimed that a tense stand-off occurred between Chinese warships
and an Indian submarine on 15 January near the Bab Al-Mandab Strait,
which separates Yemen and Djibouti, at the western end of the Gulf of
Aden.
The Chinese destroyers had picked up an unidentified submarine on
their sonar, the reports said.
The Chinese navy soon identified it as a 70m-long (230ft) vessel armed
with 20 torpedoes.
The Chinese reports said the Chinese ships had sent an anti-submarine
helicopter to help track the submarine, which had tried to jam the
Chinese warships' sonar system.
But the two destroyers eventually cornered the submarine and forced it
to surface, reports said. The Indian vessel then apparently left
without further confrontation.
Chinese media said the submarine had been trailing the Chinese ships
since they had entered the Indian Ocean on the way to Somalia.
But India has denied the reports, which have also not been carried by
China's official news outlets, Xinhua and the China Daily.
There were more than 100 pirate attacks in 2008 in the Gulf of Aden
and Indian Ocean, in what is one of the world's busiest shipping
lanes.
An EU anti-piracy task force set up in December was the first such
naval operation of its kind. India, Iran, the US and China are among
other nations with naval forces off Somalia.
Sid Harth
India Gains on China in Asia's Space Race
By Madhur Singh / New Delhi Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2008
India's Chandrayaan-1.
EPA
Asia's space race just got a whole lot tighter: India's successful
launch on Wednesday of its first moon mission, the unmanned
Chandrayaan-I, marked a dramatic step forward in its race with China
to put a man on the moon. China had stolen a march in 2003 by becoming
only the third nation to fly a man into space (after the U.S. and the
old Soviet Union), but when, ten days from now, Chandrayaan-I drops a
probe bearing India's flag onto the moon, India will become only the
fourth country to plant its colors on the lunar landscape — after the
Americans, the Russians, and Japan. The mood in the control room was
of jubilation as stern-faced scientists relaxed and broke into
applause when all the separation processes were completed smoothly.
With space capability deemed to translate into greater technological
standing and strategic clout, the moon mission has been a giant ego-
boost for India. "It is a proud moment for us," Science and Technology
Minister Kapil Sibal said after the countdown began on Monday.
Some have questioned the logic of a country still so deeply mired in
poverty spending $80m on a scientific pursuit akin to reinventing the
wheel. Dr K. Kasturirangan, who was chairperson of Indian Space
Research Organisation (ISRO) when the Chandrayaan-I project was
announced, has no patience for this argument: "It is not a question of
whether we can afford it," he says, "it's whether we can afford to
ignore it." He points out that $80 million is a relatively low budget
for a space mission. "And the returns, in terms of the science... the
technology, inspiration, stature, prospects for international
cooperation... are immense." For one, it will help India cement its
position in the commercial satellite launch sector, and it will give
the ISRO valuable experience in building hi-tech spacecraft, improved
rocketry and more advanced remote navigation technology — all of which
could be put to many uses. In addition, the probe will spend the next
two years mapping the entire lunar surface for minerals, including
Helium-3 which is sought for nuclear fusion research, to which India
could lay claim in future. India's scientific community also hopes
such prestigious projects will help them compete with the better-
paying private sector to attract more scientists to the country's
space program.
ISRO programs have, until recently, focused mainly on the country's
development needs, launching satellites for landscape and resource
mapping, weather forecasting, communications and educational
broadcasts. In recent years, though, it has been trying to win a
larger share of the international commercial launch industry,
launching satellites for Canada, South Korea, Israel and other
countries. But Chandrayaan-I takes India's space program to a new
frontier. "This is really a gear shift in a sense," says Subhadra
Menon, whose book Destination Moon chronicles the history of the lunar
mission. "Chandrayaan-I is a purely scientific, exploratory mission."
And then, of course, there's the strategic dimension, with Japan,
South Korea and, especially, China heating up the Asian space race.
China, long viewed as India's most important strategic competitor,
caused a storm last year when it shot down one of its defunct
satellites, sparking fears of an arms race in space. In October last
year, China launched its first mission to orbit the moon. China's
exploits are definitely a factor in India's space efforts, says Swapna
Kona Nayudu, associate fellow at New Delhi-based Centre for Land
Warfare Studies. "We're neighbors, rising Asian giants and suspicious
of each other," she adds. Now, the two nations will now compete to
land a man on the moon — both have announced plans to do it by around
2020.
Meanwhile, back on Earth, India's ruling Congress party is hoping that
the surge of techno-nationalism spurred Chandrayaan-I and, before it,
the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, will boost its prospects in next year's
elections. The government has recently approved Chandrayaan-II, a much
more ambitious mission to send a lander/rover to the moon by 2012.
ISRO has also announced that it aims to send robotic missions to other
planets and asteroids. "What is the purpose of 8% [economic] growth if
we can't make the spending necessary to sustain this growth," says
Kasturirangan, pointing out that like nuclear technology, space
capability for a lunar mission is one of the indices of high-
technology development that a developing country like India must
acquire not only assert its stature but also to power its own growth.
"The 21st century will be the century of planetary exploration. If
India wants to be taken seriously among the leading space players, it
must first get the right credentials." But later this week, when
newspaper headlines return to high inflation and a slowing economy,
even the most moonstruck of Indian voters will forget the excitement
of Chandrayaan-I. Then, only astrologers will see the moon as having
any bearing on how Indians will vote early next year.
Click here for photos of China's space program
Sid Harth
India The Awakening of An Asian Power
By Ross H. Munro Monday, Apr. 03, 1989
Taking off from an air base five miles from the Taj Mahal at Agra, a
fleet of Soviet-built Il-76 jet transports streaked southward across
the subcontinent and then out over the Indian Ocean. When the planes
landed four hours later on one of the 1,200 coral atolls that make up
the Republic of Maldives, hundreds of elite Indian troops charged out
onto the tarmac, rifles at the ready. But the mere sight of the Indian
planes had struck panic among a band of mercenaries trying to bring
off a coup d'etat against the government of President Maumoon Abdul
Gayoom, and they quickly fled in boats. Three days later, commandos
from an Indian frigate forced the high-seas surrender of the
mercenaries.
India's swift suppression of the pocket coup in the Maldives last
November attracted only mild notice in much of the world. Not so with
India's increasingly nervous neighbors: for them, the operation was
but the latest indicator that the sleepy giant of the subcontinent is
determinedly transforming itself into a regional superpower. India's
new stature has profound implications for the strategic and diplomatic
balance of the area and raises a host of foreign policy challenges for
the U.S.
India is fast emerging as a global military power. New Delhi's defense
budget has doubled in real terms during the '80s and has in fact
outstripped the government's ability to fund it. The 1989-90 budget,
unveiled earlier this month, froze defense spending at $8.5 billion,
though some estimate the actual figure to be as high as $11 billion.
Indian scientists and engineers are immersed in nuclear weapons and
ballistic missile programs. The 1,362,000- strong armed forces, the
fourth largest in the world (after the Soviet Union, with 5,096,000
troops; China, with 3.2 million; and the U.S., with 2,163,200), are
raising four additional army divisions to boost combat strength by
80,000. In the southern state of Karnataka, a superport is developing
to service submarines, surface vessels, including a planned 30,000-
ton aircraft carrier, and long-range reconnaissance aircraft capable
of patrolling as far away as Africa and Australia.
Since 1986 India has ranked as the world's largest arms importer: in
1987 it purchased weaponry from abroad valued at $5.2 billion, more
than Iraq and Iran combined and twelve times more than Pakistan.
Largely to gain the foreign exchange needed to pay its military
imports bill, India is preparing to enter the world arms bazaar as an
exporter.
As India's military muscle has grown, so has its willingness to employ
force in disputes with other nations. In 1984 Indian troops occupied
the no- man's-land of Kashmir's 20,000-ft.-high Siachen Glacier, where
at least 100 Indian soldiers have since died every year. By the summer
of 1985, for the first time since the 1960s, Indian jawans penetrated
into unoccupied and disputed territory along the China-India border,
provoking what Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi later called an "eyeball-to-
eyeball" confrontation with China.
In July 1987 Sri Lanka bowed to pressure from New Delhi and allowed
Indian forces to occupy the north and east of the island. Some 80,000
soldiers remain deployed there, trying with limited success to
suppress Tamil separatist guerrillas who, ironically, were initially
encouraged, armed and trained by India.
But it was the Maldives strike that best illustrated India's
proclivity to take on the role of regional policeman. If the affair
provoked unease among India's neighbors -- Pakistan accused New Delhi
of having stage-managed the coup attempt -- it garnered approval in
more distant quarters. Ronald Reagan, then in the White House,
congratulated New Delhi for a "valuable contribution to regional
stability."
The aborted coup reinforced the view of a number of key officials in
Washington that the U.S. -- and other nations -- must come to terms
with India's growing military and political clout in South Asia and
the Indian Ocean. Said Richard Armitage, then the U.S. Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs: "It doesn't
make sense for the U.S. not to have a congenial relationship with the
largest democracy and the dominant military power in the subcontinent
-- and with a country that will clearly take its place on the world
stage in the 21st century."
But the question remains: What does India intend to do with all that
power? Ever since the India-Pakistan war of 1971, which led to the
breakup of Pakistan and the transformation of East Pakistan into
independent Bangladesh, New Delhi officially maintains that its arms
buildup is needed to remain strong against Pakistan. The two nations
have been at war three times since India gained its independence in
1947. Most analysts agree, however, that India has pulled well ahead
of its archfoe: its modern combat aircraft, for example, now outnumber
Pakistan's by as many as 5 to 1. China is sometimes invoked by Indian
officials as the "real threat." But most analysts note that apart from
maintaining its close ties with Pakistan, Beijing has taken no
military or diplomatic action since the 1970s that could be construed
as ! threatening by New Delhi.
India's growing military machine, meanwhile, has gained the uneasy
attention of its neighbors along the rim of the Indian Ocean, like
Australia and Indonesia. India's lease of a nuclear-powered Soviet
submarine and its acquisition of Soviet-built long-range
reconnaissance planes have raised anxiety in the Australian
Parliament. In Jakarta an army colonel describes his government as
"concerned" about India's longer-term intentions. For that reason, he
explains, Indonesia is planning to build a large naval base on Sumatra
to gain quick access to the Bay of Bengal.
Rajiv Gandhi has presided over much of the expanded military-spending
program since he became Prime Minister in 1984. But he claimed in an
interview with TIME late last year that India had no desire to
dominate its neighbors: "We don't think in terms of dominance, we
don't think in terms of spheres of influence. The right direction was
what Gandhiji, Mahatma Gandhi, gave us. I see India today as being one
of the prime movers toward a nonviolent, nonnuclear world."
Most Western analysts doubt that New Delhi has developed the capacity
-- or the inclination -- to launch a sustained military action outside
its immediate neighborhood. Today the territory that India most covets
is purely psychological. Says a West European diplomat in New Delhi:
"More than anything else, India wants to be taken seriously. It wants
to be viewed as a world power. That is an end in itself."
Indians have long taken umbrage over China's standing in the
international community, which includes membership in the nuclear club
and a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. Asks A.P.
Venkateswaran, a former Foreign Secretary: "Why is China's power --
its huge army and its intercontinental ballistic missiles --
considered absolutely acceptable while India's is not? There's no
reason why India should not have military power commensurate with its
size, as China does."
Also fueling India's wider ambitions is the desire to alter the common
perception, particularly in the West, that it remains a backward
nation mired in superstition and squalor. In fact, alongside the
impoverished land of beggars and cardboard shacks there has risen a
high-tech, postindustrial state led by an army of self-confident and
efficient engineers, scientists and military officers. In the southern
city of Bangalore, the two exist side by side: women collect tree
branches for firewood, while a short distance away, some of India's
brightest technicians hunch over an IBM 3090 mainframe computer to
design cross sections for the light combat aircraft. The aim of the
LCA project is to develop India's own fighter aircraft at a low cost
and, potentially, to export the plane to other countries.
The U.S. is deeply involved in the program. General Electric has sold
eleven F404 engines to power LCA prototypes, and Allied Signal, Litton
and Honeywell are among the front runners in the bid to provide flight
control and other sophisticated systems. Reflecting Washington's
desire to forge closer ties with India, the U.S. Air Force will
provide training, consulting and testing facilities for the LCA.
Washington hopes the agreement will render India less dependent on the
Soviet Union; New Delhi still relies on Moscow for many of its weapons
imports and most of its co-production deals. Says a Pentagon official:
"U.S. policy is to help India become self-sufficient in defense
technology."
India is considerably less open about its capability to build nuclear
bombs, though many analysts believe the country has atomic components
on the shelf. One official close to the Prime Minister claims that
India can produce a nuclear bomb "overnight," though Gandhi said in
1986 that it would take "maybe longer than . . . a few weeks" for
India to deploy A-weapons. In February 1988 India successfully tested
the Prithvi, a 150-mile-range ballistic missile that can carry a
payload of 2,000 lbs., more than enough for a nuclear warhead.
Despite India's pacifist roots in the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi,
Indians crying "Ban the bomb!" are a minority. "If you are living in a
world of nuclear powers, then you must have it ((the bomb))," says
Krishnaswamy Subrahmanyam, leader of the pronuke lobby.
The diplomatic stakes are high for the U.S., which finds itself caught
in a three-way tug-of-war between two allies who distrust each other.
New Delhi still resents the pro-Pakistan "tilt" that has marked U.S.
policy since the 1971 war. U.S. military aid to Pakistan is cited by
Indians as the main reason why they embarked on their own buildup.
In the U.S., meanwhile, policymakers are divided on the proper
response to India's arms buildup. Says the University of Illinois's
Stephen P. Cohen, a leading U.S. scholar on South Asian security
issues: "A strong India could act as a regional stabilizer, and this
would be in the U.S. interest. But an India that is a regional bully
threatening China or Pakistan would not be in American interests."
Until India makes its long-term intentions clear, the U.S. and other
countries are likely to continue to prepare for either possibility.
Sid Harth
40 Years Later, It's Moon Race 2.0
By JEFFREY KLUGER / HOUSTON
Thursday, Nov. 13, 2008
Illustration by Robert Grossman for TIME
ENLARGE +
You probably wouldn't have had much fun on the surface of the moon.
It's not the exploring or the bouncing or the buggy-roving that would
have bothered you. It's the worrying.
China’s New Venture in SpaceLanding on the moon is fine, but you need
to get home too. That means heaving your multiton spacecraft back off
the ground and up into space--and if that's going to happen, all its
thousands of components have to work just so. There's no guarantee
that they will--which is why the first time men landed on the moon,
President Richard Nixon had a short address prepared just in case
things went wrong. "Fate has ordained that the men who went to the
moon to explore in peace will stay on the moon to rest in peace," he
would have said. When they're writing your obit while you're still
alive, it's hard to have a good time.
But the astronauts themselves had a grand time on the moon--and the
U.S. had just as much fun sending them there. For a big, loud,
hootenanny nation like ours--one that has spent the better part of its
history whooping its way west--having an empty landmass to explore a
quarter-million miles (more than 400,000 km) offshore was a powerful
tonic. The fact that the exploring took place in what was otherwise a
very hard decade made the experience only more bracing.
By any measure, the current decade is a hard one too. And again--
perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not--we're eyeing the moon. By 2015,
to hear NASA tell it, a new manned spacecraft--the evocatively named
Orion--will be carrying crews to Earth's orbit. By 2020, Orion will be
paired with the lunar lander Altair. That same year, fresh American
bootprints will be made on the lunar soil--the first since the Apollo
17 mission in 1972. Contractors have been chosen, metal is being cut,
and most important, money has been allocated. "This is a real
program," says Jeff Hanley, manager of NASA's Constellation program,
which oversees manned exploration. "We're spending a couple hundred
million dollars a month, and thousands of people are marching to a
strategy."
Globalization is driving the new push. As the economies of Asia and
Europe spread new wealth, more and more countries are realizing that
the moon is within reach. Never mind the two-party U.S.-Soviet moon
race of old. This time China is in the hunt. So are India, Japan and
the entire 17-nation European Space Agency (ESA). On Oct. 22, India
launched its Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft, an unmanned lunar orbiter that
marks the country's first table stakes in the moon game. China's
Chang'e 1 spacecraft is already in lunar orbit, as is Japan's Selene.
Europe's SMART-1 entered lunar orbit in 2003, and the ESA wants to go
back. China broadly aims to have astronauts on the moon by 2020. The
ESA is hoping to build a "global robotic village" by 2016 and a
permanent manned base by 2024.
And none of this includes the private sector. Last fall, Google
offered a $30 million prize to any group that lands a robot on the
lunar surface before Dec. 31, 2012, travels at least 500 m (1,640 ft.)
and sends back video. In the first six months after the prize was
announced, 560 groups from 53 nations expressed interest. All at once,
the moon, which has spent nearly 40 years as a cultural colony of the
U.S. alone, has a lot of new claimants.
Robots First
The most powerful player in the moon race, apart from the U.S., is
China. If the past hundred years were the American century, the next
hundred could be China's, and nothing says rising power like a space
program. "Chinese people have a lot of feeling for President Kennedy,"
says Li Jing, an astronomer formerly with the Chinese Academy of
Science. "The Apollo project catapulted the U.S. into scientific
leadership. The U.S.'s national power shot up. Chinese people are very
clear about that."
In 2003, China acted on that clarity, launching its first manned
mission, a 14-orbit flight by a lone astronaut. In 2005 a two-man crew
went up for a five-day stay, and in September 2008, a three-man team
flew a mission complete with a spacewalk.
But China's true fascination has long been the moon--at least since
1978, when the U.S. presented Beijing with a 1-g (.035 oz.) sample of
lunar rock brought back by the Apollo 17 mission. Chinese officials
razored off half of that moon crumb and gave it to scientists to
study. "From that half a gram, we produced 40 papers," space scientist
Ouyang Ziyuan told the People's Daily.
China won't be begging the U.S. for lunar scraps anymore. Chang'e 1,
launched in October 2007 and named for China's goddess of the moon, is
currently orbiting 125 miles (200 km) above the lunar surface. The
ship is stuffed with equipment to study the ground and look for
possible landing sites. Chang'e 2 is set to follow next year with
another orbital mission, followed by a rover in 2012 and a robotic
sample-return mission in 2017. A manned trip could come after that.
"The Chinese have read the Apollo playbook," says Joan Johnson-Freese,
an expert on the Chinese space program at the Naval War College in
Newport, R.I.
India's moon program is less ambitious--so far--but the country has a
deep space tradition. The Indian government has been in the satellite-
launching game since 1975, but it always focused on such bread-and-
butter science as land-mapping, weather-forecasting and
communications. In a country struggling with chronic poverty, even the
most ambitious ruling party dared go no further. All that changed in
1998, when India and Pakistan rattled the world with dueling nuclear
tests. In the heady, protech rush that followed, then Prime Minister
Atal Vajpayee approved an Indian lunar push and chose to make the
announcement as part of the Independence Day celebrations of 2003. A
Chandrayaan-2 rover is planned for 2011.
NASA’s Budget BlunderLike the Chinese program, the Indian one would
not exist at all but for a roaring national economy--notwithstanding
the current global slowdown. "What is the purpose of 8% growth if we
can't make the spending necessary to sustain it?" asks Krishnaswamy
Kasturirangan, former chairman of the Indian Space Research
Organization (ISRO), India's NASA.
The biggest difference between the old moon race and the new one may
be the role of the private sector. In 2004 pilot and aerospace
designer Bert Rutan copped the $10 million Ansari X Prize by designing
the first manned vehicle to fly to and from suborbital space twice
within a week. In September 2007, aerospace engineer Peter Diamandis,
ceo of the X Prize group, announced he was partnering with Google to
offer a new, $30 million Lunar X Prize, with the goal of having a
private rover toddling about the moon by the end of 2012.
The vast majority of the teams responding to the contest do not have
the skill or seed money to compete seriously. But so far 14 groups do,
and Google has okayed them as contestants. Made up mostly of aerospace
and software pros, the teams are allowed to use commercial rockets to
launch their probes but must build the ships and steer them to a moon
landing on their own. The designers exhibit a surprising sangfroid
about their work. "There's no magic. We did it in the '60s, and the
physics are the same," says aerospace engineer Bob Richards, head of a
design team.
The Humans Return
Robots, of course, are limited--Scouts and surrogates largely unsuited
to the complex lunar work researchers want to undertake. Geologists
hope to continue the studies of solar-system origins that the Apollo
crews began (before Nixon scrapped the manned-moon program in favor of
the ostensibly more practical and affordable space shuttle).
Astronomers talk of placing a radio telescope on the moon's far side;
energy experts want to mine the moon's helium 3, an isotope that could
power clean-fusion reactors back on Earth. And anyone dreaming of a
human presence on Mars knows that before you attempt long-duration
stays on a body tens of millions of miles from home, it's best to
practice on one nearby. "You wring these techniques out on the moon
first," says Mark Geyser, manager of the Orion project.
In 2004, President George W. Bush announced a moon-Mars initiative
that would commit NASA to those kinds of goals. Skeptics suspected
this was just a bit of election-year candy--and that may have been
part of the plan. But the initial idea was accompanied by some
hardheaded trade-offs. The grossly overpriced International Space
Station would be completed by 2010, allowing the outdated space
shuttles to be retired. This would free up between $3 billion and $4
billion a year without increasing NASA's budget. Since Americans still
need access to space, the shuttle would be replaced with an updated
Apollo-style orbiter. Pair that with a souped-up lunar lander similar
to the original, and you're back on the moon. "We're anchoring our
models in Apollo data points," says Cleon Lacefield, a vice president
and project manager for Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor for the
Orion orbiter.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1858878,00.html
NASA at 50Actually, NASA is doing Apollo one better. In the old lunar
program, one massive Saturn V booster did all the lifting, but this
time there will be two rockets. The Ares V, the larger of the pair,
will be used to carry the new lunar lander as far as Earth's orbit and
make unmanned cargo runs to the moon. The smaller Ares I will lift the
command module, carrying four astronauts, to meet the lander. Dividing
the job between two rockets frees up more payload space on the Ares V.
And unlike the Saturn V, which had to be invented from the engine
bells up, the Ares boosters will go the frugal route by adapting
existing hardware, such as the solid-fuel boosters from the shuttle
and an upper-stage engine from the Saturn rockets themselves.
One of the quirkiest features of the old Apollo missions was that
while three men would fly to the moon, only two would descend to the
surface; the third minded the mother ship. This time there will be a
four-person crew, and all the crew members will get a chance to get
dirty while the orbiter that is their ticket home waits unattended
above. "We have greater control over the orbiter than we used to,"
says Clinton Dorris, deputy manager of the Altair lander program.
What's more, with lunar campouts of up to six months planned--compared
with the record three-day stay of Apollo 17 in 1972--leaving one
crewmember alone is simply not tenable.
So far, Orion and the boosters are the furthest along in their
production cycles, since every day that they delay extends the five-
year period when Americans have no independent access to space. To
fill that gap, the plan has been to thumb a ride to the space station
with the Russians aboard their venerable Soyuz ships. But with
tensions rising between Washington and Moscow since the Russian
invasion of Georgia, worries are rising too. This could lead NASA
either to postpone mothballing the shuttles--a bad idea when you're
talking about a creaky fleet that's already claimed 14 lives--or to
accelerate building the replacement vehicles.
It's no secret which option NASA prefers, but the question will be
whether there's enough will and wallet to get the job done. The Wall
Street crash does not portend big budgets for what some people see as
a luxury agency like NASA. And President-elect Barack Obama may not
feel much loyalty to a lunar program that so indelibly bears the Bush
stamp. But having successfully reeled in Florida on Election Day, he's
not likely to do anything to tick off its space-happy voters either.
Plus, there are jobs to be created in a newly revived moon program.
"When we won the Orion contract, we posted openings for 2,000 jobs,"
says Lockheed's Lacefield. "We received 30,000 applications."
Finally, of course, there's the question that's dogged every manned
flight since the Soviet Union's Yuri Gagarin first went into orbit in
1961: Why bother? Space planners have always justified today's flights
as necessary rehearsals for tomorrow's--we can't live on Mars if we
don't learn to live on the moon first. True enough, but couldn't we
just do neither? As for deep-space observatories on the far side of
the moon, the Hubble telescope has done perfectly well alone in orbit,
with only a few maintenance missions in 18 years. How much harder
would it be to build a moon-based telescope that didn't need any?
None of that, of course, reckons with the other piece of the equation--
the wholly unscientific joy we feel when we do something as
preposterous as putting people in space. None of it reckons either
with the primal jolt Americans have always gotten from competition--
the gunning-the-engine moment when we decide that if China and Japan
and India and Europe are peeling out for the moon, the U.S. can surely
beat them there. That ain't sensible, and that ain't science, but as
it was 40 years ago, it sure is fun.
See pictures of five nations' space programs.
http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1737868_1584492,00.html
China
The rocket carrying Shenzhou VI, the PRC's last successful manned
venture into space, stands in its assembly bay at a factory in
Jiuquan, shortly before its October 12, 2005 launch. China has
announced that it would like to complete a manned mission to the Moon
by 2020.
The Space Moon Race
See TIME's Pictures of the Week.
http://www.time.com/time/picturesoftheweek
Sid Harth
Can America and India Fall in Love at Last?
By Tony Karon Friday, Jan. 21, 2000
If, instead of being a wary political animal, the U.S. was a
hardheaded corporation looking for a partner in South Asia, India
would seem a perfect fit. The world's largest democracy contains a
vast untapped market of 1 billion citizens, more of whom speak English
than the entire U.S. population. It has one of the largest computer
software industries outside of the U.S. and may be currently be the
largest foreign pool of the programmers and computer engineers
required by America's "new economy." And as a militarily powerful,
nuclear-armed state, India also arguably offers a natural
counterweight to the region's key strategic player, China.
But like awkward teenagers at a disco, neither India nor America seems
to have the wherewithal to get the other to touch-dance. President
Clinton is set to visit India in March, but the tentative nature of
this week's talks between Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and Deputy
Secretary of State Strobe Talbott and their Indian counterparts
underline the fact that relations between these "natural partners"
remain bedeviled by history and geopolitics.
The most immediate obstacle to improved ties remains India's testing
of nuclear weapons two years ago, and the subsequent U.S. sanctions.
"Washington's primary concern in dealing with India right now is
avoiding a nuclear flashpoint in South Asia," says TIME State
Department correspondent Doug Waller. "Although both India and
Pakistan now have explosive nuclear devices, they haven't instituted
the vast intelligence and command systems needed for safe deployment
of those weapons. With neither side even having the ability for
advanced surveillance of the other, there's plenty of opportunities
for a disastrous mistake as a result of one side's misconstruing the
other's intentions."
In India, though, foreign policy hawks cite U.S. concern as
vindicating India's decision to go nuclear. "Some thinkers fairly
close to the government argue that the U.S. began to take China
seriously only after Beijing developed nuclear weapons in the '60s,
and that India had to do the same to get Washington to treat it with
respect," says TIME New Delhi correspondent Maseeh Rahman. "There's a
basic feeling in New Delhi that the U.S. doesn't take India seriously
— after all, the leading Republican presidential candidate couldn't
even name India's prime minister."
That complaint may be valid. "Britain considered India the cornerstone
of its empire," says TIME U.N. correspondent William Dowell. "Much of
British foreign policy was designed around protecting its access to
India. But the U.S. hasn't taken India nearly as seriously, partly
because of the leftist slant of most of its post-independence
governments." New Delhi's nonaligned position during the Cold War
(which often put it in the Soviet camp, diplomatically) was
underscored by the socialist orientation of most of its governments
since independence. Relations particularly deteriorated in the early
'70s, after the Nixon administration aligned Washington closely with
India's archrival, Pakistan, as part of its efforts to outflank the
Soviets and improve ties with China (which had a long-running border
dispute with India). Pakistan's importance as a Washington ally grew
after 1980, when the country became the staging ground for U.S.
efforts to assist Afghan resistance fighters against the Soviet
invaders.
But Washington's response to last year's Pakistani incursion onto the
Indian side of the cease-fire line in the disputed territory of
Kashmir marked something of a shift, in that the U.S. came down hard
on its traditional ally and insisted that Pakistan withdraw. "Even
then," says Rahman, "New Delhi's historical suspicion of American
motives remains. India is riled by the fact that the U.S. won't treat
it as a responsible nuclear power, and it deeply resents being viewed
in the same category as Pakistan."
After all, India has more than seven times the population of the
breakaway Muslim state created by Britain in 1947. And while it may be
impoverished, India's economy is essentially self-sufficient compared
with Pakistan's, which remains a basket case. And despite the
fragility of its coalition governments of recent years, India is a
stable democracy, while Pakistan has been perennially plagued by
military coups and religious extremism. "Its socialist attitudes have
hamstrung economic development, but India is a forward-looking
democracy," says Dowell. "Pakistan remains a more feudal society whose
political elites have kept it mired in its own mess." Given its
population size, economic potential and strategic significance, India
wants to be thought of as being in the same league as its eastern
neighbor, China. India's rationale for developing nuclear weapons, for
example, was based on China's nuclear arsenal rather than on any
threat posed by Pakistan.
"India's problem is that it's an unrealized superpower," says Rahman.
"Its policy makers believe the country has the potential to be a
superpower and should be treated as such, but they also know they
don't carry that kind of clout."
But the expansion of China's relationship with Washington has been
based less on nuclear weapons than on investment opportunities. Even
though its culture and political system remain closed, China's economy
has been open to the West for a quarter century. India, in contrast,
made wary by the experience of centuries of exploitation by the
British, has for the most part kept the doors to its economy firmly
closed.
And New Delhi's caution over trade and investment policy is the
primary lock on an improvement in the U.S.-India relationship. "If the
economic relationship had developed quickly, the strategic
relationship would fall into place," says Rahman. "But India has been
struggling to open its markets."
Although successive governments have shared this goal throughout the
'90s, the problem in part lies in the fact that India is a democracy.
China is able to liberalize its economy from the top down and its
population simply has to accept the consequences, which in the short
term inevitably involve hardship.
"In a democracy, those hardest hit by the impact of liberalization
measures can use the democratic process to fight back," says Rahman.
"So when it comes to India opening up its markets, it's inevitably one
step forward, two steps back. And that slow progress creates caution
on both sides of the U.S.-India relationship." A pity, it would seem,
because apart from being a vibrant democracy, India has been
culturally integrated with the West for as long as Englishmen have
been drinking tea, wearing khaki, playing polo and using words such as
"pajama," "pundit" and "pariah" (all of which were imported from the
Raj). Dowell concurs: "Despite its vast potential and wealth of human
capital, U.S. investors see the country hamstrung by the remnants of a
socialist administration — realizing the vast potential of this
relationship will require that the U.S. be educated about what India
really is, but also that India overcome the internal factors that have
restrained its growth. When it does, it will be a major power."
For now, however, the Washington-New Delhi courtship may remain like
the English who vacated the government buildings in New Delhi: polite
but disengaged.
Sid Harth
World: CHINA'S TWO DECADES OF COMMUNISM
Friday, Oct. 03, 1969
The Chinese revolution is great, but the road after the revolution
will be longer, the work greater and more arduous.
—Mao Tse-tung( 1949)
TWO decades after Communist soldiers marched into Peking to climax Mao
Tse-tung's takeover of China, the road still seems long and tortuous,
the struggle unremittingly arduous. Like many another reformer, Mao
has found that building a country can be at least as difficult as
making a revolution. Thus, when thousands of Chinese mass this week in
the capital's great Tienanmen Square to hail the 20th anniversary of
Communist rule, their celebrations will be tempered by the awareness
of problems that are as immense as the vast land and as numerous as
its people. This was to have been a "year of triumph" for Mao and China
—with a victorious end to his Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution
and a restoration of law and order throughout a badly fragmented
nation. But the balance sheet is dismal for 1969—as it is for many of
the years since 1949.
On its tenth anniversary, China seemed well on its way to becoming a
world power. Now that prospect is remote. To be sure, the indexes of
improvement over 1949 are impressive (see chart opposite). China has
emerged as a formidable Asian power, a member of the nuclear club,*
and an ideological challenger of the Soviet Union. But it also remains
economically backward, militarily weak, politically divided and
alienated from much of the world.
Of China's 760 million people—one-fifth of mankind—some 500 million
are peasants, hardly a foundation for a superpower. Despite efforts to
extend schools to the farthest reaches of the country, more than half
the population is illiterate. Production on China's communal farms has
almost kept pace with the population, but it takes 85% of the labor
force to grow the food. While the economy spurted ahead during the
Communists' first decade at an estimated annual rate of 10%, it has
been growing a mere 1% a year since 1959.
Virtually Ungovernable. When the Communists took over in 1949, China
could hardly have been in worse condition. It was in the midst of a
great historic drama—and the U.S. watched it with deep concern, for
China has always held a unique place in the American imagination.
After two millenniums of maintaining an exquisitely sophisticated
culture in relative isolation from the world, China was invaded by the
West—by its traders, missionaries, soldiers and technicians. First
under Sun Yatsen, whose revolution overthrew the Manchu empire, then
under Chiang Kaishek, new leaders struggled to rescue the Chinese
spirit from repeated foreign humiliations, and, above all, to push the
nation into the modern world. After the Communists moved in to capture
the nationalist revolution, a bitter civil war left China in chaos.
Quickly, the Communists moved to curb inflation, suppress bandits and
warlords, rehabilitate industry and the transportation network,
equalize food distribution, establish a tax system and bring the
people rudimentary health care. For the first time in anyone's memory,
an efficient, honest administration was in charge—though it could also
be ruthless and even inhuman in its desire to impose unity on the
land. By 1952, Mao had used persuasion and purge to consolidate his
power, and China was ready to transform its economy.
The Great Leap. With patience, some economists believe, Communist
China could have been very largely self-sufficient by about 1967. But
Mao, with his rigid dogmatism, was impatient. In 1957, he launched his
Great Leap Forward—a single heroic burst that would overnight
transform China into a modern nation. The targets were preposterous—
e.g., a 33% annual increase in industrial production—and so were the
demands made on the people. "In those days, the workers never went
home," a factory manager told Austrian Journalist Hugo Portisch. "They
stayed at their machines twelve, 14, 16 or 20 hours at a time. They
had only one goal: to do all they could." Vast armies of blue-tunicked
men and women toiled over irrigation projects, dams and thousands of
backyard steel furnaces. In less than two years, it was clear that the
Great Leap had thrust China backward.
Mao was shunted aside in the intraparty battles that followed the
failure. A group of more pragmatic men, led by President Liu Shao-chi,
set out to repair the damage. They were on the way to succeeding when
Mao began stirring again. "Those in China now under the age of 20 have
never fought a war and have never seen an imperialist or known
capitalism in power," he told American Author Edgar Snow in 1965. He
feared that the young, without the rigors of revolution to test them
as he had been tested, were getting soft. The ideological split with
the Soviet Union was by now forbiddingly wide, and Mao feared that
China would eventually follow the Soviet example: a revolution that
had been sold out, turning bourgeois in its concern for consumer goods
and comforts rather than self-sacrifice and struggle. His antidote,
the prescription of an aging revolutionary romantic, was the Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Like the Great Leap, it was a
quixotic undertaking, one that was intended not only to rid him of
rivals like Liu and break up the fossilized party and state
bureaucracy, but also to radicalize China and revitalize its
revolutionary ardor.
Mao launched the great purge in
1966, and the whirlpool quickly engulfed the nation. Under the assault
of the youthful Red Guards, Mao's fanatic shock troops, the party and
government bureaucracies were badly battered and leaders like
President Liu Shao-chi were humiliated and ousted. The economy ground
down. Schools were closed for almost two years; when
Asahi Shimbun Correspondent lyeshige Akioka visited Tung Chi
University in Shanghai this month, he discovered that there would be
graduating classes this year and next—but none after that. No one
seemed to know when enrollment would resume. Factional clashes became
brutal; at one point in the struggle, corpses floated down the Pearl
River from Canton and washed ashore in Hong Kong. Mao finally backed
down and called in the army to restore control.
Big Cleanup. Once unleashed, however, the forces were difficult to
harness. To this day, the nation remains in disarray. Last month, with
the aid of the army, the regime launched a "big cleanup." Since then,
there have been reports of mass arrests, public trials and even
executions of "factionalists, reactionaries, anarchists, saboteurs and
opportunists." It is unclear whether the campaign is intended simply
to put China's house in order for the Oct. 1 anniversary or whether it
is part of the army's larger, long-range drive to restore peace and
order.
Factional fighting still flares frequently in the provinces. In
Shansi, troops have had to be called in from elsewhere to still
rioting. In Tibet, small guerrilla clashes are said to be frequent,
and there are reports that the Panchen Lama, once considered a willing
tool of Peking, has escaped from prison. In Szechwan, one of China's
rice bowls, an armed group calling itself the "Red Worker-Peasant
Guerrilla Column" is said to be roaming the hills. In Hunan, Chairman
Mao's home province, authorities complain that "the trend of anarchism
ran rampant" all last summer. In Kiangsu, Maoist cultural cadres are
vociferously denouncing "rock-'n'-roll crazy dances and vulgar and
revolting actions in some so-called revolutionary dances."
Many members of China's younger generation seem disaffected—some
because they want no part of Maoist puritanism and idealism, others
because they feel that the Chairman has not gone far enough in his
efforts to regenerate the revolution. Indeed, throughout the
population, the Cultural Revolution seriously undermined respect for
authority. Abroad, China's position is not much better. Peking has
lost much face in Asia and Africa. Once the Third World carefully
watched the competition between India and China. India still has
trouble aplenty, but economic planners no longer seriously consider
the "Chinese model." Albania is China's only real friend, and Peking
has but a few close acquaintances—Pakistan, Rumania, Syria, Nepal,
Tanzania, Mali, Guinea. Peking has diplomatic relations with only 46
countries, and at present keeps ambassadors in 18 of them. During the
Cultural Revolution, all but one of them were recalled to Peking.
Many experts assume that when Mao dies, his anointed heir, Defense
Minister Lin Piao, will take over the chairmanship of the party. His
rule will most likely be only temporary; behind the scenes, the
country may well be run by a collective leadership. Challengers are
likely to rise from the radical left, headed by Mao's wife Chiang
Ching and such Cultural Revolution stalwarts as Ideologue Chen Pota.
Eventually, however, more moderate forces may prevail, perhaps
clustered around Premier Chou En-lai and the politically savvy Chief
of Staff of the Armed Forces, General Huang Yung-sheng.
Defensive Stance. The chants and the rhetoric will initially be pure
Mao, but the leadership's preoccupation will be with such necessities
as the restoration of law and order, the rehabilitation of the
economy, a toning down of the conflict with the Soviets. There may
even be concessions to private incentive. The compelling need to
restore domestic calm might be enough to keep the nation out of
foreign adventure. China's military stance is therefore likely to
remain defensive for some time—provided the feud with the Soviets does
not get out of hand. The dispute between the two nations is at an
extremely sensitive juncture. For roughly three months, the Soviets
have been exerting strenuous efforts to draw China into negotiations
on border problems; to give their attempts muscle, they seem to be
implying that unless the Chinese agree to a resumption of talks,
Moscow might settle the issue by force, perhaps by a preemptive strike
against China's nuclear installations.
Sick Fifth. Whatever the complexion of the post-Mao leadership, some
very basic problems facing China will not fade away in the foreseeable
future. The country will have a population of 1 billion by 1980, yet
still lacks the solid industrial base that is a must for any modern
power. Somehow, Peking will have to reassert the central government's
authority over the vast hinterlands—something it lost during the
Cultural Revolution. At the same time it will have to determine
whether it should soften its standoffish attitude toward the rest of
the world. Eventually it will no doubt have to consider toning down
its hostility toward the U.S., which has moved from a romantic and
sometimes patronizing vision of China to one of exaggerated fear,
abetted by China's unyielding animosity. Washington could aid a change
in Peking's posture by breaking down some of its own barriers against
China and venturing a more conciliatory attitude.
"In the long run," says Harvard's Edwin O. Reischauer, former U.S.
Ambassador to Tokyo, "the chief problem that China presents may not be
the danger that it will be so rich and strong, as well as hostile,
that it menaces our basic interests, but rather that it may fall so
short of meeting the economic needs and aspirations of its people that
it remains an unstable and sick fifth of humanity." Not until Peking's
leaders begin to busy themselves with the task of satisfying those
basic needs will China be able to set out on the long road that Mao
talked about 20 years ago.
* Peking has an estimated 100 nuclear devices, including hydrogen
bombs, but it is only now developing and testing the medium-range
missiles needed to deliver them. Tokyo's Asahi Shimbun reported that
the Chinese had conducted an underground nuclear test early last week;
the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission had no comment.
Sid Harth
Pundit: China's Economic Growth Could Stop
By Michael Schuman / Hong Kong Tuesday, Feb. 03, 2009
Migrant workers wait for employers on a street in Chengdu, Sichuan
province, on February 2, when Beijing announced about 20 million
migrant workers have lost their jobs because of the economic downturn
Reuters
At a time of nearly universal dismay over the business outlook, there
are few experts anywhere who can out-gloom Jim Walker, an economist at
an independent Hong Kong research firm called Asianomics. In his thick
Scottish accent, Walker predicts the worst global recession since the
Great Depression. GDP in the U.S., he says, could contract as much as
5% in 2009, and Europe by 2%. He is no more bullish about the
economies in his area of specialty: Asia, a region where most of his
colleagues foresee more buoyancy. China won't see GDP rise more than
4% in 2009, he says, and the country's economy may not grow at all.
"There is going to be precious little growth anywhere," Walker says.
Before writing off Walker as just another member of a growing Greek
chorus of dispirited prognosticators, consider that he has a history
of detecting worst-case scenarios before they came to pass. Back in
1995, Walker, then an economist at brokerage house CLSA, penned a
report entitled It's Life, Jim, but Not as We Know It: Asia
Decoupling, in which he and his team of economists warned that Asian
currency regimes, if not reformed, could be susceptible to Mexico-
style meltdowns in two to three years. Two years later, the region
plunged into the 1997 Asian crisis, which was triggered by the rapid
decline of currencies such as the Thai baht.
In this current downturn as well, Walker's dim views, which at first
seemed on the fringe, now appear less farfetched. The International
Monetary Fund (IMF) in late January revised its forecasts for 2009
sharply downward, predicting the slowest global growth rate since
World War II, at only 0.5%. IMF chief economist Olivier Blanchard said
he expects "the global economy to come to a virtual halt." Even China
would record only 6.75% GDP growth in 2009, according to the IMF.
Walker has been arguing for months that China was in trouble. As the
U.S., Europe and Japan suffer through a recession in 2009, Walker
expects Chinese exports to contract. In a sign of how much damage the
global slowdown is causing in China, the government this week
estimated that 20 million migrant laborers have lost their jobs. But
just as important to Chinese growth is private investment. Corporate
profitability in China was deteriorating even before the worst of the
global financial crisis hit, and that will soften investment, which
makes up more than 40% of GDP. In the first 11 months of 2008, profits
at 350,000 enterprises in China grew a mere 4.9%, down from 37% in the
same period in 2007. "We're already seeing a huge swing in the
fortunes of Chinese companies," Walker says. "When people see a very
different investment environment, they actually cut their investment.
That's the real danger China is facing at the moment."
Other economists believe China's massive stimulus plan will keep
growth at a high level despite the global downturn. In November,
Beijing announced a $586 billion package, much of it new spending on
infrastructure. Wen Jiabao, China's premier, said recently that he
expects China to meet its 8% growth target for 2009. Walker, however,
is much more skeptical about the government's ability to rescue the
economy. "What the government has to contend with is a slowdown in
every other sector of the economy," he says. Since the Chinese
government accounts for only some 20% of GDP, "how it will make up for
a slowdown in the other 80% is beyond me."
The China crunch will have repercussions for the rest of the region
and the world. The hope among other economists was that trade within
Asia, with a stable China at its core, could spare exporters such as
Taiwan and South Korea from the worst of the recession in the West.
That hope, Walker argues, has evaporated. A major downturn in China
"takes the floor away" from growth in the rest of Asia, he says,
leaving the region more exposed to the woes of the U.S. and Europe.
Most vulnerable are Asia's smaller, trade-dependent economies. He
forecasts Taiwan and Singapore could see GDP sink by 5% to 10% in
2009, while Korea's economy could contract by as much as 5%. "We're
still in the very early stages of the downturn in Asia," Walker warns.
There are some bright spots. Walker is relatively bullish on India,
which he believes could growth 3% to 5% in 2009, possibly making it
the world's fastest-growing economy. The reason, he says, is India
isn't as exposed to the global downturn as China. "India has not been
growing in the past decade because of excess world growth," Walker
says. "Domestic demand is the strong component." He also argues that
Asia could take the lead in a global recovery, and might show signs of
an upturn by early 2010. The turnaround will be sparked by Asian
companies, which generally are in healthy shape. "They are much less
leveraged" than in the past, Walker says. "There has been an aversion
to taking on debt in Asia since 1998. There is less vulnerability to a
downturn in economic activity." As interest rates around the region
fall, Asian companies will begin to seek loans and invest,
jumpstarting regional growth. "In that sense, the region is in
actually quite a good position to springboard back into recovery"
ahead of the U.S. or Europe, Walker says.
Still, Walker worries that the pain caused by this global crisis will
lead to "a de-globalization move" over the next two years by Asian
governments. Countries looking to preserve their own economies could
become less eager to promote global trade, he says, and could resort
to protectionism as competition for export markets becomes cutthroat.
There will be "much more introspection, especially in emerging
markets, about joining the party with as much gusto as in the past,"
Walker says. "There is going to be a lot of questioning about capital
market opening. The old model is broken and they don't know what to
replace it with."
Sid Harth
ASIA: Burning Questions
Monday, Aug. 28, 1944
Asia last week was burning at both ends and in the middle—in China,
India and the Middle East (see below). These fires had been smoldering
for generations, but in the case of the Middle East and India, Allied
military successes that reawakened hopes of peace in Europe, aroused
Arabs and Indians to press their nationalist aims while their
maneuvers in the politics of the war and of the peace gave them a
bargaining point with Britain.
Their strategic position at the eastern end of the Mediterranean,
flanking Suez, the Red Sea and Bab el Mandeb gave the Arab possessors
of Asia's oil lands an importance beyond their numerical or political
strength. India's position in Asia and in the British Empire made the
Indian question not only Britain's but the world's problem.
But the problem of China overshadowed all others. For China occupies
in Asia a strategic position somewhat like that of Germany in Europe.
If it was true that whoever dominated Germany dominated Europe, it was
also true that whoever dominated China dominated Asia. The problem was
even vaster. For if the Chinese Communist state-within-a-state should
ever dominate China, the combination of a Communist China's
450,000,000 people and Communist Russia's 190,000,000 people might by
sheer numbers and economic resources dominate the world.
Sid Harth
Planet Of The Year: Overpopulation Too Many Mouths
By Anastasia Toufexis Monday, Jan. 02, 1989
Close to the Zocalo, Mexico City's great central square, lies the
barrio of Morelos, a vast warren of dusty, potholed streets and narrow
entryways. The passages lead to a gloomy world. On each side of a
roofless patio is a ten- room jumble. Each room holds a family; each
family averages five people. The only bathrooms -- two to serve 100
people -- are located at the back of the patio. The odor of grease and
sewage permeates the air. Flies buzz relentlessly. The people who live
here are considered lucky.
In the shantytowns on Mexico City's outskirts, tens of thousands of
people shelter in huts made of cardboard with aluminum roofs. There is
no running water and no sanitation. The stench is overpowering:
garbage and human waste heap up in piles. Rats roam freely, like stray
domestic animals.
To the more privileged, those scenes look like a science-fiction
vision of civilization's breakdown, perhaps after a nuclear war. In
fact, Mexico City has been described as the anteroom to an ecological
Hiroshima. With 20 million residents -- up from 9 million only 20
years ago -- the Mexican capital is considered the most populous urban
center on earth. Mexico City has been struck not by military weapons
but by a population bomb.
Ultimately, no problem may be more threatening to the earth's
environment than the proliferation of the human species. Today the
planet holds more than 5 billion people. During the next century,
world population will double, with 90% of that growth occurring in
poorer, developing countries. African nations are expanding at the
fastest rate. During the next 30 years, for example, the population of
Kenya (annual growth rate: 4%) will jump from 23 million to 79
million; Nigeria's population (growth rate: 3%) will soar from 112
million to 274 million. Expansion is slower in Brazil, China, India
and Indonesia, but in those countries the sheer size of existing
populations translates into a huge increase in people.
In the poorest countries, growth rates are outstripping the national
ability to provide the bare necessities -- housing, fuel and food.
Living trees are being chopped down for fuel, grasslands overgrazed by
livestock, and croplands overplowed by desperate farmers. Horrifying
images of starvation in northeastern Africa have captured world
attention in the past decade. In India, according to government
reports, 37% of the people cannot buy enough food to sustain
themselves. Warned Shri B.B. Vohra, vice chairman of the Himachal
Pradesh state land-use board in northern India: "We may be well on the
way to producing a subhuman kind of race where people do not have
enough energy to deal with their problems."
Prospects are so dire that some environmentalists urge the world to
adopt the goal of cutting in half the earth's population growth rate
during the next decade. "That means a call for a two-child family for
the world as a whole," explained Lester Brown, president of the
Worldwatch Institute. "In some countries there may be a need to set a
goal of one child per family." That is a daunting challenge. During
the past decade, many of the world's poor nations condemned the notion
of family planning as an imperialist and racist scheme touted by the
developed world. Yet today virtually all Third World countries are
committed to limiting population growth.
But the effort needs to be speeded up. For starters, contraceptive
information and devices should be available to every man or woman on
earth who wants them. According to surveys by the United Nations and
other organizations, fully half the 463 million married women in
developing countries (excluding China) do not want more children. Yet
many have little or no access to effective methods of birth control,
such as the Pill and the intrauterine device (IUD). The World Bank
estimates that making birth control readily available on a global
basis would require that the $3 billion now spent annually on family-
planning services be increased to $8 billion by the year 2000. The
increase in funds could shave projected world population from 10
billion to 8 billion over the next 60 years. However, few modern
contraceptive methods are ideally suited to the daily lives of Third
World citizens. Two-thirds of the 60 million users of condoms,
diaphragms and sponges live in the industrialized world. Men in
developing countries frequently view condoms as a threat to their
masculine image; women often find diaphragms impractical since clean
water for washing the device is scarce.
The most popular form of population control in developing countries is
sterilization. Some 98 million women and 35 million men around the
world have resorted to that permanent solution. The other current
mainstay is abortion, which the Worldwatch Institute's Brown called "a
reflection of unmet family- planning needs." An estimated 28 million
abortions are performed in Third World nations annually, and an
additional 26 million in industrial countries. About half are illegal.
New forms of birth control are desperately needed, and a few are
slowly appearing. Last year a French pharmaceutical firm introduced RU
486, a drug that helps induce a relatively safe miscarriage when given
to a woman in the early stages of pregnancy. Another recent arrival is
Norplant, steroid-filled capsules that are embedded in a woman's arm
and deliver contraceptive protection for five years. The implant is
approved for use in twelve countries, including China, Thailand and
Indonesia.
But progress is too slow. Additional spending on contraceptive
research and development is badly needed. In 1972 global spending was
estimated at $74 million annually, a paltry sum compared with many
Third World military budgets. The funding in 1983 was just $57
million. One reason for the decrease was the Reagan Administration's
antiabortion policy. U.S. contributions to international population-
assistance programs declined 20% between 1985 and 1987, to about $230
million.
Bruce Wilcox, president of the Institute for Sustainable Development,
an environmental-research organization based in Palo Alto, Calif.,
declared that solutions to the population challenge will demand
"fundamental changes in society." Ingrained cultural attitudes that
promote high birthrates will have to be challenged. Many families in
poor agrarian societies, for example, see children as a source of
labor and a hedge against poverty in old age. People need to be taught
that with lower infant mortality, fewer offspring can provide the same
measure of security. In some societies, numerous progeny are viewed as
symbols of virility. In Kenya's Nyanza province, a man named Denja
boasts that he has fathered 497 children.
Of all entrenched values, religion presents perhaps the greatest
obstacle to population control. Roman Catholics have fought against
national family- planning efforts in Mexico, Kenya and the
Philippines, while Muslim fundamentalists have done the same in Iran,
Egypt and Pakistan. Still, religious objections need not entirely
thwart population planning. Where such resistance is encountered,
vigorous campaigns should be mounted to promote natural birth-control
techniques, including the rhythm method and fertility delay through
breast feeding.
If there is a single key to population control in developing
countries, experts agree, it lies in improving the social status of
women. Third World women often have relatively few political or legal
rights, and not many receive schooling that prepares them for roles
outside the home. Said Robert Berg, president of the International
Development Conference: "Expanding educational and employment
opportunities for women is necessary for permanently addressing the
population issue."
The effect of special programs for women has been demonstrated in
Bangladesh. In 1975 the government launched a project in which
associations of rural village women were provided with start-up loans
for launching small businesses, such as making pottery, raising
poultry and running grocery stores. About 123,000 women are currently
enrolled in the cooperative. At weekly meetings, health-care and
contraceptive information are distributed among members. An
extraordinary 75% of the co-op members of childbearing age use
contraceptives, while nationwide only 35% of married women practice
birth control.
Ultimately, slowing the population juggernaut will depend on the
ability of family-planning experts to create well-tailored programs
for different societies and even for different segments of societies.
But first, governments will have to raise public awareness and rally
support for population control with a cohesive message about the
dangers of rampant growth. India, one of the first countries to adopt
a family-planning program, some 30 years ago, failed to forge a
national will for the task, and the population is now growing at 2% a
year.
In contrast, China has galvanized its people behind a huge population-
plannin g effort. Still, its program demonstrates just how difficult
-- and risky -- social tinkering can be. The nation launched its "one-
family, one- child" policy in 1979. The aim: to contain population at
1.2 billion by the year 2000. In pursuit of that goal, local
authorities have offered such incentives as a monthly stipend until
the sole child turns 14 and better housing. Penalties for violating
the policy have included dismissal from government jobs and fines of
up to a year's wages for urban workers. China's effort has had some
distressing consequences. Women have been coerced into having
abortions, and there have been reports of female infanticide by
parents determined that their one child should be a boy. Moreover,
officials have acknowledged that exceptions to the one-child rule have
been frequently condoned, especially in rural areas. In fact, only 19%
of Chinese couples have one child. Beijing has announced that the
nation will miss its target: the country's projected population in the
year 2000 is 1.27 billion.
Yet for all its failings, China's effort has produced results. The
population growth rate, once among the highest in the world, has been
slashed in half, to 1.4%. And the Chinese are determined to reduce the
rate still further. The same formidable task will face other
developing countries as they confront the population bomb. But
confront it they must.
bademiyansubhanallah
China won't wage war on India'
TNN 20 September 2009, 11:03pm IST
ITANAGAR: Despite reports of frequent border incursions, Arunachal
Pradesh chief minister Dorjee Khandu believes that China will never a
wage a war on India.
"China can't afford to go for a war. But the fact remains that its
sole aim is to weaken India on all fronts. China wants to prove that
it's an economic superpower in the region," said Khandu, who hails
from Tawang, an area of contention between India and China.
China's policy was to force India to increase its defence expenditure
at the cost of its economy, he added. "The idea is: The more the
expenditure on defence, the less the money spent on development. In
short they are bent on weakening India through this game of
psychological warfare," Khandu told reporters here on Sunday morning.
He said India should take up the challenge on the economic front. "At
the moment, we should give top priority to rapid economic and
infrastructure development in border areas," he added.
Denying BJP's claims that the UPA government has shown a "slow
response" to China's challenge, the chief minister of the frontier
state said development on the Indian side of the border is still
unmentionable."While China has developed two-lane roads right up to
the McMahon Line, we do not even have porter tracks in most parts
along the border. In the absence of motorable roads, troops movement
may be hindered during an emergency," he said.
The chief minister said the Centre should induct more locals into the
army to strengthen intelligence network in the border areas.
On the Dalai Lama's scheduled November visit to the state, he said,
"China has no right to interfere or raise questions on his visit. "The
spiritual leader can move freely, anywhere in India. China has no
business or right to object. The Centre has given him permission to
visit Tawang. The matter ends there," Khandu said.
bademiyansubhanallah
Foreign News: Nehru Never Wins
Monday, Aug. 24, 1942
The shuffling of camel pads pounded softly near a great cream-colored
mansion in Allahabad where the white, gold and green flag of the
Indian National Congress party flirted with the wind. Here was dignity
and beauty. Here, in the mansion built by his father, Jawaharlal Nehru
knew that there was refuge from the world.
To this mansion had come many men: the lordly rulers of India, the
sycophants, the rebels and the humblest peasants of the field. Here
Nehru longed to return from the squalor and the wranglings in Bombay.
Then came a knock at the door. Quickly Nehru's Oxford-educated
daughter, Indira, ran to open it. She expected radio men setting up a
microphone for a broadcast that Nehru was to make to the U.S. But the
callers were not radio men. They were British police.
India & the World. It was the ninth time since 1921 that Pandit (Great
Scholar) Nehru had gone to jail. Only twice has he been out for more
than a year at a time. Yet for ten years he was secretary general of
the Congress party, three times its president and, next to the half-
naked Mahatma (Great Soul) Gandhi, the most powerful figure in India's
political life. As a sensitive liberal and a world statesman, Nehru
has outgrown the shadow of his overage Messiah. But Gandhi, self-
willed, self-made symbol of the Hindu peasant, has clamped Nehru's
feet to India. It was Nehru the disciple, not Nehru the
internationalist, who returned once more to jail.
He packed his bag with four crisp white suits, gathered up his books.
If there had been time, he would have made his broadcast, a final
appeal to America—an appeal for understanding from the world's last
great bastion of freedom. But there was not time: The British Raj,
intent on crushing the second Gandhi civil-disobedience campaign in
World War II, was mad and tough.
How angry the Raj can get, how tough it can be, is an old and bitter
story to Nehru. Last week, having jailed Gandhi, Nehru and other
Congress leaders (including Nehru's sister, Mrs. Vijaya Lakshmi
Pandit), the British claimed an early victory. At least 83 known
killed, hundreds of others with broken skulls—this was the price
Gandhi's followers paid for protest rioting in disobedience of
Gandhi's policy of passive resistance. But though the first flames of
riot were quenched, the fire went on underground (see p. 18).
When the monsoon (political) weather ends in September and the dry
(war) season sets in, the British case will be tested.
Nehru & the World. In his last interview before returning to his
"other home," Nehru told TIME Correspondent Theodore White what he
might have explained in a U.S. broadcast. Above him in the reception
room of the Allahabad mansion were pictures of his father, Motilal
Nehru, a signed photograph of Generalissimo and Madame Chiang Kaishek,
a photograph of Sun Yat-sen and Madame Sun. Gone was Nehru's laughter
and the jokes he had made with the Chiangs last spring when they
conferred on world problems in a villa at New Delhi. Great masses of
flowers had been in bloom then. Now the flowers in India were burned
out in the summer heat. So was Nehru burned out, his handsome face
drawn in lines of fatigue and sorrow.
From his eyes there shone the bitterness brewed by the repeated
jailings of himself and his family, the bruises left in his heart by
the clubbings he and his aged mother suffered. He was beaten in a
Lucknow demonstration against the Simon Commission in 1928. During a
National Week demonstration in 1932 his mother was beaten and left
unconscious on the side of the road near her home in Allahabad. She
was dead now, and so were his father and his wife Kamala, all helped
along to funeral pyres on the banks of the Ganges by their work in
India's struggle for independence. There was cold fury in him at the
Himalayan stupidity of Tory imperialists, and bitterness at the
failure of the West he understood to meet the East, which at times
still baffled him.
Basically, said Nehru, the Indian crisis is the result of Europe's and
America's concept of Asia. "What has astounded me," said Idealist
Nehru, "is the total inability of the English-speaking peoples to
think of the new world-situation in terms of realism—realism being
more than military realism. It is political, psychological, economic
realism. . . . Their concept of us is that of a mass people fallen
low, a backward people who must be lifted out from the depths by good
works. . . .
"I think about it and it seems to me that there is something essential
lacking in European civilization, some poison which eats into it and
brings about a war every 20 years. For the average Asiatic in this war
the prestige of Europe has suffered tremendously. . . . The fall of
France showed up the rottenness of Western imperialism and the burden
which it imposed on the people of the West. . . . Much later came the
fall of Burma and Malay. This, at any rate, was a direct lesson to the
British that their empire was going to pieces. But the astounding
thing is that it has had little or no effect."
Even if Indians are fast joining the Indian Army as mercenaries at 16
rupees (about $5) a month, even if India's industrial effort has
quadrupled since 1939, Nehru believes that India cannot be defended
unless India's peoples are armed with guns and inspired by the
definite knowledge that they fight for their own freedom.
Beyond that he sees at least an "Asiatic Federation of Nations," with
the millions of India joined with the millions of China, to replace
the broken rule of the white man in the Far East. Beyond that Nehru
dreams and believes that an India, freed from "the perfect peace of
the grave and the absolute safety of a cage," can take her place in a
world order or world federation, welcoming the white man's science and
know-how, friendly to Soviet Russia, a partner with the Anglo-American
federation in bringing peace and order to the world.
Nehru & the British. The British, Nehru once wrote, seized the body of
India "and possessed her, but it was the possession of violence. They
did not know her or try to know her. They never looked in her eyes,
for theirs were averted and hers downcast through shame and
humiliation."
Less emotionally, Nehru has claimed for years that the British Indian
Government is effective only with repressive measures. He has stuck
barbs of sarcasm into the classic Tory theory that Britain must
dominate India because: 1) it is the bastion of empire and the bulwark
of Britain's world power; 2) the economic standard of the British
Isles is built on India's wealth; 3) without Britain's strong ruling
hand, India's racial and religious groups, unable and untrained to
govern themselves, will fly at each other's throats in anarchy, chaos
and civil war.
Nehru believes, instead, that British rule has purposely thwarted and
nullified Indian attempts at self-government and self-improvement;
that British imperialists are "agreeable, astute, forcible, self-
confident and, when hard pressed, unscrupulous people who know pretty
well on which side their bread is buttered." To him there is no
turning back, for there never was a parting of the ways. Even his good
friend Sir Stafford Cripps, he found four months ago, was trying to
present India with what to his mind amounted to a high-handed and
narrow compromise that threatened to break up India into separate
states at a time when "the day of separate warring national states is
over."
Nehru & Gandhi. There are some who believe that if Nehru had not
played Hamlet to Gandhi's ghost, a compromise might have been effected
before the latest call for civil disobedience. But past attempts by
Nehru to enlist the services of the United Nations for a solution have
ended in blind alleys.
There are others who believe that the political power of the Congress
party is being broken, that India's present pro-war Indian leaders
will eventually take over whatever form of self-government India
receives.
But Gandhi and Nehru cannot be brushed off the face of Bharat Mata
(Mother India). Until Gandhi dies, Nehru is bound to him by ties of
love and political necessity, even though their political thinking is
poles apart.
To Nehru, who has written as revealingly of his own thoughts and
beliefs as any man since Henry Adams, Gandhi is the great paradox—an
arch reactionary,-yet the greatest revolutionary leader of his time.
Invariably Nehru has swung to Gandhi's side, often in subsequent
amazement that so mystical a character could, by instinct, sense the
time for mass movements and the means to arouse public support.
When Gandhi started the khadi movement of hand-spinning and hand-
weaving, Nehru found it "a throwback to the pre-industrial age." But
the most fretful of Nehru's complaints against Gandhi have been caused
by the Mahatma's support of systems Nehru believes are "obviously
decaying" and which "stand as obstacles in the way of advance—the
feudal states, the big zamindars (landowners) and talukdars ( land
rent collectors), the present capitalist system."
An aristocrat by birth, a "repentant bourgeois" by definition, Nehru
has fought "muddled humanitarians" and opportunists among the Hindu
intellectuals and middle class bourgeoisie which form the core of the
Congress party. Started in 1885 by a retired British colonial, the
party, since Gandhi took control of it in World War I, has had a
melange of supporters held together by one goal: Swaraj (political
independence).
Through Gandhi's instinctive appeal to the peasantry and Nehru's
insistence on agrarian reforms, the party base has broadened. But
calls for reforms have caused defections from party ranks. The great
Satyagraha (civil disobedience) campaigns of 1920-21, 1930-32 and 1940
have caused other defections.
Not always have Congress leaders stood up to British rule as stoutly
as Gandhi and the Nehru family. Once in political power in eight of
the eleven provinces after the 1937 elections, Congress members became
more political than reformist.
Nehru & Ideas. The Western world gives its respect to the man who
starts with nothing and makes much. India reserves its plaudits for
the man who starts with much and gives up everything. Gandhi has the
ascetic renunciation that India best understands, but there is also a
strong appeal to India in Nehru, for the Brahmin's renunciation of a
life of ease.
In the 18th Century Raj Kaul, a Sanskrit and Persian scholar, came
down from the mountain province of Kashmir. His descendants settled on
the banks of a canal at Delhi. Nahar means canal and this word,
changed to Nehru, eventually became the family name.
The Nehrus were dispossessed in the Great Revolt of 1857 and settled
finally at Allahabad, where Jawaharlal spent most of his childhood.
His father, vigorous, stormy-tempered and brilliant, amassed a fortune
as a lawyer, surrounded his only son with English tutors, sent him to
be educated at Harrow and Cambridge. In London Jawaharlal dabbled in
Fabianism, entered the Inner Temple, lived beyond his generous
allowance, argued Indian politics with his father by letter.
He returned to India when he was 23 and began practicing law. But much
as he liked and admired the British personally, young Nehru was swept
into political activity against what he then felt, and still feels, is
the national humiliation of his people.
More leftist than his moderate father, Nehru read Marx, Lenin,
Spengler, Plato, Shaw, Thoreau, Voltaire, Li Tai Po, the philosophy of
Lord Gautama Buddha, the Upanishads, Christ's Sermon on the Mount. He
ended an agnostic, a firm believer that man's after life is not as
important as the work he does on earth.
By the time he had finished his first jail sentence in 1922 Nehru was
under the spell of Gandhi. He had learned that jails in India crawl
with vermin, sometimes with scorpions, and that they break the spirit
of most men. He also learned to discipline his emotions and keep his
mind and body active. In moods of depression he sometimes reverted, as
he still does, to Shirshasana, which entails standing on the head with
the fingers supporting the back of the head, elbows on the floor, body
vertical. From this "slightly comic position," Nehru found, he could
be "more tolerant of life's vagaries."
Nehru & India. The social philosophy fashioned by Nehru out of
Cambridge, riots, Gandhi and jail has elements of Communism, but
decries Communist dogma and bad manners. It tends, rather, toward an
enlightened and idealistic international socialism. The British oppose
it. So do 6,000 years of Hindu culture.
Wryly Nehru has admitted a basic factor in Indian life: the national
symbol is the cow. To the Indians the cow is sacred because it stands
for the giver of plenty, the tie of human nature to the animal and the
soil, the quiet, contemplative qualities which the Eastern mind
respects.
A Sanatani Hindu, Gandhi accepts Varna (color), while disavowing the
caste system, but stands by the concept of caste in marriage and the
profession as the law of heredity. The principle of Swadeshi (home
manufacture, i.e., spinning) is akin to the ancient Greek spirit of
the hearth and Chinese ancestor worship. Satyagraha was coined by
Gandhi from the words Saty (truth and love) and agraha (firmness) as
the Hindu interpretation of soul force. Closely akin to this is
Christ's admonition to "turn the other cheek."
As an agnostic, Nehru has not accepted all these ancient beliefs; but,
as an Indian, he has appreciated that soul force is a strange power.
He himself has experienced the feeling of elation and victory over his
adversary when being beaten down by an ironbound club. To Gandhi, the
Hindu philosophy translated into terms of democracy means "complete
identification with the poorest of mankind, longing to live no better
than they." To Nehru, poverty is an evil to be uprooted and corrected,
not a burden to lie down with.
Nehru & Nehru. In years behind bars, Nehru has looked deeply into his
own soul, has found the rationalization of loyalty for his compromises
with Gandhi and the Congress party. He has found himself vain at times
(his Gandhi cap habitually covers his-baldness). He has found himself
loving the adoration of the crowds. He has also yearned for the
mountains of Kashmir, for security and the love of his family. But
these he denies himself. Last week, at the age of 52, he was still so
handsome that at least six women in India were reported sending away
suitors in the hope he would propose to them. And last week he was in
jail again, while India seethed with hatred and turmoil. The answer to
the questions, "When do the British go? When do the Japs come?" was no
more settled than before police arrested Nehru in Bombay.
A good guess was that Nehru was at Ahmadnagar Fort, about 200 miles
from Bombay. Here the Duke of Wellington once lunched on a grassy bank
outside the fort's huge stone walls. Here the British once kept
prisoners of the Boer war. Here, more recently, they have interned
Italians captured in North Africa. Here Nehru, who worked for Loyalist
Spain, who cried out against Munich, who was shocked by Hitler's Brown
Shirts and twice snubbed invitations for an interview with Mussolini,
could look out bitterly on monsoon skies. Nehru alone knew what
thoughts were in his mind. But once before in prison he remembered T.
S. Eliot's lines:
"This is the way the world ends, Not with a bang but a whimper."
bademiyansubhanallah
INDIA: Inqilab Zindabad
Monday, Aug. 24, 1942
In the first days the full impact of Mahatma Gandhi's peculiar program
of civil disobedience had not yet had effect. Riots spread around
Bombay, like boils, over the face of the Central Provinces. A few were
reported in Bengal, where the Japs may invade from India's
northeastern border.
The death of a Moslem police inspector sounded another warning of
communal riots. Police had orders to warn crowds to disperse, then use
tear gas, then ironbound lathees, then, as a last resort, to fire.
Student demonstrators tried to confiscate all hats and neckties—
symbols of Western domination—worn by Indians and Europeans in Bombay.
Then they seized topees, burned them merrily in street-corner
bonfires. This week, with rioting still sporadic, the pressure of an
Indian National Congress party boycott and a general slowdown of the
war effort faced the British.
Having clapped all Congress leaders into jail, the British were
prepared to deal with rioting. The Raj even hoped that prompt action
would break the back of the Congress party once & for all.
Optimistically, Government officials announced that resistance was
virtually under control. Immediately new riots broke out in Madras,
where four men were killed trying to attack a railway station.
Ahmadabad mills closed. A Karaikkudi mob tried to free an Indian being
jailed. Calcutta brooded restlessly, heard threats of work stoppages
at vital war plants. Poona, Nagpur, Cawnpore, Wardha reported fresh
riots. An airplane dropped tear gas on a crowd of Bombay mill workers.
The New Delhi Town Hall was burned.
The British claimed Gandhi's program of disruption called for: 1)
closing shops to destroy public morale; 2) interference with telephone
& telegraph lines; 3) fomenting strikes in munitions and war materiel
factories; 4) interference with A.R.P. services; 5) dislocating
transport; 6) a strike by lawyers.
Whether or not these assertions were true, Gandhi could not publicly
affirm or deny: he was locked up in a luxurious jail, the Aga Khan's
million-rupee "bungalow" at Poona. But the British threatened use of
the whip on rioters, execution of anyone sabotaging trains or
communications.
Race. No European was killed, but there were ominous undertones of
racial antagonism. From a rooftop in Old Delhi a TIME correspondent
watched a riot area a mile and a half long in Chandni Chauk, heart of
the bazaar district. Exploding tear-gas bombs sent the demonstrators
into alleyways, wiping their eyes. Then banners peeked around corners
again, lines re-formed and marched forward. The sound of rifle fire or
sudden panic would send the demonstrators racing away. When police
charged or fired into the crowds, angry roars burst with the
hysterical fervor of a high-school cheering section. It sounded like:
"Rhubarb! Rhubarb! Rhubarb!" Soon the crowd began chanting "Inqilab
Zindabad!" (Revolution Forever!)
At one end of Chandni Chauk troops were drawn up under the old Mogul
Fort built by Shah Jahan, who also built the Taj Mahal. (Inside the
Fort, where the Shah kept his harem, the walls are inscribed: "If
there is a heaven, this is it, this is it!") At the other end of the
area, mounted police faced Congress adherents packed in the Clock
Tower Square.
Riot. The first Bombay riots were as fierce as those in Delhi. Later
they became better organized. Nearly all schools having a majority of
Hindu students were on strike. Some Moslem students joined in. Hindus
forgot caste and opened their homes to injured rioters of varying
degrees of touchability. Members of the Communist-dominated Students
Union distributed hastily printed pamphlets urging Congress members
and sympathizers not to dissipate themselves in "anarchistic"
outbursts.
In the midst of the confusion strange events occurred: a cricket match
took place within earshot of a Shivaji Park protest meeting; the
Bombay Rotary Club met and heard a lecture on acoustics. The great bar
in the Taj Mahal Hotel was as busy as ever, but Americans, numbering
724 in the Bombay consulate area, were warned to leave.
The U.S. State Department announced that U.S. troops were to remain
aloof from the trouble. Some Indians hailed this notice as evidence of
good will and support from the U.S. Lauchlin Currie conferred with the
harassed Viceroy. There were other straws in the wind, pointing either
toward further trouble or possible settlement.
Reverberations. One man was heavily sentenced for raising the Congress
flag, but an editorial comment pointedly criticizing the British
attitude was allowed to appear. As fearfully as Hindus waited for word
that Gandhi might try a fast-to-the-death, the Moslems waited for word
from Mohammed Ali Jinnah, leader of the Moslem League. In his marble-
floored Malabar Hill villa, Jinnah talked for two hours with TIME
Correspondent William Fisher. He regretted the interruption in the war
effort, said he would be agreeable to any proposition for formation of
a national government, provided it gave Moslems "a fair break." This
week he threatened to end his "cooperation"'if the British "betrayed"
him by making peace with the Hindu-dominated Congress party. Said
Jinnah (whom Pandit Nehru attacks as a tool of wealthy landowners and
a stooge for the British): "I would do it even if the British shot me
down. I would do it even if it meant my own death. All I would have to
do would be to give the word to my 80,000,000 followers."
Chakravarthi Rajagopalachariar ("C.R."), who resigned from the
Congress party in protest against Gandhi's threatened campaign, and
the great Indian Liberal Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru urged mediation. Dr.
Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Labor spokesman for India's 40,000,000
Untouchables, backed Britain but held aloof. Communists wavered on
their party line. Bombay big-business interests begged the Viceroy to
attempt negotiation.
The Congress party went underground, changed its headquarters from day
to day. Minor leaders still out of jail printed pamphlets urging that
the fight be carried on passively. They drew new support and sympathy
when Gandhi's Boswell and private secretary, Mahadev Hiralal Desai,
died in custody at Poona (see p. 42).
Gandhi's terrible meekness had sent terrible tremors through Mother
India.
bademiyansubhanallah
INTERNATIONAL: Mess Accompli
Monday, Aug. 24, 1942
The contrast showed which one knew India. Two months ago Mohandas K.
Gandhi said: "The world will feel my plans." Last week, with Gandhi
and his Indian National Congress party leaders in jail, the India
Office in London said: "Reports from authorities in India state that
the situation is completely in hand. . . . There is no indication of
any widespread mass movements. . . ."
Riots and killings, the whip and executions mean disorder; the spread
of boycotts, strikes, sullenness and turmoil mean a mass movement. The
India Office, not for the first time, was talking colonial whitewash.
Although doubts crept in and a few liberal voices spoke up, the
British press, for the most part, obscured the issue. So did the U.S.
press, with few exceptions (see cuts). What was happening in India was
being felt by the world. A cry for freedom, confused, tragic, but
potentially as powerful as any since Voltaire's Ecrasez I'In fame
(Crush the Infamous!) could not be put in a bottle and neatly labeled:
treachery.
All democrats agree that the concept of the world as the white man's
property is hopelessly out of date. But what concept shall take its
place?
Asia. In the minds of such men as India's Pandit Nehru and China's
Chiang Kaishek, a new vision of world power has taken form. They hope
to see a bloc of Asiatic powers, freed, enlightened and working as
partners with the Western powers in the suppression of wars and the
rooting out of poverty. In the way of that goal is old-style Western
imperialism—and Japan. China has felt the hell of Japanese armies;
India may feel it at any moment. But the Chinese fight for their own
destiny. Millions of Indians, despite promises of future self-rule, do
not have the same spirit. To them the emotional appeal of freedom is
greater than fear of the Jap. The British view is sound in so far as
granting Indian independence is a dangerous bid for anarchy and chaos;
but a bid for great popular support of the United Nations' cause in
India is also sound.
United Nations. China took no definite stand; but the Chungking press
openly regretted the jailing of Congress leaders. Russia was too busy
with war and Anglo-Soviet conferences to comment. The U.S., like China
and Russia, is a wartime ally of Britain. Thus U.S. hands are tied
officially.
But in total war the problem of India becomes as crucial to all United
Nations as aid to Russia and China. All would benefit if the millions
in India could be turned into active allies instead of potential
enemies. If the United Nations expected to act in concert for the
building up of a better post-war world, now was a good time to start
practicing.
bademiyansubhanallah
OCCUPIED ASIA: They Who Were Slapped
Monday, Aug. 24, 1942
The first pictures of U.S. civilian prisoners in Japanese camps
reached the U.S. last week (forwarded by plane when the exchange ship
Gripsholm touched briefly at Rio). They showed children (see cut) and
grown-ups bearing up not too badly in confinement, but the pictures
did not tell the worst.
Life in Stanley. A better picture of what life in one of the Japanese
prisons is like was given by a U.S. citizen (whose name TIME withholds
because his family still is in Japanese hands).
He described costumes that the prisoners (who gathered a few clothes
hastily when they were seized) wore in the Stanley prison camp, where
thousands of Hong Kong captives were herded together:
"A wealthy Shanghai financier appeared in striped morning trousers and
coat and old-fashioned buttoned shoes. Another, attired in full
evening dress, was seen hauling a garbage bucket in the Indian
quarters. A wealthy old stockholder of the Hong Kong Bank came daily
for a bucket of hot water dressed in nothing but a suit of long woolen
underwear. . . .
"Food was the worst problem. From the first we never had enough.
Beriberi . . . spread like wildfire. . . .
"A coveted prize for an evening of bridge was a prune or a piece of
hard candy. . . . Many acrimonious debates took place. . . . The
kitchen staff . . . threatened to resign because of criticism by some
prisoners who had found fish and slightly moldy bread in the garbage
can. The cooks said the fish was tainted and the bread too moldy.
Their accusers said the fish had been retrieved to yield 19 excellent
filets and the bread turned into a tasty dish of bread crumbs. . . .
"Once we saw a 70-year-old British physician ordered off a roadway by
an Indian guard who had gone over to the Japs. The old man apparently
didn't hear, and straightened up to listen. The Indian rushed up and
slapped him so hard he fell to earth. Then the Indian kicked him
viciously until several Britons carried the old man away. And this was
not an isolated case."
Slappo Club. It was indeed, no isolated case, refugees on the
Gripsholm reported. On the whole, the Japanese treated Britons worse
than Americans or Dutch, but slapping was so common that victims
banded together in a Slappo Club. Otto David Tolischus, dour
correspondent of the New York Times, wrote:
"The Japanese military and police followed traditions reaching back to
primitive ages . . . ranging from disregard of diplomatic courtesies
to the imprisonment and torture of American and British
correspondents, businessmen and missionaries, the massacre of British
and American wounded at Hong Kong and Wake Island . . . the rape and
slaughter of British women, including war hospital nurses." A U.S.
dentist who had practiced in Hong Kong seven years. Dr. J. S. Pyne,
told of Hong Kong's fall: "They lined up about 3,000 British and
Americans and marched us down the main street four abreast before the
native population. . . . There was no crying and chins were up. Four-
hundred of us were put into a hotel where 93 of us shared one dirty
toilet and one bath. We were watched by Indian and Chinese police who
had gone Jap. They slapped whites for as little as speaking to
friends. The servants enjoyed torturing their masters. The Japs made
propaganda films of our marching through the streets with burdens.
"There were bodies everywhere. We heard the cries of British wounded
in the hills, but they were not allowed admittance to Stanley's
emergency hospital. The Japs went around bayoneting the wounded."
bademiyansubhanallah
Foreign News: Churchill Fille
Monday, Aug. 24, 1942
A year ago last week Winston Churchill wrote his name after a vague
list of war aims, the Atlantic Charter, to which last week a fresh
young (19) brain contributed recommendations. Sergeant Mary Churchill
of the Auxiliary Territorial Service (army), who a week before had
been spanked by a Yank (TIME, Aug. 10), wrote for her anti-aircraft
battery's newspaper an editorial on "Life After the War."
A verdant slip off the old stock, the Prime Minister's youngest and
favorite child walks like her father, talks like her father, thinks as
she pleases. Thoughts:
> "I wonder how many people think we've only got to win the war and everything will be hunky-dory? [Many people think this is what Churchill Pere thinks, but Churchill Pere knows he is too old to win both the war and the peace.] You and I are the English-speaking peoples, and the doughboy who came to the dance last night. It will be YOUR responsibility and MINE and HIS to see that the world becomes a fairer . . . place. . . . It won't be enough to go back [home after the war] and let the world go hang.
> "If we had taken a livelier interest in world affairs before this war . . . Europe might still be free.
> "Democracy doesn't mean the hiring of a government, paying them to get on with it, and then sacking them when they've muddled into war. Democracy means caring and striving and quite often fighting.
> "If our post-war world is going to be brave and new, it will be because WE MAKE IT SO, because we fight to win the peace as sternly as we are now fighting to win the war."
bademiyansubhanallah
INDIA: Anchor for Asia
Monday, Oct. 17, 1949
When India's Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru needs to relax, he stands
on his head. This is not the exotic mysticism of the fabulous East but
a practical way to drive off fatigue and make up for lack of sleep.
Last week, as Nehru left New Delhi for Washington on one of the
century's most important visits of state, his secretary discussed head-
standing with U.S. newsmen: "Perhaps the Prime Minister will
demonstrate this for your President Truman."
America had a lot of other things to learn about Asia's key man. Nehru
has been a somewhat nebulous figure, graceful and great, "a jewel
among men" as his master Mahatma Gandhi said, but vaguely seen and
known. Now, after two years as Prime Minister of free India, he is
emerging in sharp and colorful detail. The cultured patriot with the
Cambridge accent, luminous eyes and magnetic smile who spent 13 of his
60 years in British jails has become the Orient's unoriental,
supercharged public executive.
Nehru has a lot to learn about America, too. "Most of my impression of
America," he says, "has come from reading." A culling of his
voluminous written words indicates that he has simply never given the
subject much thought. As a British university man, he has perhaps
looked down snobbishly at American deficiency in culture. As a
sentimental socialist, he has ticked off the U.S. as unrivaled in
technology but predatory in its capitalism.
Now, events in Asia and the world over are making him reconsider.
India's leader could use some U.S. help to lift up his nation. "I am
not going to that great and powerful country with a message to teach,"
he told Bombay officials last week. "I wish to learn what I think will
be beneficial to India."
Said a Delhi wag: "Two powerful personalities who know very little
about each other are now colliding. The impact, on America and on
Nehru, should be terrific."
A Farewell. Nehru's leave-taking from Bombay was such a scene as only
an Eastern country in transition could stage. A harsh afternoon sun
beat down on the airfield as the Prime Minister arrived, perspiring in
his brown achkan (neck-high jacket) and white salwars (jodhpur-like
pants). A small array of dignitaries, students and plain curious
citizens waited near the runway.
Nehru had ten minutes before the London-bound airliner took off.
Flanked by an admiral and a general, he approvingly reviewed an honor
guard of the Indian navy. Only the day before, dedicating a new
national defense academy at Poona, the Prime Minister, as a former
believer in passive resistance, had pronounced it "odd" that "we who
for generations have talked about . . . and practiced nonviolence
should now be glorifying our Army, Navy and Air Force. Though it is
odd, yet it simply reflects the oddness of life. Though life is
logical, we have to face all contingencies, and unless we are prepared
to face them, we will go under."
As he strode toward the plane's ramp after the review, the Prime
Minister was halted by a shaggy sadhu (holy man), black-bearded and
maned, who thrust a bouquet of chrysanthemums into his hand.
Graciously, Nehru took the gift. On the ramp's top, he turned and
clasped hands in a farewell namasthe. "Goodbye and good luck," he
called.
The crowd clapped enthusiastically for the man who has no peer in
popularity through all of India. As the plane winged away, a student
voiced the national confidence: "America is a capitalist country, but
Nehru will be careful to keep us out of entanglements."
A Looksee. No one in the U.S. wanted to entangle Jawaharlal Nehru and
his 355,000,000 countrymen. There was, however, a strong impulse to
disentangle him and his intellectual fellows from some of their
clinging suspicions of the U.S. and its motives.
With China lost to Communism, the free world needed a new anchor in
Asia. Whether India could play that role depended largely on the
chance of much closer understanding and cooperation between India and
the U.S., a land almost unknown to nine-tenths of Nehru's countrymen.
Washington was taking careful account of the Prime Minister's
longstanding prejudice and his people's instinctive suspicion of the
"imperialist West."
Unless the distinguished guest so requested, there would be no
conferences of high state, no thought of pressure or promises, no hint
of alliances or pacts, no talk of loans or investments. In a packed 3½
weeks' schedule, Nehru would speed from Washington to San Francisco,
look in at New York and other cities, speak at the universities of
Chicago, California and Wisconsin, inspect farms and factories, Mount
Vernon, Hyde Park, the National Gallery of Art, TVA and White Sulphur
Springs. The big emphasis would be on getting him acquainted with the
productive panorama of U.S. life.
People's Father. This is Nehru's first trip to the U.S., although he
has traveled much and is no stranger to Western ways. A man who likes
to wear a Homburg, Nehru has preferred Western dress since his British
schooldays (Harrow as well as Cambridge). This preference is one of
the contradictions which once made him write of himself: "I have
become a queer mixture of the East and West, out of place everywhere,
at home nowhere."
In Delhi or touring his India, Nehru sticks to salwars, a homespun
shirt and a white Gandhi cap for his high bald crown. He is Panditji—
literally, Mister Scholar —to his people. To most of them his
Cambridge speech is unintelligible, nor is he himself quite at ease in
the Hindu vernaculars. The mass of Indians cannot read his prolific
English writings. Nonetheless, he has followed in Gandhi's footsteps
as a popular national hero.
Partly this is because Gandhi blessed him. Partly it has to do with a
tradition of Indian life since Buddha—the imaginative appeal of a
highborn Brahman, such as Nehru, giving up a life of ease to join a
popular cause such as liberation from British rule. Finally, the
largely illiterate masses of India, not yet beyond a feudal horizon,
still look up to their ruler as a child looks to its parent.
The Western intellectual in Nehru grows impatient and often irritable
over dependence. The East in him responds intuitively. Emotionally, he
plays to the hilt the role of father to his people.
Ordinary folk have overwhelming faith that their Prime Minister will
solve not only national but also personal problems. They collect on
his lawn every morning, and usually get to hand him their petitions.
Once, after he spoke in a village near Delhi, a woman rushed up with a
note informing him that her husband had treated her shabbily and
intended to marry again. Would the Prime Minister, from the speaker's
platform, ask her husband to cancel his marriage and mend his ways?
Regretfully, Nehru refused.
People's Good. He is stern as well as loving. His face looks down from
posters, exhorting the people to put a stop to bribery: "Cast aside
these vile practices. The giver is just as guilty as the receiver."
Once he berated some refugees who gathered on his lawn in an unruly
plea for relief; then he let them encamp under his window. Next
morning, after a sleepless night, Nehru contritely promised to explore
their grievances. In 1947, after appealing to Delhi's citizens to open
their doors to homeless Hindus from Pakistan, he put up more than a
dozen families in his official residence. They stayed nine months.
On a tour through the villages not long ago, Nehru was supoosed to
unfurl the national tricolor at a public meeting. Something went wrong
with the pulley, and the flag would not unfurl. The Prime Minister
tugged hard, waxing more & more furious. He summoned the organizer of
the meeting, a sheepish-looking yokel. "Can't this village even fly
the nation's flag efficiently?" Nehru railed. "I will wait here until
I am able to unfurl the flag on that mast." He did, and missed lunch
in the process. But at last the pulley was repaired and the flag
unfurled. Nehru departed growling: "I must suffer for your
inefficiency."
People's Example. No Nehru characteristic is more striking than his
determination to set a personal example for his people, to teach them
face to face, to guide every detail of their new national life.
The Prime Minister is up at dawn, uses three offices (in the
Constituent Assembly building, at the Foreign Ministry, in his home),
will stick to desk work all day, then go through a barrage of social
engagements, including dinner, then stay up until the small hours
dictating to stenographers and lying in his charpoy (Indian string
bed) to scan a day's bundle of news clippings. He drives himself
equally hard, and much more spectacularly, when he gets away from
offices and desks.
During the communal riots in Delhi, a Moslem restaurateur saw a fellow
Moslem slaughtered in front of the shop. He went to the phone and got
Nehru directly. "Wait ten minutes!" cried the Prime Minister. "I'll be
right down." In ten minutes, Nehru was on the scene with truckfuls of
police. From the middle of the street, bent over a map of the
district, he directed the cleanup of looters.
During the Asian Relations Conference of 1947, when the audience
became noisy and unruly, Nehru descended from the speaker's stand,
shoved down people in the front rows until the crowd calmed down. Then
he got back on the platform and listened to Gandhi make a speech on
nonviolence.
The drive to do everything^ himself has become almost a nervous habit.
At public meetings the Prime Minister will fussily arrange tables,
adjust lamps, lower microphones. It led him last winter, at the
wedding of his niece Tara Pandit, impulsively to pick up a knife to
cut the wedding cake. The bride's startled mother cried: "Brother,
what are you doing? You aren't the bride?" While the guests tittered,
the abashed Nehru retreated to another room.
On his recent Kashmir trip (TIME, Oct. 10), Nehru jammed this schedule
into a half day: 1) a ceremonial river procession; 2) an address to
the University of Jammu & Kashmir; 3) a one-hour speech at a mass
meeting; 4) an appearance at a physical-culture display; 5) the
judging of a baby show; 6) the refereeing of a poetry contest.
Nehru, a widower since 1936, is essentially a lonely man. His only
child, daughter Indira, acts as his hostess as well as companion on
many trips. She must, however, divide her loyalties: her Parsi husband
Feroze Gandhi runs Luck-now's daily National Herald, which Nehru
founded, but which now lambasts his government and frequently follows
the Communist line. Indira's two children are a true comfort to their
grandfather, who relaxes by romping with them and taking them along on
trips.
Once Nehru's father, the redoubtable lawyer Pandit Motilal Nehru, was
a pillar on which he leaned. So, too, were the Congress Party elders,
from Gandhi down, who favored him as the Mahatma's heir apparent. His
father and most of the Congress elders have passed away, leaving Nehru
bereft, as his younger sister, Mrs. Krishna Hutheesingh observes, of
the psychological comfort of "someone to look up to." He has turned
more & more to his old ties with Britain.
His closest friends now are in Delhi's foreign colony. Last winter he
inaugurated the capital's Cambridge Association. It is said in the
capital that it is more desirable now, in high government circles, to
have a British university degree than ever it was during the time of
the British Raj.
Behind Nehru and his people lies a hard climb—the long and bitter
struggle up from colonial status to independence. Before them rises a
still harder climb—the complex, often confusing, always uncertain path
toward the strength that will keep India free.
Nehru describes himself as a democrat and a socialist. His socialism
seems more an emotion than a doctrine, springing from his hatred of
capitalist imperialism. One of Nehru's younger ex-comrades. Jai
Prakash Narain. who has left Congress to help build up India's weak
but willing Socialist Party, has said: "I have never been able to find
out just what Nehru's socialism means."
Yet in the early days of India's independence. Socialists found no
cause to quarrel with Nehru's position. The Prime Minister was a
staunch supporter of nationalization of industry. His government
loudly proclaimed, in effect, that the new India would never let
foreign capital, however needed, get a stranglehold on Indian
production. Its policy would be one of cautious scrutiny of every
proposed foreign investment. Meanwhile, boldly and belligerently, the
Indian government itself "must play a progressively active role in
industrial development."
The threat of nationalization had a quick and distressing effect; it
dried up new investments by India's own capable private enterprisers.
Industrialists like J.R.D. Tata, whose family founded Asia's greatest
steel plant at Jamshedpur. no longer had an incentive to promote new
enterprise. And American capital, which some Indians mistakenlv
believed was greedily hovering to exploit them, just didn't care to
risk its money under hostile restrictions.
Indian production, which must expand if India is to be strong and if
her people are to live better, stood relatively still. Nehru's dream
of big projects—huge dams, vast hydroelectric stations, etc.—began to
fade. Last April the Prime Minister redefined his government's
attitude. He was much less doctrinaire. Foreign capital, he said,
would get "national treatment," that is, equal consideration with
Indian capital. A conference in an attempt to draft a U.S.-India
commercial treaty is still dragging along.
Credit Side. In spite of such disappointments Nehru and his Congress
Party can point to substantial achievements in two years of
independence.
Most impressive has been the halt of communal violence which ravaged
the country in 1947. During the hectic riot months Nehru toured the
bloody areas in a jeep, sometimes riding with Liaquat Ali Khan,
minister of Pakistan. At considerable risk, Nehru strode into
murderous mobs and quieted them. In one town Moslems told him that
Sikhs were plotting a massacre. Nehru went to the Sikh quarter,
rounded up the leaders, warned them. "If you harm one single hair on
the head of one Moslem. I will send in a tank and blast you to bits."
The shock of Gandhi's assassination sharply checked the communal
killing. Last week Moslems celebrated the festival of Bakr-'id without
molestation from Hindu fanatics. In tactfully concealed places, some
even practiced korbanji (sacrifice of cows), which used to inflame
Hindus more than anything else. Ironically, however, relations with
Pakistan have worsened, especially over the question of Kashmir, which
is Nehru's ancestral home and which he intends to hold by force
against Pakistan if need be.
After communal harmony came other gains—elimination of the princely
states, and legal abolition of untouchability (still a gesture on
paper since untouchability is deeply rooted in social and religious
mores). There are plans for land reform. Gandhi, who differed
profoundly from Nehru in this respect, distrusted the West's machine
culture. He wanted India to stay with a cottage handcraft economy, and
his symbol was the anachronistic spinning wheel. Nehru has
indefatigably encouraged scientific schools, persistently planned a
big industrial future. He is a lover of mechanical gadgets: the one he
delights in most is a transparent plastic phone, revealing the works
inside, on his Delhi desk. Of cottage industry. Nehru says: "Alter all
you can't build a locomotive in a cottage." Locomotives are very much
a part of the India of Nehru's dreams. Debit Side. The biggest failure
since independence has been the decline of the Congress Party. With
its historic mission of liberation achieved, the party has lost its
revolutionary elan. Its members, once dedicated to a national crusade,
now scramble for place and patronage, squabble for favors and
perquisites.
Throughout India there is widespread administrative corruption and
bumbling, especially in the provinces. Nepotism, an ancient Oriental
custom, reaches everywhere ; as an example in the highest place, the
Prime Minister's critics point to the elevation of his elder sister,
Mrs. Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, first to the ambassadorship in Moscow,
then in Washington.
Mrs. Pandit has a patrician approach. It was a little time, after she
arrived in Washington, before she discovered that she did not have
full access to the White House and would have to deal with the State
Department. Last week, asked by newsmen what her brother's visit might
do for Indo-American relations, she snapped back: "The Prime Minister
has not shared his mind with me, nor is it customary for a prime
minister who desires to have secret talks to discuss them with his
ambassador. And you can quote me on that.
"I sometimes think the American public doesn't understand very much
about diplomacy. These things are not discussed with ambassadors—and
they cannot be discussed with the press. And you can quote me on that,
too."
A Vital Force? Nehru has called for a Congress revitalization, but the
reaction has been sluggish. Able Sardar Valkbhbhai Patel, Deputy Prime
Minister and Nehru's strong right hand in administration and politics,
is too ill and old (74) to beat a new party drum. Some disillusioned
Congress followers have turned to the Socialist Party, which has just
begun an organizational drive in the villages. Many more, especially
from the inflation-harried middle class of clerical workers and small
merchants, are turning to the extremists.
The Communists, numerically weak and partially outlawed, are now
promoting underground terror and sabotage, agitating even in the jails
where Nehru and his Congress comrades once languished. On the far
right loom the Hindu chauvinists, the Hindu Mahasabha. Beside them,
noisier, more militant and dangerous, are the R.S.S. (Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh—literally, Organization for Service of the Nation).
They spawned Gandhi's assassin; they could still undo the communal
peace so painfully won.
Despite such political and ideological unrest, Nehru insists: "People
do not believe in 'isms.' They believe in their own individual
life . . . India is fundamentally stable because its peasants are
better off than before. Industrial workers are, in some cases, a
little better off and in some cases a little worse off. But, in any
case, not discontented. But the middle class is much worse off and
that is the danger to our stability."
Because it is far more to his taste than domestic politics or
economics, Nehru has kept the foreign affairs portfolio in his own
hands.
He has always cherished a sweeping vision of India in the vanguard of
an awakened Asia. He long has been in correspondence with other
Asiatic leaders. He met Mohamed Hatta, Indonesia's Premier, at an anti-
imperialist rally in Brussels 20 years ago, has been writing to him
ever since. He is a close friend and backer of Burma's Premier Thakin
Nu.
In the somber struggle between world freedom and world Communism,
Nehru has professed to see only a big power rivalry from which India
should stay aloof. In April 1948 he charted a "Third Force" course:
"We shall take care not to align ourselves with one group or
another ... remaining neutral on those [questions] not affecting us
directly . . . India obviously cannot join either of the two
blocs . . . What she desires is an understanding between Russia and
the U.S."
In his autobiography, written during the early '30s in British jails,
Nehru gave unstinted praise to the "great Lenin" and the "great new
[Soviet Russian] world." His sentiments may have changed since then.
He has come to deplore Communist methods. As Prime Minister, he has
sanctioned stiff police action against India's Reds, jailing hundreds
of them for terror and sabotage. He has (somewhat quaintly) denounced
Indian Reds as "the greatest enemy to the cause of Communism."
Outlook. This is how Nehru views specific areas of conflict in Asia:
China is lost to Communism. "The Nationalist government," says Nehru,
"had some good elements but also some bad ones. Its failure to get rid
of the bad elements was its downfall." Delhi will follow London's lead
in the matter of recognizing the Chinese Communist People's Republic.
Indo-China does not want the French, with or without former Emperor
Bao Dai. Nehru regards Bao Dai as a puppet of the French, and he would
rather take a reluctant chance on Communist Ho Chi Minh than back the
French. But, under British and American persuasion, Delhi is keeping
mum about Indo-China.
Indonesia must have independence.
Burma has shown governmental weakness because its democratic
leadership was liquidated. India has done all it can to strengthen
Thakin Nu's government.
Power & Persuasion. The overall answer to Asia's crisis, in Nehru's
view, is not an Asian alliance against Communism. Ideological and
military defense are not enough. The basic battle must be fought on
the economic and political front. Communism can be defeated only after
colonialism goes, and after the living standards of Asia's masses are
raised. This is where American abundance and generosity could come in.
Nehru recognizes the need for U.S. food, capital and technical aid in
India and elsewhere. It would not be wise to wait until Communism in
Southeast Asia reached the Chinese or Greek stage where it must be
fought with guns.
This week the U.S. seemed inclined to go a long way toward the support
of nationalism in Southeast Asia—provided it was not of the Red
variety. But the U.S. was dubious of Nehru's Third Force position, his
pan-Asiatic leanings, his inclination to see the U.S. and Russia as
equally bad imperialist powers. In Washington's view, the problem was
to persuade Jawaharlal Nehru that there was only one aggressive power
design in the world—the Communist—and everybody else was in the same
non-Communist boat.
"The real nub of this business," said one Washington hand last week,
"is for Nehru to see the country. If we are as good as we think we
are, he ought to like us for ourselves."
bademiyansubhanallah
IDEAS: Pandit's Mind
Monday, May. 07, 1951
One summer, a quarter of a century ago, streams of Hindu pilgrims came
for their annual ritual bath at the confluence of the holy rivers
Ganges and Jumna. The British authorities, noting that the currents
were dangerously fierce that year, forbade the ablutions, and erected
a high palisade to keep the pilgrims from the water. Thereupon
thousands of Hindus, disciples of Gandhi, squatted before the palisade
in the scorching sun, hour after nonviolent hour. Among them was a
young, Cambridge-educated Brahman named Jawaharlal Nehru. As he
recalls:
"I was fed up with sitting there. So I suggested to those sitting near
me that we might as well cross over the palisade, and I mounted it ...
Somebody gave me a national flag, and I stuck it on top of the
palisade, where I continued to sit."
This uncomfortable, prominent and median posture accurately describes
Jawaharlal Nehru's position in the world today.
A Disappointment. The legs-astride position of Prime Minister Nehru on
the vast fence that runs through the world is of considerable
importance to the U.S. If this great, learned and widely beloved man
swings a few inches either way—toward the democratic West or toward
Communism—his shift can sway the suspended minds of millions in India
and throughout Asia. The future of the democratic West depends in
large measure on whether it can succeed in winning the confidence and
friendship of the Asian peoples whom, until recently, it ruled.
Western policymakers have hoped that Nehru—a man with known Western
sympathies—is the Asian statesman who could lead a non-Communist Asia
into the Western camp.
Nehru has dashed these hopes.
He has told his countrymen and all Asians that the West is their
traditional enemy, and that the conflict between Communism and the
West is not their concern. Nehru has tried to persuade the U.S. that
it should end the Korean war by giving in to Chinese Communist
demands, including Peking's admission to U.N. In speeches, formal
notes, and through his ambassadors, Nehru has tirelessly urged his
proposals—and has denounced the U.S. for not accepting them. He has
also helped create, in Europe and in Asia, the mood known as
"neutralism."
Americans, on whose affairs and prospects the mind of Jawaharlal Nehru
thus has considerable influence, would like to understand that mind.
A Moralist. In many ways Nehru is a deeply appealing figure to
Americans. Some of them had a fleeting glimpse of him when he came to
the U.S. in 1949 and thought him mighty civil and handsome. No other
living Asian leader, with the exception of Chiang Kaishek, has fought
so doggedly for his country's aspirations. He is not the kind of man
who invites a slap on the back and a friendly "Hi, Pandit" (which,
according to Geoffrey Gorer, a studious misinterpreter of U.S.
folkways, is the only basis on which Americans really like anybody).
Nehru has said of himself that he failed to identify himself with the
unending procession of humanity, "and then I would separate myself
and, as from a hilltop, apart, look down at the valley below."
Nor are Americans able to warm completely to his rambling style of
speech and thought (he sounds at times like Eleanor Roosevelt, if she
had read more philosophy). He acts as a statesman, politician and
diplomat, but he often speaks as a moralist. Americans, who are far
more preoccupied with moral matters than Nehru would give them credit
for, are always willing to listen to a moralist.
What is Nehru saying? That bloodshed is evil; that force is self-
destructive; that love is the only real conqueror. He says there is
something wrong in a world that contains both poverty and technical
progress, the reality of war and the yearning for peace. He appeals to
everyone who thinks that it is probably sinful to be rich, and
certainly sinful to have the atom bomb. His central thesis is
Gandhi's: never compromise with evil, not even for the sake of
ultimate good.
Thus Nehru the moralist, to whose terrible truisms the only answer is
a shamefaced nod.
Now William Blake looks at us with all
the eyes of Asia, And it is not so; we are accused and
silenced.
But Nehru, at least to Western eyes, is no inscrutable, innocent
madman of integrity like William Blake. Why, then—Western minds would
like to know—doesn't Nehru the moralist make Nehru the leader hang his
head in shame? Perhaps he does; but the practical West, which must
deal with net results, is necessarily less concerned with Nehru the
paradox than with Nehru the politico.
Like millions of Indians who follow in his train, Nehru is a paradox.
He is not a typical Indian: he is a Westernized Oriental. Beatrice and
Sidney Webb, the godparents of Fabian Socialism, are in a truer sense
his creators than Vishnu and Siva.
An Agnostic. In religion, Nehru is a typical Western agnostic. In
politics, he is a Western liberal with Socialist leanings. The mind of
Jawaharlal Nehru (born 1889) came into consciousness during a quiet
period of Indian history. The great Mutiny of 1857 was only a rankling
memory, and the Indian National Congress, which was to become the
first instrument of liberation, was a polite assemblage in morning
coats. It was Western influence that made Nehru a nationalist.
Garibaldi was his hero long before Gandhi was. Nehru's family were
wealthy and progressive aristocrats; religion, to the men of his
house, was "a woman's affair."
Paradoxically, it was a Westerner who first brought Nehru to Hinduism:
his Irish tutor was a Theosophist, and such an influence that at the
age of 13 Nehru was inducted into the Theosophical Society by Mrs.
Annie Besant* in person.
Nehru's attitude toward religion has not basically changed. In later
years he would say (like any Westerner who admires the Bible "as
literature") that he did not understand or feel drawn to the Bhagavad
Gita, but "liked to read the verses."
He went to Harrow and Cambridge, where he acquired the old school tie
and what he himself called the "vague humanism" of the day. Nietzsche
was "all the rage," as were the prefaces of Bernard Shaw and the
sexual case histories of Krafft-Ebing. It was an age which considered
religion at best a polite convention and at worst, the opium of the
masses. Like his fellow liberals, Nehru believed that science would
solve all human problems.
Nehru acknowledges the human need for religious faith, but "the
spectacle of what is called religion . . . has filled me with
horror . . . Almost always it seems to stand for blind belief and
reaction, dogma and bigotry, superstition and exploitation, and the
preservation of vested interests." He acknowledges the mysteries of
existence with a polite bow: if the scientific method, the only sound
approach to life, does not cover all situations, man must "rely on
such other powers of apprehension as we may possess." He concedes that
"there might be a soul."
In one of his books Nehru revises Voltaire's famous sarcasm (if God
did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him): if God did exist,
it would be necessary not to worship Him.
A Socialist. Neither Nehru nor his followers are very clear about what
Nehru's Socialism involves. Nehru turned to Socialism as he turned to
champion the Boers, the Sinn Feiners, the Suffragettes, or Republican
Spain: because he has a heartfelt sympathy for the underdog. The
closest he has come to defining his idea of practical Socialism is a
"democratic commonwealth" with the key means of production owned by
the state, but much industry in private hands. This is what he has
striven for in India, but he has plainly agreed to postpone plans for
large-scale nationalization.
He shares all the Socialist's emotional tenets about the capitalist
order. In consequence, he has the Socialist's undisguised contempt for
capitalism, reinforced by the aristocratic Brahman's contempt for the
bania (shopkeeper) caste. He speaks of the "bania civilization of the
capitalist West," of the West's "cutthroat civilization." Utterly
unlike Gandhi, he admires modern production methods, and wants to
bring them to India (he has announced that India will in time develop
her own atomic energy program). But as a Socialist he believes that
capitalism, after its prodigies of production, is bound to make a
bloody and cruel mess of distribution. This view is based on the
standard British Socialist reading of 19th Century economic history.
His understanding of 20th Century American capitalism is negligible.
Of American history he has a fair textbook knowledge, and of the
American
Revolution he writes with polite admiration (though with none of the
enthusiasm he has lavished on the French and Russian Revolutions).
Again & again he has made the classic Socialist predictions about the
U.S. He wrote in 1933: "It is said there have been so many
[technological] improvements since 1929 in the U.S. that millions of
people who have been thrown out of work can never be employed, even if
the production of 1929 were to be kept up."* At the end of World War
II he wrote: "The vast technological changes that have taken place [in
the U.S.] will lead to very great overproduction or mass unemployment
or possibly to both . . . The U.S.A., the wealthiest . . . country in
the world, becomes dependent on other countries' absorbing its surplus
production."
Nehru equates U.S. capitalism with imperialism. He wrote: "[The
Americans] do not take the trouble to annex a country, as Britain
annexed India; all they are interested in is profit, and so they take
steps to control the wealth of the country ... A country may appear to
be free and independent if you consult geography or an atlas. But if
you will look behind the veil, you will find that it is in the grip of
another country, or rather of its bankers and big businessmen . . ."
When India got its independence, Nehru was braced to resist the
onslaught of rapacious U.S. business. When it did not come, he was
more chagrined than relieved. One of the reasons for his 1949 trip to
the U.S. was to interest American capital in India.
The Korean war surprised Nehru into another paradoxical position. At
first he approved, and applauded, U.N. (and U.S.) actions. Said he:
"These young men of the U.S. who are fighting and dying in Korea
certainly do not represent dollar imperialism." But once MacArthur's
men were across the 38th parallel, Nehru became more & more neutral
against the U.S.
Nehru has spoken admiringly of U.S. political democracy, but, as a
Socialist, he considers "economic democracy" (i.e., a state-enforced
minimum economic level) just as important. In Nehru's mind, the U.S.
and Soviet Russia come out just about even: "All the evils of a purely
political democracy are evident in the U.S.A.; the evils of the lack
of political democracy are present in the U.S.S.R."
What About Communism? Nehru is no Communist, no fellow traveler. He
has called Communism "unscrupulous" and condemned its violent methods.
He has firmly, even ruthlessly suppressed Communism inside India. But
he objects more to Communist methods than to Communist ideas. Said he:
the Indian Communists were "lunatics or utter idiots if they thought
that throwing a bomb here or burning a tramcar there could influence
millions of people." He admits a strong emotional attraction toward
Communism and the Soviet Union. More in sorrow than in anger, he has
spoken of the "excessive use of violence in normal times" in Russia,
but he also holds that Soviet Russia's "success or failure . . . does
not affect the soundness of the theory of Communism."
Nehru disapproves of the Russian tendency to seize other countries,
following the pattern of the Czars. Nevertheless, he professes to
believe that China's Mao Tsetung and Indo-China's Ho Chi Minh are
essentially national patriots; he denies that they are controlled by
Moscow. When Chinese Communist forces invaded Tibet (TIME, Nov. 6),
Nehru protested vigorously. But when Peking agreed to some Nehru
proposals for a peaceful Tibetan settlement, he seemed to feel
confirmed in his theory that the Chinese Communists will behave like
gentlemen if treated right.
When Nehru was a young politician, the Soviet Union was the world's
most vocal enemy of colonial imperialism. For years he accepted the
Communist proposition that imperialism and fascism were the same
thing. He completely refuses to admit that Soviet Russia has developed
a new imperialism compared to which Britain's regime in India, lathi
charges and all, was a riot of freedom. Nehru's great enemy today is
yesterday's imperialism. He still seems to believe that Europe's
waning colonial powers are a greater danger to Asia than the rising
might of Communism.
What About Gandhi? There is no doubt that Nehru's desire for peace is
deep and sincere. Yet his efforts for peace are what most perplex his
Western admirers. He has said: "The policy India has sought to pursue
is not a negative and neutral policy. It is a positive and vital
policy that flows from our struggle for freedom and from the teachings
of Mahatma Gandhi. How can . . . peace be preserved? Not by surrender
to aggression, nor by compromising with evil or injustice, but also
not by talking and preparing for war." In spite of this Gandhi-like
doctrine, Nehru's government has fought one successful war (against
Hyderabad) and maintains a large army, poised for fighting, in
Kashmir.
The key to this contradiction is the fact that Nehru has to govern
India, and Gandhi never did.
Nehru loved Gandhi and was loved by him. He followed all Gandhi's
commands in the battle for Indian freedom, and was designated by
Gandhi as his political heir. Yet Nehru was no true disciple of
Gandhi: he disagreed with Gandhi on most essentials, and often failed
to understand him. Nehru "could not take seriously" an idea which
Gandhi took very seriously: that India should eschew modern industry
and return to the culture of the spinning wheel. He disapproved of
Gandhi's preaching sexual continence; that, said the onetime student
of Krafft-Ebing, would lead straight to neuroses.
Gandhi held that materialism is sin. Nehru demurred: he is a
materialist himself. They disagreed on Socialism: the Mahatma
considered its doctrine based on the "belief in the essential
selfishness of human nature." Nehru felt the beauty of Gandhi's
ethics, but refused to accept the religious beliefs on which the
ethics were based. Nehru declared himself "repeatedly angry" with
Gandhi's emphasis on religion and mysticism.
Nehru accepted Gandhi's policy of nonviolence and ably helped carry it
out: he saw in it a magnificent and practical weapon against the
British. But he would never accept the moral principle underlying
nonviolence, i.e., that it is more blessed to be hit than to hit.
(Nehru has been known to get off a political platform to cuff unruly
listeners.)
Gandhi said affectionately of Nehru: "When I am gone he will begin
speaking my language." Since Gandhi's death Nehru has indeed tried to
speak Gandhi's language, but he has not acted by Gandhi's faith. He
says: "Protecting oneself, unfortunately, means relying on the armed
forces and the like, and so we build up, where necessity arises, our
defense apparatus. We cannot take the risk of not doing so, although
Mahatma Gandhi would have taken the risk, no doubt, and I dare not say
that he would have been wrong . . . But we are small folk and dare not
take that risk . . . [You] ask me what you are to do—if you are
slapped in the face, should you turn the other cheek, as Christ
said . . . ? The police force is not supposed to turn the other cheek
when it is slapped." Nehru, however, forgets this practical attitude
and tends to apply Gandhi's principles to Western preparedness or to
the U.N. action in Korea. Nehru is all for nonviolence—when it comes
to governments other than his own.
When Moslem tribesmen, apparently with Pakistan's sanction, raided
Kashmir in 1947, Nehru refused to turn the other cheek. He ordered the
Indian army to move and restore order. Cried he: "Aggression of every
type must be resisted." Since then, largely on legalistic grounds
which add up to a stubborn "They started it," Nehru has refused all
U.N. proposals to settle the Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan
(TIME, Nov. 10, 1947 et seq.).
Last year Nehru condemned the North Korean attack on the Korean
Republic, then refused to condemn the far larger attack by Communist
China. Nehru seems to feel that there is a kind of quantitative
morality about war: it is all right to fight a little war to stop a
little aggression, but it is wrong to fight a bigger war to stop a
bigger aggression. (This is the same kind of logic that considers one
atom bomb morally wrong and ten "conventional" bombs morally all
right.)
Too Little Force, Too Little Faith. How would Gandhi have reacted to
the Korean situation? He would certainly not have behaved as Nehru
has. For Gandhi never turned away from evil or denied its existence.
He fought evil in his own way, which was essentially to suffer rather
than to inflict suffering, to die by the sword rather than to kill
with the sword. Gandhi did not believe in unresisting meekness but in
non-violent resistance ("A rabbit that runs away from the bull terrier
is not particularly nonviolent").
Gandhi might well have denounced the Communists, as he denounced the
Nazis in World War II, but he would have called on the West to fight
them with non-violent weapons, as he suggested that the Nazis should
be fought. The West might not have been able, or fit, to follow that
advice, but the moral conflict would have been clear: a conflict
between a saint and worldly men. The conflict between Nehru and the
West is not a conflict between saintliness and worldliness, but
between two forms of worldliness—Nehru's neutralism masquerading as
otherworldliness. As one writer on India, Herrymon Maurer, has put it:
"[Nehru's] middle ground is the dangerous ground: it provides neither
enough faith nor enough force."
Nehru has said, in defense of Indian action in Kashmir: "Anyone knows
I hate war, but to talk complacently of peace when something worse
than war is possible is to be blind to facts." Yet he has denied the
West's right not to be blind to worldwide Communist aggression. In
short, in the biggest moral challenge of his day, Moralist Nehru has
declared his neutrality. As Maurer puts it: "Nehru typifies
intellectuals not only in India but in the West. Nehru's confusion is
their confusion. A very great deal of what is called pacifism or
tolerance or good will among
Western liberals consists of a refusal to identify evil."
Asia's hungry millions strain, and sway with tides of fear and longing
that no well-meaning intellectual can really represent or long
control. An accident of history has made Nehru, a half-Western
Oriental Socialist, the nominal spokesman for a continent in travail.
To the uneasy liberals of the West, Nehru represents conscience, a
constantly reproachful presence in an evil-ridden world—a world, they
thank Freud, they never made. But sooner or later conscience must act,
and often sooner than it likes; Nehru's privileged balancing act
cannot go on forever. The American way of life is not to be confused
with God's way—granted; but it is evident that the world is going
either in America's direction or in Russia's. Nehru will not admit
that hard historic choice, as far as Asia is concerned: Asia, he
cries, must go her own way.
The age is dominated by force—by ideas clothed in force: the Red army
of Communism v. the gathering might of the imperfectly democratic
West. To one or the other of these poles the whole world is compelled.
Nehru wants India, and Asia, to be let alone—not to be compelled in
either direction. But history is not interested in happy Socialist
endings, or in wistful fairy tales.
* Born Annie Wood, in London (1847), Mrs. Besant was a Suffragette, a
Fabian Socialist, a fighter for birth control and companionate mar
riage. When George Bernard Shaw took a brief romantic interest in her,
she drew up a "contract of cohabitation" which caused Shaw to beat a
hasty retreat. "Good God," he exclaimed, "this is worse than all the
vows of all the churches on earth! I had rather be legally married to
you ten times over!" She was converted to Theosophy (a watered-down
Western copy of Hinduism) while reviewing a book by its founder, Mme.
Blavatsky, went to India where she dressed in the native sari, became
the leader of the world wide Theosophist movement (present member
ship: 150,000). In 1909 she adopted a twelveyear- old Indian orphan
boy, Jiddu Krishnamurti, whom she declared to be a reincarnation of
Christ. Today, having renounced his divinity, he is an itinerant
lecturer on mystic subjects, some times known as "the messiah in plus
fours." In 1929 Mrs. Besant tried to start a Theosophist colony at her
Happy Valley ranch in California, to breed super-Americans. She said
the Califor nia climate favored such an experiment, but she eventually
gave it up. Like all Theosophists, she believed that she had several
bodies which helped her in her work. Before she died (she was burned
on a funeral pyre), Annie Besant said: "I shall return immediately in
a Hindu body, to continue the task of building a greater India."
* U.S. production today is almost twice what it was in 1929.
bademiyansubhanallah
CONFERENCES: Om-Om-Om-Om
Monday, May. 07, 1951
Yogis are, by definition, above earthly concerns, but last week 500 of
them convened in Delhi in a "spiritual parliament" to further world
peace. In the tented meeting ground by the Jumna River, teams of holy
men in two-hour shifts chanted the names of peaceable deities, and
sang hymns interspersed by frequent repetitions of the sacred word
"om"—that "mystic sound," according to one swami, "which vibrates and
makes luminous and radiant the inner and outer atmospheres." The
vibrations, the holy men hoped, would counteract war preparations the
world over. The holy men were generally optimistic, except gloomy
Swami Puroshottamanand. "I am sorry I ever left my cave," said the
swami, who had not ventured out in 26 years. "War is inevitable."
Most arresting of the peace conferees were 50 naked, ash-covered monks
of the Naga sect. At a great parade during which thousands of
enthusiastic Indians showered the holy men with petals and rose water,
the Nagas at first wore loincloths, obeying police orders against
nudity, but many soon discarded them. Explained Shivan Chidanand Gir,
leader of the Nagas, a college graduate and ex-army officer: "For us,
even the smallest shred of clothing hinders concentration and
meditation."
Gir had a specific suggestion for world peace: President Truman and
Generalissimo Stalin, he said, should meet in the nude to talk things
over—in a cave, or a holy city like Benares. The conference, said Gir,
should be held in an atmosphere of "I have nothing to hide from you."
Added Gir: "If the gentlemen have the vigor to accompany me, I will
gladly lead them to an excellent cave."
bademiyansubhanallah
DIPLOMACY: Accentuating the Negative
Monday, Jul. 30, 1956
For India's Jawaharlal Nehru and his doctrine of active neutrality,
the week started off brightly indeed. Fresh from the Commonwealth
Prime Ministers meeting in London, Nehru moved triumphantly across
Europe in what at times resembled a royal progress, wearing his
familiar brown tunic, white churidar trousers and the inevitable red
rose. Consulted at every turn with much the mixture of deference and
bewilderment once accorded the Delphic oracle, the Indian Prime
Minister reacted with a purr of self-satisfaction so audible that in
Hamburg (where he accepted two honorary degrees) he felt obliged to
explain. "When people ask me why I am so pleased with myself," said
he, "I tell them: because I have always done exactly what I wanted to
regardless of consequences."
Talking about the foreign affairs of others was in fact ideal for this
purpose; Nehru could say exactly what he wanted, and the consequences
were the responsibility of the others. In Bonn German Foreign Ministry
officials persuaded flinty old West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer
to be obliging to Nehru, though the Chancellor scorns Nehru's way of
thinking. Adenauer even went so far as to break his no-Sunday-
engagements rule in order to take Nehru on a cruise up the castled
Rhine. They met three times for four hours, and both stubborn men had
the honesty not to feign a friendship they did not feel. When newsmen
asked the Indian Prime Minister whether he accepted Bonn as the only
legitimate German government, he made a characteristically Delphic
response: "You want me to plunge headlong into the sea before I learn
to swim." Nor was Nehru prepared to give any assurance that India
would not some day recognize Communist East Germany, "I do not know
what future developments will bring," said he.
Plugs & Pressures. Chary as he was of words that might commit him,
Nehru was as usual generous with advice. In Bonn he urged his West
German hosts to seek reunification of Germany by "peaceful
negotiations." In a speech before the German Foreign Policy
Association at Königswinter he put in a vague plug for liberation of
Russia's East European satellites ("They are, of course, under a
certain domination . . . and I certainly believe they should be free")
and a firm one for Red China's admission to the U.N. ("What is the
good of calling a few people sitting on Formosa China?"). Then, moving
on to Paris, he strongly pressured French Premier Guy Mollet to
negotiate a cease-fire in Algeria. But when pressed for specific
suggestions, Nehru retreated to Delphi. "I am Foreign Minister of
India, not France or Algeria," he said.
At midweek Nehru joined Yugoslavia's Marshal Tito and Egypt's
President Nasser at Tito's pleasure dome on the Adriatic island of
Brioni. Here, where the ancient galleys and triremes of Rome once
anchored, and at a later date Mussolini played, were gathered three
unlikely bedfellows. THE MOST IMPORTANT POLITICAL CONFERENCE OF THE
POSTWAR WORLD headlined Cairo's Al Ahram. "These three peace men,"
said the captive Egyptian press, would bring sanity to a mad world,
and in this meeting of Europe, Asia and Africa would create a "Third
World Force." Tito too basked in the splendor of the moment.
But Jawaharlal Nehru would have none of it. Even before he reached
Brioni Nehru began to bill the conference as a casual meeting,
arranged only after he learned that by rare coincidence "Nasser also
would be traveling in Yugoslavia." And from the moment that Tito,
resplendent in a panama white linen suit, white shoes and black pocket
handkerchief, greeted him on Brioni's quay, Nehru was clearly
determined to let the wind out of the whole affair. At the end of the
first five-hour session, with Tito and Nasser standing sheepishly
silent, Nehru wearily chided the 120 newsmen who had assembled to
cover neutralism's shining hour. "It is really extraordinary," said
he, "that we cannot meet in a friendly way without you gentlemen
attaching the highest importance to it ... We have not settled all the
world's problems. Repeat not."
This statement was thoroughly confirmed by the joint communiqué issued
when the conference ended. With the exception of another demand for
Red China's admission to the U.N., a cautiously worded expression of
sympathy for "the desire of the people of Algeria for freedom," and a
kind word for "safeguarding legitimate economic interests" in the
Middle East, the communiqué carried little but vague platitudes of a
pronounced Nehrunian cast. "Points on which there could be no
agreement were just left out," explained one Indian diplomat. Tito, in
halting English, bade his guests goodbye. "Come soon back," he said.
Problem for a Nurse. On the last day of the Brioni conference the
U.S., in an astutely timed move to discourage the spread of
neutralism, coldly withdrew its offer to help Egypt finance
construction of the billion-dollar Aswan High Dam (see NATIONAL
AFFAIRS). Flying off to Cairo with the bruised Nasser, Nehru, the high
priest of neutralism, found himself at week's end playing nurse to a
new and noisy member of the family. It was doubtful, however, that
Nurse Nehru could offer 38-year-old Nasser much in the way of
consolation or even advice.
The difficulty with the diplomatic doctrine that Nehru likes to call
"nonalignment" is that it has no philosophic basis, no platform; it
can only respond. Since the positive objectives of its adherents vary
widely, neutralist powers, as Brioni proved, are rarely able to agree
on anything but negatives.
bademiyansubhanallah
INDIA: The Uncertain Bellwether
Monday, Jul. 30, 1956
In a Paris hotel one sunny morning in 1926, a serious-minded young
Hindu aristocrat took upon himself a delicate task. Resolutely he
squared his slim shoulders and summoned out onto the balcony his
younger sister, a lively 19-year-old who, under his watchful eye, was
getting her first taste of life in Europe. "Darling," he began, "you
go out alone with a lot of young men. That is as it should be, but I
hope you know all about everything—er, you know, er—I suppose every
girl must know, dash it all."
Politely, but in some confusion, the young man's sister informed him
that she had no idea what he was talking about. "But don't you
understand," he persisted, "that when a girl goes out with a boy alone
anything might happen?"
"What could happen?" asked the girl.
At this the young man lost his temper. "You are exceedingly stupid,"
he snapped. "If you don't know what I mean, well, let us leave it at
that and trust to God that nothing happens."
Compulsive Adviser. In the 30 years since that day in Paris, nothing
has shaken Jawaharlal Nehru's profound conviction that it is up to him
to set people straight on the facts of life. Incurable victim of what
he himself recognizes as a compulsion to give advice, India's Prime
Minister indefatigably ladles out instruction to family, friends, his
382 million countrymen and the world at large.
In the past decade entire nations have come to know the puzzlement and
irritation that Nehru's sister Krishna described in a Ladies' Home
Journal article last year. Nonetheless, in much of the world, anything
that Nehru has to say is listened to with respect and attention. This
is partly because Jawaharlal Nehru, whatever his faults, is an
impressive man and can be a charming one, but it is primarily because
he speaks in the name of an otherwise largely silent segment of mankind
—one-seventh of the human race.
The Humane Alternative. Not long ago U.S. Supreme Court Justice
William O. Douglas predicted that "the Big Six of the last half of the
20th century" would be Russia, China, Japan, Germany, the U.S.—and
India. Whether or not Douglas' prophecy is borne out, India is already
one of the world's pivotal powers, important less for demonstrated
strength or wisdom or stability than as a bellwether, however
uncertain of place and leadership, for the rest of Asia.
In Asia today there are 13 new nations, with a population of 635
million, which have won their independence during and since World War
II.* Against heavy odds they are desperately intent on gaining that
other fundamental element of modern power—an up-to-date industrial
economy. Obsessed by the desire to change from their primitive
agricultural present, Asians are powerfully attracted by the example
of the U.S.S.R., which since 1917 has transformed itself from a nation
of peasants into the world's second-greatest industrial power. The
price the U.S.S.R. paid—total suppression of human liberties and the
sacrifice of two generations of Russians—does not appall many Asians
as much as it does Westerners.
So far, only one significant challenge to the Soviet method has
appeared in Asia. That challenge is posed by India. Under the
leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru, India is striving to build a planned
industrial economy that will be made safe for democracy. In the
abstract, Nehru's humane alternative is clearly preferable to Asians,
but today's Asia is impatient and pragmatic. If India fails to make
rapid economic progress or even if her rate of economic growth lags
too far behind that of Red China, most of Asia, including India
itself, may succumb in time to the clanking siren song of Communism.
Jawaharlal Nehru works hard at the role of bellwether. He grows
furious when Western powers ("these people who try to run Asia without
us") refuse to accept India's judgment as the final word on Asian
problems. And under his leadership India has become a Mecca for the
increasing number of Asian nations whose foreign policies rest on the
twin foundations of "anticolonialism," i.e., anti-Westernism, and
"nonalignment," i.e., no commitment in the worldwide struggle between
Communism and freedom.
His partisans go further and claim that Nehru speaks for all Asia.
This is manifest nonsense. Nehru does not speak for Mao's China, for
Japan, for the Philippines, for Formosa, for Korea, for Thailand, for
North or South Viet Nam, for Afghanistan, for Pakistan. His influence
is principally felt in Ceylon, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Malaya and
Indonesia.
It is an influence that is often confused with views he does not
represent. In Nehru's name it is argued that Asians possess a
spirituality of nature that is superior to Western materialism. But
Nehru himself, admired as he is by many Hindus and Buddhists, holds to
no spiritual beliefs, and only last week in West Germany said: "As for
myself, I believe in no religion or dogma or faith." He berates the
world for its use of force, but he holds Kashmir by force; he talks of
the rights of people, but he denies Kashmir a plebiscite; he resents
the intrusions of other people in Indian affairs, but he is always
ready to intrude elsewhere.
Lost in the Desert Sands. Nehru's increasing influence in Southeast
Asia has been matched by a growing disenchantment with him in the U.S.
In the beginning, the U.S. greeted Indian independence in 1947 with
pleasure. Thoreau and Jefferson, cried the cheerleaders, had inspired
India's rebels. Nehru, said Pundit Walter Lippmann, is "certainly the
greatest figure in Asia."
What finally and perhaps irrevocably ended unquestioning U.S.
admiration of India was India's role in the Korean war, where Nehru
showed himself neutral in favor of Communist China, which he fears as
he does not fear the U.S. It was possible to understand Indian
neutrality during the fighting. It was all but impossible to forgive
the fact that as the pivotal member of the Korean Armistice
Commission, India, at Nehru's personal insistence, abandoned the
traditional impartiality of neutral arbiters. In an apparent attempt
to win the confidence of Mao Tse-tung, it tried to force 22,500 anti-
Communist Chinese P.W.s to return to Red China.
"Has the clear mountain flood of [Gandhi's] spiritual influence . . .
lost itself in the desert sands of Nehru's day?" demanded Vermont's
Republican Senator Ralph Flanders. Today U.S. views range from Justice
Douglas' conviction that Nehru is "the most effective opponent of
Communism in Asia" to A.F.L.-C.I.O. President George Meany's belief
that Nehru is an aide and ally of Communist imperialism—"in fact and
in effect, if not in diplomatic verbiage."
The most audible American voice on Indian affairs, onetime U.S.
Ambassador Chester Bowles, sometimes sounds as if the chief object of
U.S. foreign and domestic policy should be to make the U.S. over to
something Nehru would find acceptable. Somewhere beyond this is a
view, often expressed on the clubwomen's circuit, that if only Nehru
knew Americans better he would understand them. The difficulty with
this notion is that Nehru himself knows all he wants to know about the
U.S. and understands what he wants to understand about the U.S. It is
bootless to measure Nehru as a friend of the U.S., which he is not
particularly. Nor does he ask to be so measured.
The Doer. Officially, Jawaharlal Nehru is not only India's Prime
Minister but Foreign Minister and Minister of Atomic Energy as well.
Unofficially, he is India's chief planner, chief policymaker, chief
reformer and universal straw boss. Proud of his command of English
(developed at Harrow and Cambridge), Nehru will sign no letter
prepared by anyone else, and he personally dictates the great bulk of
cables going to Indian ambassadors abroad. His Cabinet ministers have
long since become accustomed to being awakened in the middle of the
night by "urgent" Nehru messages complaining about an unpainted
government housing project or a trash can that sits too far out in a
road. Nehru, complains one close acquaintance, "often has the feeling
that if he can't get to an issue it might just as well not be done."
All hands agree, however, that for a man of 66 India's Prime Minister
manages to get to an amazing number of issues.
Nehru starts off each day at New Delhi at 6:15 in the morning with 20
minutes of yoga exercises that invariably include a few headstands
("Standing on my head increases my good humor"). By 7:45 he has
showered, scanned Delhi's English-language papers, and is in his teak-
lined study reading cables from his ambassadors and signing
correspondence that he dictated the night before. (Two three-secretary
shifts work a total of 19 hours a day, handling his home dictation.)
Promptly at 8:30, after a three-minute breakfast with Daughter Indira
and her two sons, Nehru moves into the big, carpeted living room of
his 20-room house, once the residence of the chief of staff of the
British Indian army. Here, waiting his arrival, there is always an
assemblage of petitioners, laborers, peasants and refugees, some of
whom have walked in from as far as 200 miles away to state their
grievances to Nehru personally. The Prime Minister talks with each,
often dictates on the spot a letter to appropriate officials.
In Parliament Nehru resembles nothing so much as a crotchety
schoolmaster leading a class discussion. He constantly pops up to
interrupt, discourses firmly on everything from the evils of too many
cocktail parties to what kind of clothing M.P.s should wear. Often
these casual expressions of personal opinion determine national
policies. One such statement resulted in the banning in India of films
that show Africans in a "degrading light,"' e.g., as bearers on
safari. Another killed a widely supported proposal to put a $5,000
ceiling on personal income in India.
Opium of the Masses. Jawaharlal Nehru, however, is far more than just
a political boss. In the Indian mystique he is a national symbol,
almost the embodiment of India, and he receives from his countrymen
probably more unbounded and unabashed hero worship than any other
national leader in the world.
Ostensibly this disgusts Nehru. He knocks away people who try to kiss
his feet, swings his ivory-tipped, teakwood swagger stick at crowds
which come too close. Yet, like Antaeus touching earth, he seeks out
crowds, often giving as many as ten speeches a week when he is in New
Delhi, and many more when he is traveling.
The performance is almost always the same. As Nehru steps out of his
black Cadillac and climbs onto the speaker's platform, he is
approached by women bearing wreaths. He allows one wreath to be placed
around his neck, but a second later abruptly jerks it off and throws
it on a table. With patent impatience he fiddles with the microphones
before him, readjusting their height and position. Finally the speech
begins. It is made without notes and sounds less like a political
address than a passage from a stream-of-consciousness novel. Almost
invariably, it will include sharp attacks on some of India's most
cherished beliefs—Hinduism ("a religion that enslaves you") or
astrology ("silly nonsense"). Sometimes, with all the outrage of an
Englishman or American whose patience has been tried beyond endurance
by Indian backwardness and inefficiency, Nehru verbally assaults the
crowd itself. "You are a people of cow-dung mentality, living in a cow-
dung world," he bawled at one group early this year.
None of this, nor the fact that many do not even know the language he
addresses them in, bothers his audience. They have come not to hear
Nehru but for darshan, the spiritual impact of being in the presence
of a great personality. When the speech is over, the crowd cheers, and
amidst the applause Nehru bounds down from the platform, smiling at
everyone, his irritability gone. "Nehru," says one American familiar
with these spectacles, "is the opium of the Indian masses—and they are
his."
The English Heritage. Yet a great gulf separates Nehru from the Indian
masses —a gulf inherent in Nehru's origin and widened by his English
education. Nehru's father, Motilal Nehru, was a wealthy lawyer.
Determined to give his only son an English gentleman's education,
Motilal put him in the hands of an Irish tutor, Ferdinand Brooks.
Under Brooks's guidance, Jawaharlal ranged widely through English
literature, one of his favorite authors being that apostle of the
white man's burden, Rudyard Kipling.
The Enduring Marks. At 15, Nehru was sent to Harrow. "I well
remember," he wrote in his autobiography, "that when the time came to
part [from Harrow], tears came to my eyes." Moving on to Cambridge,
where he specialized in chemistry, botany and geology, Nehru along
with many of his British contemporaries acquired a faith in science as
the universal nostrum. "Those were the days," recalls one of Nehru's
English friends, "when Socialism was a pretty vague thing. Earnest
young men at Oxford and Cambridge talked ethics, politics and
economics in the same breath, without knowing exactly what they
wanted."
This schoolboy's vision of scientifically organized socialist society,
based essentially on an esthetic distaste for poverty and an
aristocratic contempt for "shopkeepers." was made to order for a
Harrovian Brahman, and it was one of the enduring marks which Nehru
bore when he returned to India in 1912. "Do what I will," he admitted
years later, "I cannot get out of the habits of mind and the standards
and ways of judging other countries, as well as life generally, which
I acquired in school and college in England."
Nehru's English patina, however, was deceptive. "Behind me," he wrote
years after his return from Britain, "lie somewhere the subconscious
racial memories of a hundred generations of Brahmans." Behind him,
too, were conscious memories of hearing since childhood of the
"overbearing character and insulting manner of English people . . .
toward Indians." Those memories made him a champion of the underdog
and filled him with his own intense brand of racial prejudice. "I try
to be impartial and objective," he noted in his autobiography, "but
the Asiatic in me influences my judgment whenever an Asiatic people
are concerned."
The Discovery of India. For a few years after his return to India, the
rebel in Nehru was submerged in the English gentleman. He settled down
in Allahabad, married a suitable Kashmiri Brahman girl (chosen by his
father) and practiced law in desultory fashion. But before long,
boredom and the rising tide of Indian nationalism swept him into the
revolutionary politics of the Indian National Congress Party. And once
he met Gandhi, the die was cast. Two men more diverse than Nehru and
the frail little Mahatma could hardly be imagined. Devoted to the
scientific socialism of the tractor and the big machine, Nehru could
scarcely comprehend the distrust of machine civilization which Gandhi
symbolized with his home spinning wheel, and he was outraged when
Gandhi proclaimed a disastrous earthquake to be divine punishment for
India's moral imperfections.
Following Gandhi cost Nehru dear. He spent 14 years in British
prisons. His wife Kamala and his father, both of whom joined the
independence movement under his influence, died after repeated
imprisonments. Nonetheless, it was the fight for independence that
focused Nehru's talents and made him a man of destiny. Through it, he
discovered peasant India and the fact that, somehow or other, he could
manipulate its soul. And it was primarily for this skill that Gandhi,
who may have been a saint but was above all a shrewd politician, named
Nehru heir to the leadership of India.
Problems of Power. It was in most respects an appalling heritage. When
independence finally came, and Nehru took the reins of power, it
scarcely seemed as if he had even the raw material for a nation. The
people with whom he had to work were among the world's poorest and
most backward. Even today 325 million Indians (85% of the population)
are illiterate, and their per capita income is only $57 a year (v. $49
in China, $143 in Japan). Some 68 million—the equivalent of the total
U.S. labor force—are unemployed. In summer in 120° heat, millions of
city workers go without water because they cannot afford to buy it at
one-fifth of a cent a glass. In Calcutta (pop. 2,568,000) it is still
cheaper to hire a man or a boy to pull a cart than to hire a bullock,
and thousands of people sleep on the streets every night.
There were also immense problems of diversity and disunity. Indians
speak some 200 dialects, including 14 distinct major languages.
India's teeming masses are bedeviled by almost every form of
intolerance known to man. The mutual religious antipathy between
Hindus (303 million), Moslems (35.4 million) and Sikhs (6.2 million)
is always close to the boiling point. The nation's 50 million
untouchables suffer from caste discrimination, resting, in the words
of an Indian government official, on "prejudices deeper than the one
against Negroes in the U.S." The 26 million ebony-colored Tamils claim
that fair-skinned northerners (like Nehru) persecute them because of
their color.
Armageddon Postponed. In the first year of India's life, it seemed as
though religious hatred by itself would tear the nation apart. Hindus,
Sikhs and Moslems battled all over India in an orgy of violence which
claimed up to half a million lives. Somehow, through the public shock
of Gandhi's assassination and by the determined use of power, the
slaughter was finally checked. Nehru could at last turn his attention
to other problems. He and his government forced through laws
forbidding social and religious discrimination against untouchables.
They incorporated into free India 552 princely states which the
British had allowed to fester in medi eval autonomy. They held free
elections—the world's largest—and by a mixture of force and political
guile staved off Communist Party bids to win control of provincial
governments.
As a solution to the nation's economic problems, Nehru advanced what
he vaguely called "a socialist pattern of society."
This involved a certain amount of nationalization (insurance, some
banks, transport, armaments), but primarily Nehru sought to expand the
government's role in the Indian economy, not by taking over
established industries but by developing new ones. Taking a leaf from
the Russian book, India went in for five-year plans. Between 1951 and
1956 the first five-year plan pumped about $5 billion into India's
economy, mostly in the form of irrigation and agricultural projects.
The second plan, announced last May, calls for an outlay of $15
billion on increased industrial plant, a prime objective being to
triple India's steel production. To achieve this, Nehru, to the great
relief of India's businessmen, took pains to make it clear that the
Armageddon of private industry in India was still some way off. "Why,"
asked he recently, "should we fritter away our energy pushing out
someone who is doing a job in the private sector?" Nehru's
reassurances, however, have yet to overcome the wariness of U.S.
private enterprises whose investment in India at the end of 1954
totaled only $92 million.
Danger from Within. So far, the results of Nehru's ambitious programs
have been spotty. Legally, untouchables are now entitled to eat in the
same restaurants as their higher-caste countrymen, but all over
Saurashtra state near Bombay a few weeks ago, restaurants in which
district magistrates had entertained untouchables were being picketed.
Legally, Moslems and Hindus are co-equal citizens of India, but in Old
Delhi last month Hindus were tossing homemade bombs at Moslem
shopkeepers. Even more questionable were the results of the first five-
year plan. Superficially, the plan achieved its most important goal,
boosting the nation's food production by 18%. But it did not reduce
unemployment and failed to increase per capita income significantly.
(Because of price increases, per capita purchasing power actually
dropped 5% between 1952 and 1955.) Much of the extra food went unsold
because the people who needed it were not able to buy it. The
dedicated efforts of civil servants and planners are largely
frustrated by India's birth rate. The population increases at the rate
of 5,000,000 a year.
On at least one crucial issue Nehru has clearly lost ground: his
attempt to overcome the fragmentary force of local linguistic loyalty.
In 1953 an old Gandhi disciple named Pod Sriramulu began to agitate
for a separate state for the 33 million Indians who speak Telugu. When
Sriramulu died while fasting for the cause, his Telugu followers,
whipped to a frenzy, began to riot. Nehru, shocked by this violence,
bowed and agreed to the establishment of the Telugu-speaking state of
Andhra. Emboldened, other language groups began to press their claims.
The latest of these agitations were last January's Bombay riots, which
killed 250 people. Deeply troubled by the linguistic riots, Nehru
nowadays believes that "disunity is our greatest enemy."
If this upsurge of regionalism continues, it is likely to have ominous
consequences for India. Perhaps the only thing that could prevent so
disruptive a force from reducing the central government to impotence
is a leader with nationwide appeal and moral authority. Since Gandhi's
death, India has been left with only one man of such stature—Nehru
himself.
The Possible Caesar. An article in an Indian magazine, the Modern
Review, written in 1936, described Nehru in this fashion: "Men like
Jawaharlal, with all their capacity for great and good work, are
unsafe in a democracy. He calls himself a democrat and a socialist,
and no doubt he does so in all earnestness, but every psychologist
knows that the mind is ultimately slave to the heart . . . Jawahar has
all the makings of a dictator in him—vast popularity, a strong will,
ability, hardness, an intolerance for others and a certain contempt
for the weak and inefficient... Is it not possible that Jawahar might
fancy himself as a Caesar?"
Years later the anonymous author of this trenchant judgment announced
his identity. It was Nehru himself. Today Nehru is very close to being
Caesar. Critics complain that his Cabinet consists not of ministers
but of courtiers like the mercurial former U.N. delegate Krishna
Menon, who is almost as unpopular in India as in the U.S. They charge,
too, that Nehru's personal interference in every detail of government
has sapped the initiative of his subordinates and prevented the
emergence of potential national leaders.
When he becomes bored or frustrated by domestic affairs, Nehru
frequently flees to the greener fields of foreign policy, where the
unpleasant consequences of irresponsibility are generally slower to
appear. As Nehru himself sees it, India's foreign policy is based on
two rational and respectable principles: self-interest and hatred of
colonialism (which in Indian terms means domination of colored people
by white people; subjugation of whites by other whites is irrelevant).
To outsiders, however, Indian policy seems to be heavily influenced by
a number of purely emotional considerations personal to Nehru.
Indian policy toward Russia is affected to an incalculable degree by
the fact that, like many another old Fabian Socialist, Nehru has never
been quite able to get over the exultation he felt in 1917 when the
Russian Revolution opened up a "Socialist" era in history. To an
equally incalculable degree, India's policy toward the U.S. is
affected by Nehru's upper-class Edwardian English contempt for the
U.S. as a nation of "vulgar" people who talk about money. To a highly
measurable degree, India's behavior toward any power is affected by
the extent to which that power feeds Nehru's vanity by seeking his
advice on Asian affairs. The British, Russians and Chinese do, and
Nehru forgives them even when he disapproves of their actions. The
U.S. does not, and Nehru is openly elated by each U.S. discomfiture in
Asia.
Essentially Right. The start of his serious animosity toward the U.S.
came in 1954 when the U.S. agreed to supply arms to Pakistan—the only
nation India regards as an enemy. To Nehru, this was bringing the cold
war to India's door. He was also discomfited by Red China's seizure of
Tibet, just across his northern border, but has been noticeably
quieter about that. At the Bandung Conference last year, Nehru led the
fight against inclusion of any denunciation of Communist imperialism
in the official communiqués. Early this year during the Bulganin-
Khrushchev visit to India, he listened unprotestingly while the
Russian leaders vilified the U.S. and other Western powers. In private
conversation later, an acquaintance expressed dismay at the Russian
falsifications, and Nehru replied blandly, "After all, they were
essentially right."
The cast of mind that made possible such a remark (as well as the B. &
K. visit) has helped to create in India an ideological climate which
may in time constitute Nehru's one great disservice to his country.
Russian aid to India, which so far has consisted chiefly of a promise
to build a 1,000,000-ton steel plant on an $80 million-$95 million
loan, has been received with a fanfare of publicity. U.S. loans and
gifts, which during the first five-year plan amounted to $538 million,
have been accepted grudgingly. The posters everywhere greeting B. & K.
with "India and Russia are brothers" were Nehru's doing. By this kind
of "impartiality" Nehru has not only instilled in many Indians a deep
suspicion of the .U.S., but has also failed to alert his people to the
danger of Soviet imperialism. Simultaneously, he has aroused in much
of the U.S. Congress and population an almost irresistible desire to
cut off aid to India and leave her to her own devices. This is the
more regrettable since many Americans have long felt a deep sympathy
for India and Indians, and in the end, U.S. policy hopes for India
only what India hopes for itself: that it be healthy and free.
The Measuring Rod. History has not yet balanced its books on
Jawaharlal Nehru. If, despite his Caesarism and his ill-conceived
sponsorship of Bulganin and Khrushchev, India survives as a unified
nation without going Communist, Nehru's vanities and eccentricities
will become merely a playground for biographers. Even his role in
international affairs will seem neither so mischievous as his critics
now think, nor so important as his admirers believe. History may not
judge Nehru by his foreign policy, which, because it is essentially
negative, may loom less large as time goes by.
It will give him high marks for doing as much as he has to lessen his
people's poverty, cure their diseases, school them and make a nation
of them. It will recognize, too, that Nehru, like China's Sun Yat-sen
and Turkey's Kemal Ataturk, has had a difficult and frustrating role
to .play in bringing his people into democratic nationhood under
tutelage. In these pursuits, Jawaharlal Nehru has his high place, even
though he will not be an ally, and is not particularly a friend.
* Not including the Philippine Republic, to which the U.S., on March
24, 1934, promised independence ten years after inauguration of the
Philippine commonwealth government. The Philippines became an
independent nation on July 4, 1946, exactly on the date promised.
chhotemianinshallah
INDIA: The Shade of the Big Banyan
Monday, Dec. 14, 1959
(See Cover)
Astride shaggy ponies, a file of 24 Indian border police moved
carefully along a mountain valley high in the Himalayas. Late in the
afternoon, at a spot 45 miles from the Tibetan frontier, one of the
policemen pointed out several wood and dirt bunkers built into the
hillside 500 ft. above them. Suddenly, the thin, cold mountain air
crackled with the discharge of rifles, hand grenades and 2-in.
mortars. Scrambling from their rearing ponies, the Indians unslung
their .303 rifles and returned the fire. But they were hopelessly
trapped: the barren terrain lacked trees or boulders to give them
cover, and they were being raked by crossfire. Only five Indians
escaped. Nine were killed and ten wounded by the Red Chinese troops
who had staged the ambush.
This murderous skirmish last October in the windswept wastes of Ladakh
province may have done more than anything else to bring Asia to what
Jawaharlal Nehru calls "one of those peak events in history when a
plunge has to be taken in some direction." The gunfire in Ladakh
echoed through India. Instead of shouts of "Hindi Chini Bhai
Bhai!" (India and China are brothers). New Delhi's streets resounded
with the clamor, "Give us arms! We will go to Ladakh!" The Red Chinese
embassy was stoned, the All-India Students' Congress called for a
"Throw Back the Aggressors Day," and India's Defense Minister made a
radio appeal for volunteers for the Territorial Army. Even the
normally pro-Communist weekly Blitz headlined: GIVE THE CHINESE A
BLOODY NOSE.
India felt both angry and alone. The ruthlessness of Red China's
behavior made a wreckage of some cherished convictions. There was no
longer confidence that 1) Asian solidarity, created at the Bandung
Conference, would outlaw the use of force, 2) Indian neutrality and
nonalignment with "military blocs" would gradually lead the Communist
and non-Communist worlds to mutual understanding, 3) the repeated
pledges of "peaceful coexistence" by Peking meant that Red China was
worthy of joining the U.N. The national disillusionment was so great
that even Prime Minister Nehru took off his rose-colored glasses,
looked hard at his giant neighbor to the north, and told the Indian
Parliament: "I doubt if there is any country in the world that cares
less for peace than China today."
Threatened by a war it was not prepared for, India this week looked
forward eagerly to the arrival of touring President Dwight Eisenhower.
Indians appreciated the fact that of the eleven countries Ike is
visiting, he will spend more time in India—four days—than in any of
the others.
Reconciliation. No longer do Americans in India find themselves
subjected to the special brand of Indian inquisition that used to
feature a series of needling questions: Why does the U.S. back
dictators like Chiang Kai-shek and Franco? Why does the U.S. arm
Pakistan, India's obvious enemy? Why are Negroes oppressed in the
South? Last month, when quietly competent U.S. Ambassador Ellsworth
Bunker addressed the first session of the newly formed Indo-American
Society in rambunctious, left-wing Calcutta (where Eisenhower was
burned in effigy in 1956), he was astonished to find that it had
already a thousand dues-paying members. Eleven months ago a poll in
Madras, asking which "Europeans" were most preferred by Indians, was
won by the British with 80%. A similar poll last month found Britain
and the U.S. split fifty-fifty.
India and the U.S., so very different—one with the highest per capita
income in the world, the other with very nearly the lowest—so long at
odds in foreign policy, now find themselves accenting what they have
in common: they are the world's two largest democracies. Both threw
off British rule. In Gandhi and in Lincoln, each has a national hero
whose qualities of charity, compassion and gentleness both nations
revere. U.S. aid to India, once grudgingly given and grudgingly
received, has accelerated rapidly of late, is now past the $2 billion
mark. As Indians get over their new-nation sensitivity about needing
economic help, some even recognize the justice of the U.S. desire to
see that the money is prudently spent.
In turn, Americans are outgrowing the compulsion to lecture Indians
endlessly and to demand profuse gratitude for favors given. Wrote an
Indian editor: "Americans have conducted themselves with an unusual
dignity over India's breach with China. They have successfully
resisted the temptation of crowing—at least in public—over the
fulfillment of their earlier warnings that we were playing with fire
in wooing the Chinese. What Americans had not been able to achieve by
the expenditure of millions of dollars —seen and unseen—has been
accomplished for them at one stroke by Chinese folly."
In this atmosphere of unparalleled good will, Dwight Eisenhower will
this week get his first look at India. What manner of country is it?
Haze of Heat. The land is vast and cruel, running some 2,000 miles
from the icy peaks of the Himalayas, in the heart of central Asia,
down to the steaming jungles of Cape Comorin, on the Indian Ocean. In
summer, wrote Rudyard Kipling, there is "neither sky, sun, nor
horizon. Nothing but a brown-purple haze of heat. It is as though the
earth were dying of apoplexy." During this furnace season, millions of
Indian villagers lie gasping in their mud huts; wells dry up and
fields blow away. When the monsoon rains come in the fall, the
torrential downpours drown the arid land in surging floods. Only in
the winter months does India appear comfortably livable and nature
kind.
India is a land where yesterday is more visible than tomorrow, where
millions still follow the style of dress, architecture and behavior to
be seen in the ruins and sculptures of Mohenjo-daro, a city of the
Indus Valley that nourished and died 4,000 years ago. Yet next door to
the oxcart and the primitive wooden plow lies an India as modern as
Pittsburgh, with belching smoke by day and glaring fire by night.
In this land of paradox, Indian civil airline pilots fly more than 25
million domestic miles a year and jet fighters are being built in
Indian factories by Indian workmen. Yet not long ago, when a plane
landed for the first time in a district of northern India, peasants
tried to feed it hay. The old ways die hard: recently a Westernized
and highly educated dean of an Indian law school kept postponing his
flight to the U.S. until an auspicious date was selected for him by
his astrologer.
On his four-day India visit, Dwight Eisenhower will go to Agra to see
the moonlit mirage of the 17th century Taj Mahal; in New Delhi, he
will sleep in another reminder of India's past—the gigantic pink
sandstone President's House, which used to be the palace of the
British Viceroy. Today's India prefers different monuments: bustling
factories that turn out locomotives and toothbrushes, diesel engines
and radio sets. For all its look of the past, the ambitious young
republic is forging ahead in atomic energy, quadrupling its steel
capacity in a few years' time, rushing to completion a vast network of
irrigation canals and hydroelectric plants.
India's future hopes and fears both center on the immensity of its
population—415 million people. India's population, second only to Red
China's, is greater than all of South America, Africa and Australia
put together. Indians speak more than 700 languages or dialects and
belong to at least seven distinct racial types, from the tall,
leathery, light-eyed Punjabi of the north to the frail, black-skinned
Tamil of the south. Most of India's millions are underfed, badly
housed and racked by disease. The average life expectancy of an Indian
at birth is 32 years and five months. Hundreds of thousands are
homeless, and live, make love, sleep and die on city sidewalks, or in
and around railway stations. Food that might sustain them is casually
devoured by more than 50 million monkeys and some 50 million cattle
roaming unchecked through the land. In the midst of poverty, there are
polo-playing maharajahs who are among the world's richest men. And
there are Indian millionaires who religiously feed ants to show their
reverence for life, and lavish their charity not on hospitals or
schools but on retirement farms for aging sacred cows. An estimated
7,000,000 Indians are unemployed; many millions more get work only
sporadically. India's food production is at last gaining, but it has a
hard time keeping up with the Indian birth rate, which is also
increasing. Every day 28,400 new Indians are born.
There are other brakes on progress: the rigidly entrenched caste
system, the antipathy of the educated toward manual labor, the
8,000,000 wandering sadhus or holy men (80% reputed to be frauds) who
live in idleness. These and the leaden weight of superstition and
ignorance make of Indian life, in Nehru's despairing words, "a
sluggish stream, living in the past, moving slowly through the
accumulations of dead centuries."
Fourteen Hours. Faced with these problems, most Indians beg for time
that may not be available. India has been independent only twelve
years, they say, and already the inequities of the caste system have
been abolished—at least by law if not in practice. The sacredness of
cows and the dark night of ignorance will give way, too, they insist,
if slowly. But help must come from abroad, and ways and means of
rechanneling the stream of Indian life will certainly be discussed
this week by Eisenhower and Prime Minister Nehru.
The two men know, like and respect each other. They first met in 1949
when Ike, as president of Columbia University, awarded an honorary
degree to Nehru, who was making his first visit to the U.S. After
Eisenhower moved on to the presidency of the U.S., Nehru's private
comments about him were not always flattering. Though recognizing
Ike's inherent goodness, Nehru nevertheless thought him a weak leader,
dominated by the "negative" foreign policy of John Foster Dulles.
They became better acquainted in 1956 on Nehru's second trip to the
U.S., soon after Hungary and Suez had erupted into the headlines.
Spending a day at Ike's Gettysburg farm, the two began talking at
breakfast, continued through the morning until lunch. Then after a
short nap, the talks went on through the late afternoon, dinner and
evening—a total of 14 hours. It was, said Nehru, the longest sustained
conversation he has ever had with anyone, and it touched on subjects
ranging from the painting of Grandma Moses to the personality of
Nikita Khrushchev.
Flat & Stale. Nehru as a man is as contradictory as India as a nation.
Still slender, handsome and energetic at 70, he looks taller than his
5 ft. 8 in., works 17 hours a day year in and year out, and has had
only a six-week vacation from his job since 1947. Personally
fastidious, from the fresh rosebud in his buttonhole each morning to
the silken handkerchief tucked into his right sleeve, he is most at
home with India's teeming, untidy millions. An agnostic who "is not
interested in religion," he is leader of one of the world's most
religious peoples; he is a socialist with a built-in antipathy to
capitalism, but most of his governing colleagues are conservative
businessmen; often so irritable that he will explode with anger at a
misplaced teacup, Nehru endured more than ten years of imprisonment by
the British with equanimity and aplomb.
Under Nehru, India has had generally sound government, a stable
currency and a working democracy through its years of independence.
The press is free, the restraints of free speech and assembly are
minimal. Forty million Indians attend school and college, and the
number is to be doubled in five years. If any one man can claim the
credit, it is Nehru, and all Indians know it. Scarcely anyone now
remembers the 1947 warning of Sir Winston Churchill that "we are
turning over India to men of straw, like the caste Hindu, Mr, Nehru,
of whom, in a few years, no trace will remain."
Churchill was wrong, and Nehru remains today what he was twelve years
ago: the biggest man in India. But at a considerable cost to the
nation and himself. Last year Nehru told newsmen that he was feeling
"flat and stale," and wanted to retire as Prime Minister. He was
ravaged by the ceaseless struggle to get things done in the timeless,
bottomless morass of India. Food production is still at the mercy of
the nation's cycles of flood and drought. Huge, multipurpose economic
projects start out magnificently and then gradually fall farther and
farther behind schedule. The second five-year plan had to be abruptly
cut back because it was creating a profitless drain on foreign
exchange. "We are riding the tiger of industrialization and can't get
off," said Finance Minister T. T. Krishnamachari. Severe restrictions
on imports, and new taxes on wealth and expenditures wrung outraged
cries from the business community. There were strikes and food riots
from Calcutta to Madras.
Some of India's difficulties can be laid at Nehru's door. He has
tried, on occasion, to translate into action his vague and intensely
personal theories about socialism, e.g., his plan to spread farm
cooperatives across the land. Snapped the Indian Express: "This is not
economic realism; this is economic rubbish." Even socialist leaders
such as Asoka Mehta complain that for ten years India has been plagued
by socialist slogans, "and what have we got? Nothing." Seemingly, the
only purpose the slogans and all the patronizing remarks about "the
private sector" have served is to frighten away foreign investors.
The Asset. As a result of these and other troubles, Nehru's petulance
and quick temper flared more and more frequently. He railed against
the ingrained Indian habits of inefficiency, tardiness and cheerful
anarchy. He stormed at the prevalence of holidays, cows and fraudulent
holy men, yet did nothing about them. He pleaded with his colleagues
in the governing Congress Party to abandon red tape, corruption and
nepotism; they listened, and went back to their old ways.
Nehru grew increasingly waspish to reporters and his own subordinates,
and could not stand being contradicted. He angrily insisted that he
had to do everything himself or it would not be done, and he spent as
much time on unimportant household details as on national problems. He
suddenly began to look older.
Worriedly, Indians began asking themselves: After Nehru, who? It was
and is the favorite New Delhi dinner topic. Food Minister S. K. Patil
put the matter bluntly: "Nehru is the greatest asset we have because
he is just like a banyan tree under whose shade millions take
shelter." He added that Nehru is also a liability, "because in the
shade of that banyan tree, biologically, nothing grows."
The two likeliest candidates to succeed Nehru are Patil himself, a
tough, able administrator who is India's closest approximation of an
anything-goes U.S. politician, and Finance Minister Morarji Desai, 63,
an eccentric but capable mixture of far-out ideas on sex and alcohol
(he is against both). Gandhian attitudes, and administrative talent.
Both .men are strongly pro-Western, anti-Communist and holders of
pragmatic economic views. But when Nehru last year announced that he
wanted to step down as Prime Minister, Congress Party stalwarts, swept
by panic, cried: "Pandit ji, you are leaving us orphans!"
The Kisan. Nehru agreed to stay on, and apparently can hold the job as
long as he wants it. Nehru keeps in trim physically through a half-
hour of yoga exercises each morning, including a spell of standing on
his head. Whenever he feels drained intellectually, one unfailing
source of energy remains to him—the Indian people. Nehru's long
romance with the millions on millions of kisans, or peasants, began
when he was 31. Brahman-born and British-bred, Nehru had returned home
to provincial Allahabad with his sense of innate superiority re-
enforced by seven years of upper-class education at Harrow, Cambridge
and London's Inner Temple, where he qualified for the bar. Already a
romantic dabbler in the independence movement, Nehru agreed to
accompany some oppressed peasants to their primitive village. What he
saw there filled him "with shame and sorrow —shame at my own easygoing
and comfortable life, sorrow at the degradation and overwhelming
poverty of India." He saw his homeland as "naked, starving, crushed
and utterly miserable."
In speeches to the peasants, Nehru displays none of the perfervid
oratory of the demagogue, and could not if he wanted to, since he
speaks only one Indian language, Urdu, with any proficiency.
Ordinarily he gives long, rambling, extemporaneous talks in English,
full of digressions and schoolmasterly asides, that are translated
into the local dialect by interpreters. Vast crowds of up to a million
assemble to hear him, but the contact is more emotional than verbal.
What happens is called by Indians darshan, communion. The multitude is
somehow comforted and reassured not by the words but by the presence
of Nehru. And Nehru himself seems to lose every trace of fatigue,
becomes more alive, uninhibited and relaxed, and he returns to his job
with his spiritual batteries recharged.
This year, rectifying past mistakes of overplanning, India has had a
better time of it economically. The sterling balance has risen about
8%, and the government recently liberalized its laws concerning
foreign investment, tempting some U.S. and British firms to get in on
the ground floor of a nation where there is only one watch for every
40 people, one bicycle for every 125, and one camera for every 50,000.
The recovery was fortuitous, for the nation was about to be put to its
severest test since independence.
The China Crisis. The crisis with China displayed all of Nehru's
weaknesses. It was a threat that Nehru, typically, first tried not to
see, then ignored and then tried to argue away. This spring he
dismissed news stories of Tibet's revolt against the Red Chinese as
"mere bazaar talk." When Tibet's religious leader, the young Dalai
Lama, and 13,000 Tibetan refugees came pouring across India's border,
Nehru seemed acutely uncomfortable. To Red China's hysterical charges
that Indian "expansionists" were behind the revolt and that the
"command center" of the rebels was in the Indian border town of
Kalimpong, Nehru entered a soft denial, and said Kalimpong was indeed
a nest of spies—"spies who are Communist, antiCommunist, red, yellow,
pink and white." To urgent suggestions that India join with Pakistan
for the united defense of the subcontinent, Nehru asked ingenuously:
"Against whom?"
From angry words thrown at India, the Chinese Reds moved to actions
against it: the frontier post of Longju in India's North-East Frontier
Agency (NEFA) was seized; Indian patrols were taken prisoner; Nehru
made the shamefaced admission that he had kept secret from Parliament
the fact that the Chinese two years before had built a road through
Indian territory linking Tibet and the Chinese province of Sinkiang.
Finance Minister Morarji Desai angrily set out to get the facts about
the Red road. Cross-questioning India's Army Chief of Staff. Lieut.
General K. S. Thimayya, he asked when he first knew about the road. In
1957, said the general, and he had offered proposals to safeguard the
security of India, but they were turned down by the Defense Minister,
lean, rancorous V. K. Krishna Menon. "Why?" asked Desai. "Because,"
replied Thimayya, "he said that the enemy was on the other side [i.e.,
Pakistan], not on this side."
While the Chinese were boldly occupying Indian territory, Krishna
Menon was rising in the U.N. to champion the admission of Peking and
to lead the fight against debating the Tibet tragedy. The Hindustan
Times fumed about Menon's "immoral and degrading performances." Indian
students paraded in New Delhi, shouting "Menon resign! Menon resign!"
General Thimayya quarreled with Menon and threatened to leave the
army. Nehru talked him out of it. With his hesitant response to
China's calculated attack on the Indian patrol in Ladakh, Nehru lost
his once unshakable hold on the nation's intellectuals, business
leaders and press. With almost one voice, Indians demanded that Nehru
defend India's integrity, fire Defense Minister Krishna Menon and,
above all, send troops to drive the Chinese invaders from Indian
soil.
Ready Troops. The question that was not often raised was whether
India's armed forces could do the job. On paper, India's 500,000 man
army is dwarfed by Red China's 2,500,000 troops.
But foreign military observers regard the Indian army as thoroughly
professional, and well able to handle almost any task assigned it. The
rank and file are northerners and mostly from that cradle of warriors,
the Punjab. The Indian army officer sometimes appears to be the very,
very model of the British tradition: he has probably attended
Sandhurst, speaks with an Oxford accent, plays polo and cricket, wears
a mustache and carries a swagger stick. The first-rate Indian air
force uses British twin-jet Canberra bombers and French Mystere jet
fighters —all obtained by purchase, since Nehru believes that military
aid would compromise India's traditional neutrality.
If war comes, China's numbers are not likely to be an overwhelming
advantage, for any fighting along the 2,500-mile mountainous border
would undoubtedly be limited to units smaller than battalions. Neither
the Indians nor Chinese could push any real strength up into or
through the Himalayas on the existing roads over the high passes,
which are scarcely adequate for yak caravans and cannot handle trucks,
much less tanks.
On the Chinese side of the frontier the terrain is equally bad. In
fact, the only satisfactory invasion route into India from the north
is the one that has been trod since time immemorial by Aryans, Greeks,
Huns, Mongols and Persians: from central Asia, through Afghanistan and
Pakistan, and down onto the Punjab plain. But that would involve the
consent of Russia, as well as war with Pakistan. At the moment the
Soviet Union is insisting on its friendship to India and is urging
restraint upon Red China.
Vote of Confidence. Just three weeks ago, Prime Minister Nehru
stunningly and surprisingly emerged from the cocoon of indecision.
With brusque firmness, he sent a note to Peking rejecting Premier Chou
En-lai's proposal that both the Indian and Chinese border forces
withdraw 12½ miles from their present positions. Nehru's
counterproposals were for a "no man's land" in the disputed areas,
which would result in getting almost all Chinese troops out of Indian
territory. Nehru added sharply that "the cause of the recent troubles
is action taken from your side of the border," and bluntly told Chou
En-lai that "relations between our two countries are likely to grow
worse."
At the opening of Parliament, Nehru further dazzled and delighted
Indians by warning that "any aggression" against the small states of
the Himalayas would be considered as aggression against India, and won
cheers with his pledge that "if war is thrust upon us we shall fight
with all our strength!" He even took time out to give support and
tribute to Defense Minister Krishna Menon and won for them both an
overwhelming voice vote of confidence.
The very newspapers that had been accusing Nehru for months of
dereliction of duty cried their "unreserved agreement" with Nehru's
policy. The Indian Express, formerly his most savage critic, promised
that "in his new, bold and unequivocal stand, Mr. Nehru is assured of
the unstinted support of all parties and of the people."
To puzzled observers of this Indian phenomenon it seemed that Nehru
had said absolutely nothing but the obvious—that India would defend
itself if attacked. And in a sense, Nehru agreed with them. His
position had not changed, he insisted. It was an optical illusion that
he had formerly been lagging sulkily behind his nation and had now run
up to the front rank to lead it. In Nehru's terms he was being
completely consistent: by practicing "right actions" against Red China
he must necessarily gain "right results"—if not at the moment. It was
the same with the cold war, argued Nehru. For years he had been
preaching against it and refusing to align India on either side. And
now—lo, and behold!—the great leaders of the U.S. and the Soviet Union
had come around to his view.
Last week India appeared to be a harmonious whole, astir with a new
sense of its own nationalism. At the west coast city of Ahmedabad,
400,000 people had thronged together to hold darshan with Panditji
Nehru and hear him speak. Said Nehru, grandly: "I am trying, and will
try, to reciprocate your love." Up in the Himalayas, winter was
closing in. As deep snows and raging blizzards block the high passes,
there is a widespread feeling in India that there will be no more
trouble with China until next spring or summer. Suppose that then the
Red Chinese grab off even more of India's northern border regions? No
one was ready with an answer, but no one seemed to feel the need of
one just now. Having blown off steam, the Indian Parliament, press and
public was back in the comforting and protective shade of the big
banyan tree.
chhotemianinshallah
Monday, Oct. 12, 1959
(See Cover)
Atop the graceful, rose-colored Gate of Heavenly Peace in Peking last
week stood the two plump, 65-year-old men who rule one-third of the
earth's people. As lithe girls danced by to the rhythm of bamboo
castanets, and nine huge cloth dragons whirled along in pursuit of 60
golden lions, Red China's Mao Tse-tung beamed in the morning sunlight,
bland and benign-looking as ever. Beside him, applauding
energetically, was Nikita Khrushchev, ruler of all the Russias, who
had arrived from Moscow by propjet the day before to help celebrate
the tenth anniversary of Red rule in China. Just a step behind the two
leaders loomed a tall, gaunt, grey-faced figure whose voice and
countenance were far better known to the ruling circles of Communism
than to the paraders below. His name: Liu Shao-chi. His rank: Chairman
of the Chinese People's Republic. His potent role: the No. 2 man of
Red China, and steely disciplinarian of the party.
A decade had passed since a crowd of shabbily dressed Communists
gathered in Peking's crumbling Imperial Palace to hear Mao proclaim
the conquest of China and sound a warning: "Let reactionaries at home
and abroad tremble!" Last week it was not the reactionaries but Nikita
Khrushchev who seemed nervous. From the moment of his arrival in
Peking. Khrushchev had been publicly pressuring his hosts to "do
everything possible to preclude war as a means of settling outstanding
questions"; five times in as many minutes he had sounded the call for
"peaceful coexistence"; in pointed reference to his U.S. trip, he
declared that "the leaders of many capitalist states are being forced
more and more to take account of realities." Mao smiled and applauded,
but made no answer.
Yet Red China's answer seemed plain. At the height of last week's
anniversary parade, 100 dark green tanks and 144 motorized artillery
pieces clanked onto the broad square before Mao and Khrushchev. The
pavement rang to the cadenced tread of 100,000 soldiers, sailors and
airmen, and nine massive columns of militiamen. From overhead came the
whine and rumble of 155 Chinese-made jet bombers and fighters. The
procession ended, heavy with menace, as 700,000 workers marched by,
100 abreast, shouting, "Liberate Taiwan!"
Fagade & Reality. Like the other guests of honor who had flocked into
Peking from 87 countries, Nikita Khrushchev could scarcely fail to be
impressed by Peking's display of might and by the fireworks, the
glittering banquets and the gleaming new buildings that Red China's
masters had conjured up to mark their tenth year in power. But behind
the gala façade lay a grim reality: the world's biggest and brashest
Communist state was stumbling into the most critical year of its
existence. Says a Western diplomat stationed in Peking: "The place is
a monumental mess."
Today Red China's economy gasps and shudders like an abused donkey
engine. The "great leap forward" that was to make China a major
industrial power in the twinkling of an eye has instead produced
something close to chaos. In the ant-heap rural communes that were to
convert 500 million peasants into depersonalized, multi-purpose labor
units, there is apathy and despair.
Internationally, too, Red China's fortunes are at their lowest ebb
since the Korean war. The rape of Tibet, followed up by Peking's
troublemaking in Laos and along India's northeastern border, has at
long last opened the eyes of Southeast Asia's neutrals to the
murderous imperialism that underlies Red China's lip service to "the
cause of peace." In the U.N. neutral Ireland, which had previously
supported resolutions calling for Peking's admittance, now fights for
a debate on the Tibetan situation. Even the U.A.R.'s Nasser has lost
his patience: last week, irked by Peking's sponsorship of Middle East
Communists, Nasser's government boycotted the anniversary party given
by the Red Chinese embassy in Cairo, threatened to oust Peking's
diplomats from Damascus.
Peking's response to its troubles has been a mixture of defiance and
strategic retreat. For its foreign critics it has shown nothing but
contempt; Nehru's plaintive reproaches at Chinese violations of his
border won him nothing but the reply that it was India, not Red China,
that was the aggressor. At home, Peking's commissars are meeting their
problems with more suppleness. For the moment, China's exhausted
masses are enjoying a respite from the frantic work pace imposed on
them during the great leap forward. But, as all Chinese are painfully
aware, this is only a stay, not a full reprieve; it will last only
until Red China's masters have finished tuning up the instrument with
which they control their sprawling nation —the 13 million-man Chinese
Communist Party.
Needed: More Hells. In charge of the tuning-up process—on which the
success or failure of Communism in China may well depend—is a shadowy,
pallid figure who was once described as looking like "an underexposed
snapshot." As Chairman of the Republic, tall (5 ft. 10 in.), gaunt Liu
Shao-chi is technically Red China's chief of state; in fact, he is
heir apparent to Mao Tse-tung's power. Yet outside China he is
virtually unknown, and even inside China he has so little identity
that Red propagandists work overtime trying to give him a sympathetic
public personality.
In this, Peking's flacks have an almost impossible assignment. Liu's
most human traits are a weakness for women and tobacco. Though he has
suffered off and on from tuberculosis, he is still a chainsmoker and
cannot break himself of the habit. And, like Mao himself, Liu has a
penchant for frequent marital shifts. His current wife (No. 4) is 25
years his junior, and a former coed at Peking University. Wife No. i
died mysteriously—reportedly either a suicide or killed by the
Nationalists. Wives No. 2 and 3 have been long divorced.
But in every other respect, gelid Liu Shao-chi is the perfect Communist
—a mechanical man who comes close to realizing his own dictum: "A
party member is required to sacrifice his interests to the party
unconditionally." Even the public appearances intended to humanize him
invariably take on a grim tone. When a small child cut its hands
tending potato vines in a commune, Liu's reaction was hard advice: "Do
not be scared by a little blood." And when a Communist bureaucrat,
whom he was lecturing on the need for working-class experience,
observed, "There are still people who regard working in the boiler
room as living hell," Liu snapped back: "We need more such hells."
Required Reading. So complete is Liu's talent for fading into the
woodwork that no one is even sure how old he is; he was born, probably
about 1898, in Yin-shan in rice-growing Hunan province, not far from
Mao Tse-tung's own village. Liu and Mao, as sons of prosperous peasant
families, attended middle school in Changsha, the largest city in the
province, and a hotbed of radical nationalism. Though Mao was some
four years older than Liu, they worked together on a left-wing student
magazine, and by his early 205 Liu was a veteran of anti-imperialist
student demonstrations. In 1920 a Soviet talent scout, encountering
Liu in Shanghai, picked him as one of seven promising Chinese students
to attend Moscow's newly opened Far Eastern University.
During Liu's absence in Russia, where he was both bored and homesick,
Mao and eleven other comrades founded the Chinese Communist Party. On
his return from Russia Liu promptly joined, and for the next 20 years
he worked as a Red labor organizer—a job that occasionally landed him
in prison. In 1934, when Mao led the Red army in its famed, 6,000-mile
Long March from southern Kiangsi to the caves of Yenan in northern
China, Organizer Liu went underground, remained behind as a Communist
agent in Kuomintang territory.
To have missed both the founding of the Communist Party and the Long
March might have put Liu far down the list of party hopefuls. Yet when
he finally reached Mao's Yenan headquarters in 1937, he quickly made
up for lost time, moved nimbly through the party infighting. As a
political commissar, he was assigned to investigate the army commanded
by grizzled Peng Teh-huai, the Reds' No. 2 military man and later
commander of Chinese "volunteers" in Korea.
Unimpressive in appearance but steely cold in personality, Liu boldly
accused Peng of "bureaucratism," so overawed the burly soldier that ex-
Bandit Peng went into a paroxysm of selfcriticism. Even his close
association with Mao's archopponent within the party, Stalinist Li
Lisan, did not halt Liu's rise. Thanks to his gift for translating
Mao's sweeping ideas into explicit political handbooks, Liu's
"literary" works (How to Be a Good Communist, On the Party Struggle)
became must reading for all Chinese Communists.
At the Controls. By 1949, when Mao finally rode in triumph into
Peking, Liu Shao-chi was firmly established as the man who sat at the
control panel of the Chinese Communist Party. It was Liu who developed
the subtle process that he calls "self-cultivation" but that Americans
during the Korean war came to know as "brainwashing." It was Liu who
in 1954 served as Mao's hatchetman in the great internal party fight
that ended with the suicide of Kao Kang, the Red boss of Manchuria—an
act described as "the ultimate betrayal of the party." Above all, it
was Liu who trained the party's cadres, viewing them, says a leading
U.S. expert on Communist China, South Carolina's Professor Richard L.
Walker, "as just so many bodies to be transformed into parts of an
organizational structure which will function automatically, yet with
enthusiasm."
In pursuit of this ideal, Liu put his cadres through one
"rectification" campaign after another, obliged luckless party members
to admit to such sins as formalism ("holding meetings in a perfunctory
way"), commandism ("the political disease of haste"), adventurism
("acting in an arbitrary fashion"), warlordism ("regarding the army as
a special power standing outside or above the people"), subjectivism
("bourgeois liberal ideas"), sectarianism ("excessive use of party
jargon"), or other misdeeds such as acting the hero, tailism, mountain-
topism and closed-doorism. To Westerners such charges had an Alice-in-
Wonderland ring. To Mao Tse-tung they were proof that Liu was on the
job, honing the edges of the world's "purest" and -most massive
Communist Party.
Not by Fervor Alone. Characteristically, when Mao last year decreed
the big leap that was to enable Red China to "surpass Britain" as an
industrial power, Liu was in the front rank shouting slogans.
Government administrators and industrial managers protested that the
method of "blindly advancing" was wasteful of manpower and resources.
Liu sneered back that they were "failing to see the wood for the
trees." And when Mao made his momentous decision to herd China's
peasants into 26,000 military* style communes, Liu was right behind
him once again. With the help of the communes, glowed Liu, "we shall
realize true Communism very soon."
In fact, the creation of the communes was motivated less by ideology
than by a desperate desire to harness China's greatest natural
resource: people. In the dreams of the Red planners, the communes
loomed as at least the beginning of an answer to all China's economic
problems. Did China need more pig iron? It was smelted in backyard
blast furnaces the length and breadth of the land. More coal? New
mines were hastily dug. Shock brigades of peasants shuttled wearily
from fields to furnaces and back again, working late into the night
"fighting production battles."
Incredibly, among Red China's teeming millions-a manpower shortage
developed. Stevedores were shifted from the ports to the paddies, and
unloaded ships piled up in the harbors. Railroad workers were rushed
to the docks, and train schedules became chaotic. Office workers went
to the farms, and commerce staggered. Instead of performing military
duties, soldiers were put to work digging ditches and raising pigs.
Even the wives and children of army officers and enlisted men hoed
cabbages and spread fertilizer.
But fervor was not enough. Wheat had been so closely planted that it
toppled over or died of contagious rust. Newly dug potatoes rotted in
the fields while peasants were rushed off to erect dams. Jerry-built
mines collapsed, and backyard iron proved worthless for industrial
use. In the cities there was noisy talk of a bumper harvest, but long
queues of housewives found the stores empty.
Clearest symptom of the chaos was the sudden and steep decline in
China's exports. In 1958 Peking had begun to invade the markets of
Southeast Asia with a flood of inexpensive bicycles, textiles, rice.
By underselling Japan, Red China increased its exports to Singapore
and Malaya by 23%, nearly doubled its trade with Thailand and Ceylon.
But by this spring Red China was unable to fill even longstanding
orders. At the annual trade fair in Canton last May, export sales were
down 56% from the previous year.
Tidying Up. For months after it was apparent that the great leap was
turning into a frightful fumble, the propagandists in Peking continued
to shout: "There is no low-yield land—only low-yield thinking."
Trembling at these injunctions, local party bosses tore up honest
production figures and conjured up new ones likely to please Peking.
But by last October the Red leadership was beginning to realize that
the only alternative to total collapse was relaxation. Meeting in the
industrial center of Wuhan, Mao and his satraps decided on their line
of retreat. The communes would remain, but they would be "tidied up."
Peasants would be "entitled" to money wages and eight hours' sleep a
night, were even told that "individual trees around their houses,
small farm tools, small instruments and small domestic animals and
poultry" would no longer be taken from them. Red cadres were scolded
for having been "overeager," and grimly warned to stop exaggerating
production totals.
Nor did Peking's retreat end there. By August of this year, there was
no avoiding the most humiliating and face-losing necessity of all:
public revision of the inflated 1958 production claims. With only five
weeks to go until the tenth anniversary of Communist power in China,
Peking was obliged to admit to the world that the big leap had fallen
painfully short, and that production goals for 1959 had been sharply
reduced (see chart).
The Old Gambit. The men responsible for the big stumble did not
suffer. Mao Tse-tung retained the all-powerful chairmanship of the
Communist Party, and, though he did step down as chief of state, he
was replaced by Organization Man Liu. But there were scapegoats. Three
weeks ago, 200 middle-echelon planners and administrators, who were
guilty of accurately predicting the failure of the big leap, were
dismissed from their posts.
And along with the shakeup in the civilian hierarchy went one in the
army. Liu's old opponent, Marshal Peng Teh-huai, was dismissed as
Defense Minister, as were two of his top aides, because they had
protested the use of troops in labor battalions. Into the chief of
staff's post went General Lo Jui-ching (TIME cover, March 5, 1956),
bloody-minded former boss of the secret police, who could be depended
upon to ferret out any more "incorrect thinking" among the military.
But another purge in Peking was scarcely enough to take the peasants'
minds off their woes. For that purpose, Mao & Co. raised the cry that
"foreign imperialists" were threatening peace-loving China. It was a
hoary gambit, especially for Peking. In 1950 the Communists had helped
consolidate their initial conquest of China by intervention in Korea.
The bombardment of Quemoy in 1958 had helped reconcile China's masses
to the strains of the big leap. Now, to divert attention from its
failure, Peking could point to the bloody revolt in Tibet, Indian
"aggression" along the Tibetan frontier, and "the plot of the U.S.
imperialists" in Laos.
But though this clumsy troublemaking helped out at home, it was
disastrous abroad. In its ten-year existence, Red China had acted
aggressively from Korea to Kashmir (see map), and always, in their
deep suspicion of "white imperialism," the newly independent neutrals
of Southeast Asia had made excuses for Peking. But with the savage
repression of the Tibetan revolt, and deliberate provocation of India,
Southeast Asians were taking seriously the threat of "yellow
imperialism." Burma, which had formerly refused U.S. aid, now recoiled
at the thought of loans from Peking. Thailand's Marshal Sarit had
placed an embargo on imports from Red China and Malaya closed down two
Red Chinese banks as centers of smuggling and espionage. And though
India's Nehru, true to his nature, continued to vacillate, hostility
toward Red China was rampant among the Indian masses.
Nothing But a Line. No less important was the fact that Peking's
mulish behavior both at home and abroad had strained relations with
its Soviet Big Brother. Devoutly Communist as Peking professes to be,
there have always been tensions between Russia and Red China—a fact
that emerges clearly from the comments of Russian technicians who have
worked in China. "In little ways," says a Soviet chemist, "the Chinese
showed us up, and sometimes behind our backs they called us Big Noses,
as if we were no better than oldtime imperialists."
The seeds of conflict are visible, too, in Russians' acute awareness
of the 5,000-mile border between underpopulated Siberia and jampacked
China. Khrushchev's pouring of more than 1,000,000 young Russians into
the lands beyond the Urals is almost certainly designed in part to
populate the empty reaches of Siberia before Red China grows much
moire powerful. Nor does the Kremlin make much effort to disguise the
fact that it would be happier to see China expand toward Southeast
Asia than toward the north.
But north is where the Chinese are going: in ten years the population
of Manchuria has doubled to some 45 million, and even desert-dotted
Sinkiang has grown by almost a million people. In the Soviet satellite
of Outer Mongolia, Peking has succeeded in infiltrating 20,000 Chinese
laborers. "What are you worried about?" a Russian engineer asked an
American not long ago. "You have the whole Pacific between you and
China, while we have nothing but a line drawn on a map."
These tensions, though held within bounds by a common ideology and by
Red China's technical ineptness, have clearly been increased by Nikita
Khrushchev's U.S. tour last month. In his half-dozen private meetings
with Mao last week, as in his public speeches, Khrushchev seemed to be
saying that, for the moment at least, he wants to concentrate on
relaxing tensions between Moscow and Washington. Presumably, too, he
made it clear that, even though Peking has dropped its irritating
claim that Red China will reach the final stage of Communism ahead of
Russia, Moscow still disapproves of Mao's communes. Khrushchev may
even have repeated, in politer fashion, his snorted comment to U.S.
Senator Hubert Humphrey eleven months ago: "Communes are oldfashioned;
they are reactionary. We tried that after the Revolution. It doesn't
work."
"They Don't Understand." But whether Nikita's strictures will have
much effect on Mao is doubtful. Even before the Soviet leader's big
TU-114 landed at Peking Airport last week, Liu Shao-chi had undermined
part of Nikita's mission by raging against U.S. support of the Chinese
Nationalists and crying, "We Chinese people are determined to liberate
our territory of Taiwan, the Pescadores, Quemoy and Matsu." As for
abandoning the communes, the Chinese answer is implicit in Liu's
unconcealed belief that the trouble with the Russians is that "they
don't understand the Chinese."
Neither these nor any other visible points of discord are likely to
bring an open breach between Red China and the Soviet Union in the
foreseeable future. Peking desperately needs Russia as its only source
of military, economic and technical help. Russia cannot afford to lose
the alliance with Red China, and with it the claim to leadership of a
bloc of nations that covers a quarter of the globe. But with Red China
in the hands of men like Mao Tse-tung and Liu Shao-chi, who believe
that economic power can be created and a world won on the basis of
fanaticism, slave labor and bellicosity, the tensions between Moscow
and Peking seem unlikely to diminish. In days to come, despite the
show of solidarity that they staged in Peking last week, both Russia
and Red China may even come to look back on the first ten years of
Communist power in China as the easiest.
* The size of mainland China's population has long been in dispute.
The last official count made by the Nationalists in 1947 gave the
figure as 456,500,000. In a "direct census" taken in 1953, Chinese
Reds claimed a population of 582,600,000. Some Chinese authorities
believe that the true total is much lower.
chhotemianinshallah
The Press: News from China
Monday, Oct. 12, 1959
At 5 Sharp Street West, in the heart of Hong Kong, stands a handsome
new eight-story building, with its grilled entrance locked round the
clock. Not even the postman with registered mail gets past the portal
guards unquestioned. The 40 inmates who work, eat, sleep, exercise and
even procreate inside cannot leave without passing the muster of the
sentinels. The roof bristles with six radio antennas, attentively
tuned to Peking. This is the Hong Kong bureau of Hsinhua, or New China
News Agency—the key link in the communications chain that is the
West's only steady source of news from Communist China.
On the Line. In the 22 years since it was born in the caves of Yenan,
Hsinhua has grown into a formidable propaganda machine. Its radio-
teletype network throughout Europe, Africa, Asia, the Middle East and
Latin America gets regular transmissions from Peking. It has 31
bureaus in Red China; outside, in addition to the big Hong Kong
office, it staffs bureaus in most Western European capitals, in
Moscow, Damascus, New Delhi, Baghdad, Cairo, Havana—an estimated 30 in
all.
What Hsinhua beams to the free world is carefully audited by Western
newsmen because there is so much interest in Red China and so few ways
to get the news.* Hsinhua correspondents, using the arts of Western
journalism, often send out crisp, brief, seemingly impartial stories,
but the party line is never missing: SALT PRODUCTION UP IN CHINA,
headlined the Iraq Times, a Hsinhua user, over a recent dispatch.
Often the line is tweezered in with surgical care. During President
Eisenhower's late-summer tour of Europe, Hsinhua accounts sounded
impersonal, but emphasized policy conflicts among the NATO allies:
"The appearance of Eisenhower and Macmillan on TV was meant to be a
show of 'cordiality' and 'solidarity' . . . yet even in such a public
performance, Macmillan spoke at the beginning of the broadcast of the
'differences' between the U.S.A. and Britain." At times Hsinhua plays
another role: correspondents in Cambodia send home to Red China
flattering stories about the country, which are gratefully reprinted
in the Cambodian press—with full credit to Peking.
In Hsinhuaese. Currently embarked on an ambitious expansion program,
Hsinhua is concentrating its greatest effort among the nations
wravering between East and West. Purveying its free service, not only
to the press but to government departments, foreign embassies,
important business firms and even individuals, Hsinhua is making a
hard pitch in the struggle for the allegiance of undecided nations.
Last week, on the eve of the anniversary celebrations on the mainland
(see FOREIGN NEWS), Hsinhua's Hong Kong bureau even tried a
capitalistic-style venture into public relations. Staffers made one of
their rare appearances outside the building on Sharp Street, played
host to some 480 guests (non-Western journalists, diplomats, college
professors) at a beer, wine and nibbles reception at the Gloucester
Hotel. Asked how many Hsinhua staffers there are in Hong Kong, one
replied in good Hsinhuaese: "Oh, we have several journalists."
* Only two newsmen based in Peking—one from Britain's Reuters and one
from Agence France Presse—represent the free world's press. They may
not leave Peking or send a single line without the approval of the
government. Last week Correspondent Frederick Nossal of the Toronto
Globe and Mail, which has long been friendly toward Red China, was en
route to Peking to establish the free press's first newspaper bureau
in Red China's capital.
chhotemianinshallah
Red China: The Loss of Man
Friday, Dec. 01, 1961
RED CHINA
(See Cover)
Red China last week was like a ravenous giant. From the snowy plains
of Manchuria to the humid bamboo forests of Yunnan, from the sky-
merging grasslands of Central Asia to the dimly neon-lit waterfront of
Shanghai, there was only one totally absorbing subject—food.
At Wuhan, where the steel mills have slowed to part-time operation, a
month's rice ration lasts barely three days, sugar is issued only four
times a year, and housewives try to thicken watery gruel by adding
grass. Hungry people from Tientsin sneak into the fields at night to
steal corn from the stalks, and Kwangtung villagers are reportedly
eating bark from the trees. Among the fantastic mountain shapes of
Kweilin spread even more fantastic rumors: the sour-tasting new soy
sauce is said to be made from human hair. In Peking, when the first
fish to arrive in weeks proved rotten, enraged women beat up a
Communist official. Everywhere the traditional Chinese greeting "Have
you eaten?" has turned bitter.
At night, the wide boulevards of Peking are dim and ghostly; because
of the shortage of electric power, only one in every nine street lamps
is lit. Two years ago, Chinese in Hong Kong shipped 870,000 food
parcels annually to their relatives in China. This year, in answer to
desperate appeals, they have already shipped 9,000,000. Refugees
stream into Hong Kong and Macao, escaping any way they can. To avoid
feeding those unable to work, Red China is now giving exit visas to
the aged and infirm. One Hong Kong resident had gone to China in 1958
because "I wanted to work for my country"; last week he fled back to
Hong Kong and reported, "There was no meat, and fish only once a week.
You had to get up at 2 and 3 in the morning to stand in line for your
ration of rice, fruit, vegetables, and cigarettes made from mulberry
leaves—and even then they were not always available. A man is not a
machine. If he has no food, he has no interest in working."
An 18-year-old girl refugee from Chekiang province said that only once
this year had she been able to buy "shoes, stockings, washcloths and a
tube of toothpaste. We got only eight feet of cotton cloth annually."
Another woman refugee burst into tears when she spoke of friends
"still suffering night and day back there."
The Paradox. Is this the true picture of China today? Not according to
Communist films and propaganda. They show happy, husky children
gamboling in village nurseries, smiling Kazakh herdsmen shearing fat
sheep on the Altinshoki steppes, clear-eyed workmen scrambling among
the wooden scaffolding of a thousand construction sites. Important
guests are dazzled by the enormous parades sweeping into Peking's Tien
An Men square with a swirling of scarlet flags, the cheerful explosion
of strings of firecrackers whirled on poles, the rhythmic thunder of
drums and cymbals. Healthy, pig-tailed girls dance by in a flutter of
pastel scarves; fit-looking soldiers march past in cadenced columns;
phalanxes of workers with banners roar out slogans extolling the
greatness of Communism and hatred of "American imperialism." Here,
evidently, is all the panoplied might of a confident and messianic
power.
Internationally, Red China seeks to match that picture. At the U.N.
the Communist countries and some neutrals are once again about to
press for
Communist China's admission. The U.S. again expects to postpone the
decision (the probable device will be referral of the matter to a
study group), but it can no longer avoid debate of the issue.
Meanwhile, by encouraging incessant guerrilla campaigns in Laos and
South Viet Nam, Red China seeks to gain control of Southeast Asia,
thereby hoping to inflict a major defeat on the U.S. It keeps
committing acts of aggression against its neighbors; having ruthlessly
conquered and exploited Tibet, it is stirring up continuous border
troubles with India. Last week India sent a strong note to Peking,
protesting new border incursions by Chinese troops, who already occupy
12,000 sq. mi. of Indian territory. Peking moreover rivals Moscow for
control of the Communist world, as became clear at the 22nd Party
Congress, setting itself up as the guide and model for the world's
underdeveloped nations and claiming Marxism's true ideological
heritage. Peking argues that under Khrushchev's anti-Stalin line, the
Soviet Union has grown fat and bourgeois and lacks revolutionary zeal
in dealing with the West. Red China has even announced that it will
develop its own nuclear weapons and many in the West take the threat
seriously.
This is the paradox behind the China debate: a country that seeks the
status of a world power, that defies both Washington and Moscow, that
is driving to produce nuclear bombs, cannot even feed its own people.
The Experiment. In the past eleven months Red China has admitted only
one non-Communist newsman—Fernand Gigon, a Swiss journalist, who took
the pictures on the following pages. Gigon and other foreign visitors
tell a story that supports the refugees' version of Red Chinese
reality, sharply contradicts Peking's propaganda as well as the
enthusiastic tales of such impressionable visitors as Britain's Field
Marshal Viscount Montgomery. In fact, even Red China's normally
boastful leaders guardedly admit serious trouble. In his comfortable
villa at Hangchow, Chairman Mao Tse-tung told France's ex-Cabinet
Minister François Mitterand that he knew "Western newspapers have
printed large headlines on what they call the famine in China." But it
was not a famine, insisted Mao, only "a period of scarcity."
China's history has been one long "period of scarcity." But in the
past, China's endemic hunger had most often been the result of war, of
natural disasters, of ignorance about how land should be treated and
how man could be kept alive. In contrast, China's present hunger is
the result of a vast plan. It is, moreover, happening when, for the
first time in decades, there is no war in China, when elsewhere
poverty is being abolished, and under a regime that has promised to
end backwardness and social injustice.
Says TIME's Hong Kong Bureau Chief Stanley Karnow: "This is not merely
another catastrophe common in the history of China, such as the
northern droughts in the 1870s or the floods and famines of the 1920s,
when millions starved. This is, rather, a rationed, regimented hunger
that signifies more than China's traditional struggle for survival. It
symbolizes the miscarriage of the most massive social experiment ever
undertaken—the Communist attempt to transform China overnight from the
most impoverished country in the world into a major industrial
power."
The man most responsible for the experiment is Vice Premier Li Fu-
chun, the 61-year-old chairman of Red China's State Planning
Commission. Thin, grey-haired, bookish and self-effacing, Li Fu-chun
has been in charge of "squeezing" the peasants during the three bitter
years, beginning in 1958, of the Great Leap Forward, which was aimed
at giving China an industrial base greater than that of Britain. From
Li's neat office in Embracing Kindness Hall—a two-story Manchu dynasty
palace in Peking's Forbidden City—have poured the blueprints and
directives that marshaled China's millions into antlike armies to dig
canals, mine coal and iron ore, and work the soil of 24,000 spartan
people's communes. It has been clear for some time that the Great Leap
was really a leap into disaster, but the extent of the failure is only
now becoming plain. By fanatically stressing industry, Peking nearly
wrecked China's agriculture—without accomplishing its industrial
goals, either. At present, Li Fu-chun is masterminding a gigantic
turnabout, trying to relax some of the inhuman pressures on China's
peasants in order to maintain at least subsistence food production.
Comparative Miracles. At the moment of victory over Chiang Kai-shek in
1949, Mao Tse-tung resolved that, after decades of devastation,
starting from a primitive economy, China must industrialize—not
primarily for a better life, but so that China could become a militant
force in world affairs.
Out of the turmoil that was uprooting China's ancient society, out of
the alternation of hope and terror, of promised reward and present
punishment, Communist China worked single-mindedly toward Mao's goal—
and achieved comparative miracles. In eight years, the cotton harvest
was up 30% from its prewar high to 1,600,000 tons. Steel production
rose nearly six times above the 1943 peak of 900,000 tons,* although
even this spectacular advance brought China's per capita steel
production only to 4% of Japan's. With Soviet technical aid, China for
the first time started to manufacture trucks and locomotives, tractors
and planes. Big industrial complexes sprang up at Paotow, Wuhan and
Anshan; dams rose to harness the great rivers; some 50 million newly
irrigated acres were added to the nation's farmland. Chinese products
invaded foreign markets.
But by 1957, the farm sector of the economy was already sagging—only
8% of the nation's capital investment had been allotted to its
development. Though the gross industrial product increased by 123%,
gross farm production rose a mere 26%, scarcely more than the eight-
year population growth, by Western estimates. Common sense demanded
that more help be given agriculture, even if it meant a pause in the
forced drive toward heavy industry. But Mao Tse-tung treats economic
problems exactly as he would an enemy's main line of resistance: by
ordering forward a human wave to storm and overwhelm it. He conceded
that the farms desperately needed chemical fertilizer, machines of all
sorts and skilled labor. His solution: let the farmers do it
themselves through the commune system.
The Red press and radio excitedly told of Mao's visit to rural
Chiuling, where 31,000 peasants had "spontaneously" decided to "go
forward on two legs"—build their own factories and blast furnaces in
their spare time. Millions of dazed peasants were regimented into the
Great Leap. Banners called for 20 YEARS OF PROGRESS IN A SINGLE DAY!
Accounting was ignored as a "headache that stands in the way of
production." Women were freed from the "drudgery" of housework only to
labor 18 hours a day in field and factory. Old folks were shut away in
"happiness homes," babies in state-run crèches. In the nurseries.
Chinese moppets sang:
I have a good mother,
She works in the fields;
She works so hard that the commune
Has presented her with a red flower.
In the Soviet Union, romance took the form of girl-loves-tractor. In
Communist China, it is girl-loves-bucket. Gushed a Red propagandist:
"The girl carries away the soil as the boy dredges the pond. Sweat
drips from their bodies. The girl does not complain of fatigue,
although she has carried a thousand loads; nor does the boy feel the
chill in the mud. It is not convenient to talk to each other, but they
understand each other at heart. Both are heroic fellows. They work
until the stars disappear and the sun rises."
Kanpu's Whistles. The instruments Li Fu-chun used to shape the
formless multitude were the kanpus, or cadres, who carry out Peking's
policies at all levels of society. They hustled China's peasant
millions into people's communes, complete with mess halls, barracks,
and the loss of identity common to military life. Routed from bed at
dawn, the peasants lined up for roll call and marched off under red
banners to the mist-hung fields. At the sound of the kanpu's whistle,
they raced to their tasks of plowing, weeding or reaping. At the blare
of a bugle, they dropped their tools and seized rifles (unloaded) for
close-order drill. At the sound of whistles again, they fell to a new
set of tasks, hurrying to simple workshops to make canvas shoes,
coarse paper or cotton cloth, and to primitive blast furnaces to make
pig iron out of low-grade local ore. Across the land, fires from the
2,000,000 tiny "backyard furnaces" lit the night sky. "Everything into
the pot!" was the kanpu slogan. The communes put up their own money to
buy equipment for new mines, factories, furnaces. Foreign visitors saw
cotton gins made of boxes and old boards, textile machinery with
wooden parts. In Sinkiang, when they ran out of steel for a pipeline,
it was finished with bamboo tubing. A Honan commune owning 6,000 pigs
and producing 300,000 Ibs. of fish a year, saw it all taken by the
state while the workers' total daily diet was limited to dough buns, a
few ounces of chopped cabbage, and a single dish of noodles.
The Junkpile. The Communists had boasted of their conquest of flood
and drought. But last year in central China, there was no rain for 200
days in a row. In North China, the Yellow River dried up so completely
that a car could be driven on its bed, but in Manchuria rampaging
rivers drowned coal mines and steel mills in Anshan and Mukden. Yet
bad weather, which Li Fu-chun and Peking's other leaders used as an
excuse, was far from the whole explanation of China's woes. Formosa,
Hong Kong and China's Kwangtung province have much the same weather.
But though Hong Kong crops dropped by 8% and Formosa's by 13%,
Kwangtung's agricultural output declined a full 30%. Communist
mismanagement accounts for the difference.
Mao Tse-tung had arbitrarily ordered that 10% of the arable land lie
fallow, and, to make up for the loss, that what remained be close-
planted and deep-plowed. In the endless numbers game of Chinese
Communism, everyone enrolled in the double anti campaign (against
waste and "conservatism") and helped eliminate the "four
pests" (sparrows, rats, flies, mosquitoes). Now it appeared that close-
planted wheat spread the ruinous infection of contagious rust. Deep-
plowed paddies grew rice shoots so tall and weak that even ordinary
winds flattened and destroyed them. The mass slaughter of sparrows
brought on an upsurge of grain-devouring insects. Hastily, the
Communists replaced sparrows with bedbugs in the "four pests"
catalogue. Repeated a Japanese Socialist after a China visit: "All
through my tour, I never once saw chemical fertilizer being used in
rice fields. China's agricultural standard is 50 years behind
Japan's."
After heartbreaking hours of work, the peasants discovered that their
homemade pig iron was too brittle for farm implements. Steel ingots
from rural communes were too small to be used in modern rolling mills.
Many newly built factories either broke down or stood idle for lack of
raw materials. The overburdened rail network ground to a halt.
Perishable goods rotted on sidings. Rail junctions were choked with
unmoved freight.
Exhaustion and apathy did the rest. British Author Felix Greene, a
sympathetic visitor, last year toured a Russian-built truck plant in
Changchun, saw rusting spare parts piled between buildings, an
assembly line moving only three feet a minute, workers standing about
doing nothing, a general lack of drive and precision. A Communist
survey of 31 key industries this year in Liaoning province uncovered
40,000 tons of abandoned products. At Mukden, because of constant
changes in specifications, 7,000 electric motors were thrown on the
junkpile.
Bundle of Straw. Throughout these disastrous years, Li Fu-chun ran the
controlled chaos of the Chinese economy. Although he was known to be
opposed to Mao's extreme economic policies, he did his job ruthlessly—
and without getting into trouble over any of China's economic
setbacks. His loyalty as well as his immunity (so far) is the result
of his background. He is a childhood friend of Mao's, a veteran of the
legendary Long March, and, like Mao, a native of Hunan province, whose
character Mao explains thus: "If China were Germany, Hunan would be
Prussia."
Li Fu-chun's Chinese-Prussian career (he was born in 1900) has spanned
the entire period of China's emergence from the feudal stupor of the
Manchu Empire to its present bustling and dangerous ignorance under
the Communists. When the Chinese Republic was formed, Li was a
schoolboy of eleven, playing soccer on the school grounds at Changsha,
capital of Hunan. It was in a soccer game that Li first met Mao Tse-
tung, eight years his senior and already head of a left-wing study
club that Li soon joined. During World War I, France invited 2,000
young Chinese intellectuals to join "work-study" groups near Paris,
and Mao's club members volunteered en masse. Mao himself was ready to
go with them, but at the last moment changed his mind, deciding that
he could "learn more" by staying home.
Reaching France in 1919,
Li was taken under the wing of the late Edouard Herriot, mayor of
industrial Lyon and afterward Premier of France. Li attended the
College de Montargis, 65 miles south of Paris, where he alternated
four hours of study a day with four hours' work in the field. Li
seemed so immature that his fellow students called him tsao-pao
(bundle of straw). He had no particular distaste for work—he was just
not very good at it. After Montargis, he briefly held jobs at the
Renault and Schneider-Creusot factories.
Red Togetherness. Unemployment freed him for more revolutionary talk
in Parisian cafés and garrets with men like Teng Hsiao-ping, Chou En-
lai and Chen Yi (now, respectively, Secretary-General of the party,
Premier and Foreign Minister of Red China). He also found time to fall
in love with an energetic, determined Hunanese girl named Tsai Chang.
Soon both joined the Communist Party and were married. In 1924, after
stopping off in Moscow, Li and his wife headed back to China, and, at
the party's orders, went their separate ways—Tsai Chang to Shanghai to
agitate among the workers in the cotton mills, Li Fu-chun to Canton to
become an instructor at Chiang Kai-shek's Whampoa Military Academy,
where Mao Tse-tung was briefly chief of propaganda.
After Chiang's Kuomintang and the Communists came to bloody parting of
the ways, Li and his wife joined the Long March in which Mao led
90,000 Communists 6,000 miles from Kiangsi to the caves of Yenan,
escaping the pursuing Kuomintang. Li Fu-chun ably handled supply
problems for the fleeing Reds. When the Communists finally reached
Yenan 14 months later, only 25,000 of them were left. Li's wife has
never fully recovered from the ordeal. Correspondent Edgar Snow dined
with the Lis in 1936 and noted in his diary that Tsai Chang still
remembered her Paris days and served him an excellent "meal of French
cooking." Today, Li and Tsai Chang are the only husband and wife on
the party Central Committee.
By 1949, Li was specializing in economics as deputy to Chen Yun, a
pragmatic labor organizer from Shanghai. With the Red conquest of the
mainland, Li became Minister of Heavy Industry, and went to Moscow in
1950 to help negotiate a 30-year treaty of alliance with Joseph
Stalin. In 1953 Li signed the pact under which the Soviet Union agreed
to supply money and materiel for China's first Five-Year Plan. His
reward was promotion to Chairman of the State Planning Commission.
Bricks for Jade. On the eve of the introduction of the commune system,
Li Fu-chun warned that the economy was getting lopsided. Now, he said,
there should be concentration on the farm problem. He was strongly
supported by his fellow economists. One of them, hiding behind a
pseudonym, wrote ominously: "We may gain heavy industry only to lose
Man; we may even lose Man without gaining heavy industry."
But Mao Tse-tung's decision was for industry, not man, for greater
tension, not less. The sloganeers took over from the economists.
Without iron and steel, they shouted, China is "like a fat man—all
flesh and no bone and muscle." Did the farms need fertilizer? Crowed
an official: "I think of the stomach of every man and animal as a
small fertilizer factory."
Li Fu-chun backed down. "I am an amateur," he said. "My views are only
'bricks thrown to obtain jade.' "** The first year of the Great Leap
Forward seemed to prove that Mao Tse-tung had once again won his
gamble. Peking shouted to the world an astonishing list of production
figures, showing that, in factory and farm, the ambitious goals had
been exceeded.
But slowly, in the months that followed, Li Fu-chun and his economists
discovered the dreadful truth: the statistics were not only inflated
but often imaginary. It became obvious that the panicky kanpus had
simply given whatever figures they thought the party line demanded.
Finding Scapegoats. Instead of the whopping 375 million tons of food
grains originally claimed, Peking admitted a harvest of only 250
million—and most Western experts scaled that figure down to 210
million, only 25 million more than 1957, the year before the Great
Leap Forward. The cotton total was cut by a third. Of the boasted 11
million tons of steel, only 8,000,000 were found "usable in industry."
By this summer, the figures had fallen so low that Peking refused to
announce them, but even observers friendly to the Reds estimate grain
production at a mere 150 million tons—substantially lower than the
best pre-Red year.
Li Fu-chun lamely explained that the national economy developed from
"imbalance to balance and then again to imbalance," but always
advanced "uninterruptedly in these wavelike movements." It sounded
suspiciously like the capitalist theory of business cycles.
China's economic imbalance was so bad that Communist trade delegations
turned up in Australia, France and Canada to buy $362.4 million worth
of food grains. Red China's export trade collapsed because of
inability to make shipments. To meet commitments abroad, Peking
emptied its treasury by sending to London silver bars and gold
bullion, including melted-down coins from conquered Tibet. At home the
time had come to look for scapegoats.
Mao Tse-tung had already discreetly vanished from the public scene by
stepping down as head of state—though retaining his all-powerful
chairmanship of the Communist Party. This withdrawal by no means meant
that Mao was accepting responsibility for the failure of the communes;
it was merely the first step in the classic Communist ploy of
disengagement from catastrophe. Since it was now obvious that the
planners had been right and the sloganeers wrong, reason would suggest
that the sloganeers should suffer. But the Communist solution was to
purge the most outspoken of the planners; then the party could
majestically change course. Last April Li Fu-chun thundered: "Not
merely has agriculture been neglected to promote heavy industry, but
there has also been a waste of men, money and materials. There has
been inefficient planning."
The Turnabout. Another crash program was launched, this time to help
agriculture. As once the farmers had been marched into the factories,
now the workers were marched onto the farms. In Kiangsi province,
480,000 workers were ordered out of their industrial plants and into
the fields. In Shansi, 400,000 more were (in Peking's phrase)
"retrenched" from dam construction and industry to the soil. Now,
three years too late, the Communist Party announced that it was
putting "industry at the service of agriculture." A Harbin plant
switched from making freight cars to repairing tractors; in Kansu,
machine-tool makers "agreed" to switch gears and to concentrate on
agricultural equipment.
The cruel rigidity of the commune system was conspicuously softened.
The workday was cut to ten hours. Husbands and wives were to be
permitted their own room, the unappetizing mess halls were shut down,
and commune members were allowed to keep such personal belongings as
"houses, bicycles, clothing, blankets, quilts, radios, watches and
bank deposits." There was even a typical, doublethink explanation for
this return to capitalism. "The small freedom within the big collective
—this is dialectical unity."
The kanpus, who in the past had been the grim overseers of the
communes, were now forbidden to "arbitrarily set output targets,
mechanically arrange crop acreage, or rigidly introduce technical
measures." As a final insult, the kanpus were told to seek guidance
from "wise old peasants."
Army Farms. The supple new line may have been hurried along by unrest
in the Red army. The peasant rank and file was naturally bitter at the
suffering of its families in the communes. Red army officers resent
the use of their men as a labor force. Because of army protests in
1959, Defense Minister Peng Teh-huai was replaced by more pliable
Marshal Lin Piao, who instituted a new and supposedly chastening
system of sending officers into the ranks for one month each year to
wear "ordinary soldiers' uniforms and to eat, live, drill, labor and
play together with fellow soldiers." Even generals undergo this
treatment, which seems clearly designed to discourage the emergence of
an officer caste.
The Red army is mollified by getting plenty of food. On 700 large
farms the army raises its own hogs, vegetables and grain. Enlistments
far exceed normal requirements, since, as a refugee in Hong Kong put
it, "the army's the one place you can get some meat."
Some Gains. What has held Red China together so far is the Communist
Party kanpus, the army, the single-minded but aging leadership. Should
these rivets begin to loosen, the whole structure might well come
apart. Is there any hope, then, of imminent disintegration or revolt?
Almost certainly not, and to count on it would be a dangerous illusion
for the West. China is so vast that no calamity can encompass the
whole of it. While food is short everywhere, some provinces are far
better off than others. Though most factories are badly run, all are
not, and despite fatigue there is a slowly growing competence among
skilled laborers. The Communists have even found a sunny side to the
commune experience. Explained a Red official: "It wasn't production,
it was education. Our people were in awe of technological processes.
Now they have learned not to be afraid of 'technique.' It has lost its
mystery. People who have actually poured their own steel and made
things with it feel that they can do anything."
The mere fact that war has finally stopped in China has brought
improvements, and would have done so under any regime. Undeniably, in
their twelve years in power, the Reds have accomplished some badly
needed reforms in Chinese society. An elementary knowledge of hygiene
has spread, preventable diseases have been largely controlled, infant
mortality has been greatly reduced, women have been released from the
iron dominance of husband and mother-in-law, from child marriage and
concubinage.
But whatever the gains, they do not begin to offset the price imposed
by Peking through oppression and misery. Today no one can be sure how
many people share this misery.*** Virtually all Western experts agree
that Red China's population is increasing more rapidly than its food
supply. Peking seemed to agree until the Great Leap Forward; since
then, the attempt to hold down the population through birth control
has been virtually abandoned. To Red China's masters, the swarming
masses, even hungry, mean military and industrial power. Says a U.S.
agricultural expert: "Even if everything were done perfectly for the
next 25 years, where would they be? China would still have its narrow
margin of arable land, and it would then have a population of a
billion people."
Hard to Die. Last week fog and rain began moving down from the
Manchurian plains toward the South China coast. Winter brings the end
of the growing season, the end of the opportunity to steal food from
fields and gardens, or even of scrounging the hills for edible leaves
and roots. Winter also brings the need for warm clothes and warming
fires. But as Red China enters its fourth winter since the Great Leap
Forward, clothing and fuel are in nearly as short supply as food.
In the damp, bone-chilling mornings, factory workers line up in
alleyways to buy bits of pancake or oily fritters at outdoor stoves.
Often the street hawker runs out of food before half the line is fed.
Those who can afford it visit the "free" markets, where peasants sell
eggs at 30¢ each, peanuts at $2 per Ib. and chickens at $3 per Ib.
In Shanghai, where failure of the cotton crop has paralyzed textile
mills, unemployed workers are being used as street cleaners. And it is
becoming hard even to die. In one Kwangtung area, the commune provides
one coffin per month, first come, first served. Other corpses must be
buried in paper cartons, though some families scrape together enough
wood to make triangular coffins, saving on corners.
Technique of Tension. Amid all this, Peking's press and radio blare
night and day that China is ringed by imperialist bases, infested with
reactionary spies, and subject to all sorts of dastardly plots. Some
governments might fear the effect of piling tension on tension, of
driving to despair the most docile population. But Mao Tse-tung
believes in tension as a normal state. The Chinese masses, he once
explained, ''are first poor and secondly 'blank.' That may seem a bad
thing, but it is really a good thing. A blank sheet of paper has no
marks, and so the newest and most beautiful words can be written on
it." From the start. Mao's new and beautiful words have hammered out
two themes : 1) the greatness of Chinese Communism and 2) the West's
envious wish to destroy it. Mao systematically adds fear to poverty
and hate to hunger.
Parades, songs, slogans, brass bands and banners are constantly used
to incite the people; plays, books, meetings, orations ceaselessly
repeat the message that old China is now a country grown young. A poem
of the Tang dynasty (A.D. 618-906) reads:
Past the sunken boat, a thousand sails;
Beyond the diseased oak, 10,000 sap-green trees.
The party's propagandists explain that the decaying West resembles the
sunken boat and diseased oak, but that Red China "is flourishing and
hopeful, like a thousand sails racing ahead and ten thousand trees
turning green."
More appropriate lines, say the refugees in Hong Kong, come from
another Tang dynasty poet, Li Po:
The universe is like an inn,
The passing years are like dust.
We complain when we think of the past,
We would complain more if we thought of the future!
* Peking figures, considered by Western experts to be relatively
accurate through 1957.
** A polite Chinese expression with a somewhat Madison Avenue flavor.
The brick is a coarse, inexpensive article that is thrown out by the
speaker so that others will throw in something more valuable like
jade, in the form of criticisms and suggestions. It is something like
saying of an idea: "Let's put it on the train and see if it gets off
at Hunan."
*** The exact population of China is unknown. In 1948, during the
civil war, the Nationalist government estimated, on the basis of a
partial census, that there were 460 million mainland Chinese. Today
the Nationalists on Formosa insist that mainland population has
dropped to 450 million. Nationalist Historian Hu Shih, under a complex
and interpretive system, insists that there are only 300 million. In
1953 the Chinese Communists held a nationwide census and came up with
a figure of 582.6 million, and now estimate a population of 670-680
million. The latest figures published by the U.S. Census Bureau are
restricted to the year 1958 and give China's population as 678
million. The U.S. independent Population Reference Bureau estimates
that there were 716 million Chinese in mid-1961, a figure agreeing
with that of India's demographic expert, Dr. Sripati Chandrasekhar.
chhotemianinshallah
India: Never Again the Same
Friday, Nov. 30, 1962
INDIA
(See Cover)
Red China behaved in so inscrutably Oriental a manner last week that
even Asians were baffled. After a series of smashing victories in the
border war with India. Chinese troops swept down from the towering
Himalayas and were poised at the edge of the fertile plains of Assam,
whose jute and tea plantations account for one-fourth of India's
export trade. Then, with Assam lying defenseless before her conquering
army. Red China suddenly called a halt to the fighting.
Radio Peking announced that, "on its own initiative." Red China was
ordering a cease-fire on all fronts. Further, by Dec. 1, Chinese
troops would retire to positions 12½ miles behind the lines they
occupied on Nov. 7. 1959. If this promise is actually carried out. it
would mean, for some Chinese units, a pullback of more than 60 miles.
These decisions. Peking continued, ''represent a most sincere effort"
to achieve ''a speedy termination of the Sino-Indian conflict, a
reopening of peaceful negotiations, and a peaceful settlement of the
boundary question.'' War or peace, the message concluded, ''depends on
whether or not the Indian government responds positively."
In New Delhi the government of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was
taken completely by surprise. An Indian spokesman first denounced the
Chinese offer as a "diabolical maneuver." which was later amended to
the comment that India would "wait and see" exactly what the Chinese
were proposing. A communique confirmed that, after the cease-fire
deadline, there "had been no report of firing by the Chinese
aggressors." Indian troops also stopped shooting, but Nehru warned
India: "We must not imagine that the struggle will soon be over."
On closer examination, the Chinese cease-fire proved to be a lot less
mysterious. It did offer India's battered armies a badly needed
respite. But it left the Chinese armies in position to resume their
offensive if Nehru refuses the Peking terms. And it puts on India the
onus of continuing the war. Said the Hindustan Times: "The latest
Chinese proposals are not a peace offer but an ultimatum."
Whatever the results of this peace bid tendered on a bayonet, India
will never be the same again, nor will Nehru.
Barren Rock. In New Delhi illusions are dying fast. Gone is the belief
that Chinese expansionism need not be taken seriously, that, in
Nehru's words, China could not really want to wage a major war for
"barren rock." Going too, is the conviction that the Soviet Union has
either the authority or the will to restrain the Chinese Communists.
Nehru's policy of nonalignment, which was intended to free India from
any concern with the cold war between the West and Communism, was
ending in disaster. Nearly shattered was the morally arrogant pose
from which he had endlessly lectured the West on the need for peaceful
coexistence with Communism. Above all. the Indian people, fiercely
proud of their nationhood, have been deeply humiliated and shaken by
the hated Chinese.
India, which is equally capable of philosophic calm and hysterical
violence, showed, in the words of President Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan.
a "great soul-awakening such as it has never had in all its history."
The awakening took some curious forms. The Buddhist nuns and monks of
Ladakh devoted themselves to writing an "immortal epic" of India's
fight against Chinese aggression. A temple in the south Indian state
of Andhra Pradesh converted its 85-lb. gold treasury into 15-year
defense bonds, while New Delhi bank clerks shined shoes outside a
restaurant after hours and gave their earnings to the government, men
jammed the enlistment centers and showered Nehru with pledges to fight
signed in blood.
The 73-year-old Nehru gave the impression of being swept along by this
tumult, not of leading it. His agony was apparent as he rose in
Parliament, three days before the Chinese cease-fire announcement, to
report that the Indian army had been decisively defeated at Se Pass
and Walong. The news raised a storm among the M.P.s. A Deputy from the
threatened Assam state was on his feet, shaking with indignation and
demanding, "What is the government going to do? Why can't you tell us?
Are we going to get both men and materials from friendly countries to
fight a total war, or is the government contemplating a cease-fire and
negotiations with the Chinese?" Other gesturing Deputies joined in,
shouting their questions in English and Hindi. "Are we nothing?" cried
one Praja Socialist member. "Is the Prime Minister everything?"
While the Speaker asked repeatedly for order, Nehru sat chin in hand,
obviously scornful of this display of Indian excitability, his
abstracted gaze fixed on nothing. Finally Nehru rose again and tried
to quiet the uproar by saying, "We shall take every conceivable and
possible measure to meet the crisis. We are trying to get all possible
help from friendly countries."
Attic Burglar. His critics accused him of still clinging to the
language of nonalignment. Later, in a radio speech in which he
announced the fall of Bomdi La,
Nehru sounded tougher. He no longer defended his old policies,
denounced China as "an imperialist of the worst kind," and at last
thanked the U.S. and Britain by name for arms aid, pledging to ask for
more.
Nehru was coming close to admitting that he had at last discovered who
were India's friends. The neutral nations, which so often looked to
India for leadership in the past, were mostly embarrassingly silent or
unsympathetic—a government-controlled newspaper in Ghana dismissed the
war as "an ordinary border dispute." As for Russia, its ambiguously
neutral position, argued Nehru, was the best India could hope for
under the circumstances. Actually, Nehru had obviously hoped for more,
and was shocked when, instead of helping India, Moscow denounced
India's border claims and urged Nehru to accept the Red Chinese
terms.
As India's poorly equipped army reeled under the Chinese blows, the
West moved swiftly and without recrimination to India's defense.
Shortly after the Chinese attack, frantic Indian officers simply drove
round to the U.S. embassy with their pleas for arms and supplies.
Eventually their requests were coordinated. During the tense week of
the Cuban crisis, U.S. Ambassador to India Kenneth Galbraith was
virtually on his own, and he promised Nehru full U.S. backing.
When Washington finally turned its attention to India, it honored the
ambassador's pledge, loaded 60 U.S. planes with $5,000,000 worth of
automatic weapons, heavy mortars and land mines. Twelve huge C-130
Hercules transports, complete with U.S. crews and maintenance teams,
took off for New Delhi to fly Indian troops and equipment to the
battle zone. Britain weighed in with Bren and Sten guns, and airlifted
150 tons of arms to India. Canada prepared to ship six transport
planes. Australia opened Indian credits for $1,800,000 worth of
munitions.
Assistant Secretary of State Phillips Talbot graphically defined the
U.S. mission. "We are not seeking a new ally," he said. "We are
helping a friend whose attic has been entered by a burglar." In
Washington's opinion, it mattered little that the burglar gratuitously
offered to move back from the stairs leading to the lower floors and
promised not to shoot any more of the house's inhabitants. "What we
want," said Talbot, "is to help get the burglar out."
To that end, a U.S. mission headed by Assistant Secretary of State for
Far Eastern Affairs Averell Harriman and U.S. Army General Paul D.
Adams flew to New Delhi to confer with Indian officials on defense
requirements. Soon after, Britain's Commonwealth Secretary Duncan
Sandys arrived with a similar British mission. Their most stunning
discovery: after five years under Nehru's hand-picked Defense
Minister, Krishna Menon, the Indian army was lamentably short of
ammunition even for its antiquated Lee Enfield rifles.
Misbehaving People. So far, the fighting has shown that the Indians
need nearly everything, except courage. Chinese burp guns fire 20
times faster than Indian rifles. The Indian 25-pounder is a good
artillery piece, but is almost immobile in the mountains and cannot
match the Chinese pack artillery, recoilless guns and bazookas. Each
Chinese battalion has a special company of porters whose job it is to
make sure the fighting men have ample ammunition and food. The Indians
must rely on units from their unwieldy Army Service Corps, who were
never trained to operate at heights of 14,000 feet and over mule
paths. In addition to bulldozers and four-wheel-drive trucks, the
Indians need mechanical saws that can match the speed of those the
Chinese use to cut roads through forests.
India's catastrophic unreadiness for war stems directly from the
policy of nonalignment which was devised by Nehru and implemented by
his close confidant Krishna Menon. Says one Indian editor:
"Nonalignment is no ideology. It is an idiosyncrasy."
Indians like to say that it resembles the isolationism formerly
practiced by the U.S.. but it has moral overtones which, Nehru claims,
grow out of "Indian culture and our philosophic outlook.'' Actually,
it owes as much to Nehru's rather oldfashioned, stereotyped, left-wing
attitudes acquired during the '20s and '30s ("He still remembers all
those New Statesmen leaders." says one bitter critic) as it does to
Gandhian notions of nonviolence. Nehru has never been able to rid
himself of the disastrous cliche that holds Communism to be somehow
progressive and less of a threat to emergent nations than
"imperialism."
Nehru himself has said: "Nonalignment essentially means live and let
live—but of course this doesn't include people who misbehave." During
its 15 years of independence. India has dealt severely with the
misbehavior of several smaller neighbors, but has been almost
slavishly tolerant of Communist misbehavior.
The Communist Chinese invasion of Korea was "aggression." but the West
was also "not blameless"; the crushing of the Hungarian rebellion was
unfortunate, but all the facts were not clear; when the Soviet Union
broke the nuclear test moratorium last year, Nehru deplored "all
nuclear tests."
Like a Buddha. Yet in its way, nonalignment paid enormous dividends.
India received massive aid from both Russia and the West. Getting on
India's good side became almost the most important thing in the United
Nations. At intervals, the rest of the world's statesmen came to India
to pay obeisance to Nehru as though to a Buddha. And Nehru obviously
believed that whatever he did. in case of real need the U.S. would
have to help India anyway. Meanwhile, as he saw it. the object of his
foreign policy was to prevent the two great Asian powers —Russia and
China—from combining against India. In his effort to woo both, acerbic
Krishna Menon, says one Western diplomat, "was worth the weight of
four or five ordinary men. He was so obnoxious to the West that,
almost alone, he could demonstrate the sincerity of India's neutrality
to the Russians."
At the 1955 Bandung conference. Nehru and China's Premier Chou En-lai
embraced Panch Shila, a five-point formula for peaceful coexistence.
The same Indian crowds that now shout. "Wipe out Chink stink!" then
roared "Hindi Chini bhai bhai" (Indians and Chinese are brothers).
India refused to sign the peace treaty with Japan because Red China
was not a party to it. At home, Menon harped on the theme that
Pakistan was India's only enemy. Three years ago, when Pakistan
proposed a joint defense pact with India, Nehru ingenuously asked,
"Joint defense against whom?" Western warnings about China's ultimate
intentions were brushed aside as obvious attempts to stir up trouble
between peace-loving friends.
Even the Chinese conquest of Tibet in 1951 had rung no alarm bells in
New Delhi—and therein lie the real beginnings of the present war.
Initialed Map. Under the British raj, London played what Lord Curzon
called "the great game." Its object was to protect India's northern
borders from Russia by fostering semi-independent buffer states like
Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim. In those palmy colonial days, Tibet was
militarily insignificant, and China, which claims overlordship of
Tibet, was usually too weak to exercise it.
When the Chinese Republic of Sun Yat-sen was born in 1912, Britain
decided to look to its borders. At a three-nation meeting in Simla in
1914, Britain's representative. Sir Arthur McMahon, determined the
eastern portion of the border by drawing a line on a map along the
Himalayan peaks from Bhutan to Burma. The Tibetan and Chinese
delegates initialed this map, but the newborn Chinese Republic refused
to ratify it, and so has every Chinese government since.
The McMahon Line was never surveyed or delimited on the ground, and
British troops seldom penetrated the NEFA hill country, where such
tribes as the Apatanis. the Tagins and the Hill Miris amused
themselves by slave-raiding and headhunting. As recently as 1953. the
Daflas wiped out a detachment of the Assam Rifles just for the fun of
it.
At the western end of the border, in Ladakh. the British made even
less of an effort at marking the frontier, and the border with Tibet
has generally been classified as "undefined." Red China was most
interested in Ladakh's northeastern corner, where lies the Aksai Chin
plateau, empty of nearly everything but rocks, sky and silence. For
centuries, a caravan route wound through the Aksai Chin (one reason
the Chinese say the plateau is theirs is that Aksai Chin means
"China's Desert of White Stone"), leading from Tibet around the hump
of the lofty Kunlun range to the Chinese province of Sinkiang. In 1956
and 1957 the Chinese built a paved road over the caravan trail, and so
lightly did Indian border police patrol the area that New Delhi did
not learn about the road until two years after it was built.
Time Immemorial. Firing off a belated protest to Peking, India rushed
troops into the endangered area, where they at once collided with
Chinese outposts. Attempts at negotiation broke down because India
demanded that the Chinese first withdraw to Tibet, while the Chinese
insisted that Aksai Chin, and much more besides in NEFA and Ladakh.
was historically Chinese territory. Neither side has basically changed
its position since.
On Oct. 25, strong Chinese patrols began penetrating the NEFA border,
occupying Longju and Towang and threatening Walong. For once, Nehru
was badly shaken. He said: "From time immemorial the Himalayas have
provided us with a magnificent frontier. We cannot allow that barrier
to be penetrated because it is also the principal barrier to India."
But the barrier was being daily penetrated. Ten months ago, Nehru
appointed Lieut. General Brij Kaul, 50, to command the NEFA area.
Then, without consulting any of his military men, Nehru publicly
ordered Kaul to drive out the Chinese invaders of NEFA.
The opposing armies were of unequal size, skill and equipment. The
Chinese force of some 110,000 men was commanded by General Chang Kuo-
hua, 54, a short, burly veteran of the Communist Party and Communist
wars, who well understands Mao Tse-tung's dictum, "All political power
grows out of the barrel of a gun." His army is made up of three-year
conscripts from central China, but its officers and noncoms are
largely proven cadres who served with distinction in the Korean war.
The infantry is armed with a Chinese-made burp gun with not very great
accuracy but good fire power, hand grenades, submachine guns and
rifles. The light and heavy mortars, which have a surprising range,
are also Chinese made, but the heavy artillery, tanks and planes are
mostly of Soviet manufacture.
The Indian forces number some 500,000, but fewer than 100,000 men were
committed to the Red border area—the bulk of the army, and many of its
best units, being kept on guard duty in Kashmir watching the
Pakistanis. A strictly volunteer army, with the men serving five-year
terms, it drew its troops largely from the warrior races of the north—
Jats, Sikhs, Gurkhas, Dogras, Garhwalis. Over the past century, the
Indian army has fought from France to China, and has usually fought
excellently, whether pitted against Pathan guerrillas, Nazi panzer
grenadiers or Japanese suicide squads. In the 1947-48 war in Kashmir,
the Indians were fighting a British-trained Pakistani army very like
themselves. Since independence, the Indian army has not encountered a
really first-rate foe. The guerrilla war with the rebellious Naga
tribesmen of Eastern Assam and the walkover in Goa were little more
than training exercises.
Infinite Testiness. For the past five years, the Indian army has also
been plagued by Defense Minister Krishna Menon, who was both economy-
minded and socialistically determined to supply the troops from state-
run arsenals, most of which exist only as blueprints. Sharing Nehru's
distrust of what he calls the "arms racket," Menon was reluctant to
buy weapons abroad, and refused to let private Indian firms bid on
defense contracts. Menon's boasts of Indian creativity in arms
development have been revealed as shoddy deceptions. A prototype of an
Indian jet fighter plane proved unable to break the sound barrier.
Even the MIG-21 planes that the Soviet Union has promised to deliver
in December are of questionable value, since jet fighters are useless
without an intricate ground-support system, which India is in no
position to set up.
A man of infinite testiness, Menon was soon squabbling with
independent-minded generals. Lieut. General Shankar Thorat and
Commander in Chief General K. S. Thimayya appealed to Nehru against
Menon's promotion policies. When Nehru, who has long scorned the
British-trained officers as men who "did not understand India,"
refused to listen to complaints about Menon, both generals retired
from the army in disgust. Menon named as new commander in chief P. N.
Thapar, a "paperwork general."
Skyward Zigzag. Before Kaul had a chance to try and "clear out" the
Chinese in NEFA, the Chinese struck first on Oct. 20. Some 20,000 burp-
gun-toting infantry stormed over Thag La ridge and swept away a 5,000-
man Indian brigade strung out along the Kechilang River. The surprise
was complete, and dazed survivors of the Chinese attack struggled over
the pathless mountains, where hundreds died of exposure. In Ladakh the
Chinese scored an even bigger victory, occupying the entire 14,000
square miles that Peking claims is Chinese territory.
While the Indians worked to build up a new defense line at Walong and
in the lofty Se Pass, reinforcements were hurried to Assam. The effort
to bring up men and supplies from the plains was backbreaking. TIME
Correspondent Edward Behr made the trip over a Jeep path that was like
a roller coaster 70 miles long and nearly three miles high. He
reports: "The Jeep path begins at Tezpur, amid groves of banana and
banyan trees, then climbs steeply upward through forests of oak and
pine to a 10,000-ft. summit. Here the path plunges dizzily downward to
the supply base of Bomdi La on a 5,000-ft. plateau, and then zigzags
skyward again to the mist-hung Se Pass at 13,556 ft. Above the hairpin
turns of the road rise sheer rock walls; below lie bottomless chasms.
Rain and snow come without warning, turning the path to slippery mud.
Even under the best conditions, a Jeep takes 18 hours to cover the 70
miles.
"At this height, icy winds sweep down from the snow crests of the
Himalayas, and if a man makes the slightest exertion, his lungs feel
as if they are bursting. Newcomers suffer from the nausea and
lightheadedness of mountain sickness. Every item of supply, except
water, must be brought up the roller coaster from the plains. There
are few bits of earth flat enough for an airstrip, and helicopters
have trouble navigating in the thin air."
Shell Plaster.
After three weeks, Kaul felt emboldened to make a probing attack on
the Chinese lines. Following an artillery barrage, 1,000 Indian jawans
(G.I.s) drove the Chinese from the lower slopes of a hill near Walong.
It was a costly victory, for the Chinese launched a massive
counterattack through and around Walong, driving the Indians 80 miles
down the Luhit valley. At Se Pass, the Chinese victory was even more
spectacular. Having spotted the Indian gun emplacements, the Chinese
plastered them with mortar and artillery shells, and then sent forward
a Korea-style "human sea" assault. Two Chinese flanking columns of
several thousand men each moved undetected and with bewildering speed
through deep gorges and over 14,000-ft. mountains around the pass to
capture the Indian supply base at Bomdi La, trapping an Indian
division and throwing India's defense plans into chaos.
Panic spread from the mountains into the plains. Officials in Tezpur
burned their files, and bank managers even set fire to stacks of
banknotes. Five hundred prisoners were set free from Tezpur jail.
Refugees jammed aboard ferry boats to get across the Brahmaputra
River. Even policemen joined the flight.
Indian army headquarters was hastily moved from Tezpur to Gauhati, 100
miles to the southwest. Officers and men who had escaped from the
fighting referred dazedly to the Chinese as swarming everywhere "like
red ants." An Indian colonel admitted, "We just haven't been taught
this kind of warfare."
Needed Intellect. Though India—like the U.S. after Pearl Harbor—could
not yet afford scapegoats and recrimination, Defense Minister Krishna
Menon was almost universally blamed for the inadequacy of Indian arms,
the lack of equipment and even winter clothing. His fall from grace
not only finished his own career but brought a turning point in
Nehru's. The Prime Minister had tried to pacify critics by taking over
the Defense Ministry and downgrading Menon to Minister of Defense
Production, but Nehru's own supporters demanded Menon's complete
dismissal.
On Nov. 7, Nehru attended an all-day meeting of the Executive
Committee of the parliamentary Congress Party and made a final plea
for Menon, whose intellect, he said, was needed in the crisis.
As a participant recalls it, ten clenched fists banged down on the
table, a chorus of voices shouted, "No!"
Nehru was dumfounded. It was he who was used to banging tables and
making peremptory refusals. Taking a different tack, he accurately
said that he was as much at fault as Menon and vaguely threatened to
resign. Always before, such a threat had been sufficient to make the
opposition crumble with piteous cries of 'Tanditji, don't leave us
alone!" This time, one of the leaders said: "If you continue to follow
Menon's policies, we are prepared to contemplate that possibility."
Nehru was beaten and Menon thrown out of the Cabinet. Joining him in
his exit was Menon's appointee, Commander in Chief General P. N.
Thapar, who resigned because of "poor health."
The Defense Department at once, but belatedly, got a new look and a
firmer tone. Impatient of turgid oratory and military fumbling, all
India turned with relief to the new Defense Minister, Y. B. Chavan. A
big man in every sense of the word—including his burly 200 lbs.—Chavan
served for six years as Chief Minister of Bombay, the richest and most
industrialized Indian state. The army's new commander in chief, Lieut.
General J. N. Chaudhuri, the "Victor of Goa," who also saw action in
World War II campaigns in the Middle East and Burma, is a close friend
of Chavan's.
Though a socialist and a onetime disciple of Nehru, Chavan is cast in
a different mold. Once a terrorist against the British and a proud
member of the Kshra-triya warrior caste, Chavan says: "There can be no
negotiations with an aggressor." Unlike Nehru, who still maintains
that China's attack is not necessarily connected with Communism,
Chavan declared: "The first casualties of the unashamed aggression of
the Chinese on India are Marxism and Leninism."
Old Twinkle. There has been some grumbling that Nehru is no wartime
leader. At 73, he often seems physically and mentally spent. His hair
is snow-white and thinning, his skin greyish and his gaze abstracted.
Since the invasion, he has not spared himself, and his sister, Mme.
Pandit, thinks Nehru is "fighting fit-he's got that old twinkle in his
eye." But he tires noticeably as the day goes on. One old friend says,
"It makes a big difference whether you see him in the morning or the
evening."
No one seriously suggests that Nehru will be replaced as India's
leader while he lives. To his country, he is not a statesman but an
idol. Each morning, large crowds assemble on the lawn outside his New
Delhi home. Some present petitions or beg favors, but thousands, in
recent weeks, have handed over money or gold dust for the national
defense. Most come just to achieve darshan, communion, with the
country's leader. The throng is comforted and reassured, not by the
words, but by the presence of Nehru.
His widowed daughter, Indira Gandhi, 45, who is functioning as his
assistant and has sometimes been mentioned as his favorite choice to
succeed him, is still essentially right when she says: "Unity can only
be formed in India behind the Congress Party, and in the Congress
Party only behind my father."
Nevertheless, Nehru's power will be circumscribed from now on. His
long years of unquestioned, absolute personal rule are at an end. For
the first time, leaders of the ruling Congress Party are demanding
that attention be paid to the majority sentiment in the party as well
as to Nehru's own ideas. The 437 million people of India may cease
being Nehru's children and may at last become his constituents.
This does not mean that Nehru no longer leads, but only that from now
on he will have to lead by using the more orthodox methods of a
Western politician. Conservative members of the Congress Party,
notably Finance Minister Morarji Desai, have been strengthened, and
expect that Nehru's dogmatic reliance on socialism and the "public
sector" of industry will be reduced; if India is to arm in a hurry,
they argue, it will need the drive and energy of the "private
sector."
Moreover, the Indian army may not only at last get the equipment it
needs but may also gradually emerge as something of a political force.
While this view is still vastly unpopular, many army officers think it
is time for India to come to terms with Pakistan over the nagging
Kashmir issue, so that the two great countries of the subcontinent can
present a united front to China.
Bartered Gains. There is still considerable dispute over how little or
how much the Chinese were after in their attack on India. One theory
held by some leading Indian military men is that the Reds want
eventually to drive as far as Calcutta, thereby outflanking all of
Southeast Asia. In such a drive, the Chinese would be able to take
advantage of anti-Indian feeling along the way, notably among the
rebellious Nagas in East Assam, and in the border state of Sikkim.
Reaching Calcutta, perhaps the world's most miserable city, where
125,000 homeless persons sleep on the streets each night, they would
find readymade the strongest Communist organization in India.
According to this theory, the Reds could set up a satellite regime in
the Bay of Bengal and, without going any farther with their armies,
wait for the rest of India to splinter and fall. This strategy has not
necessarily been abandoned for good, but it certainly has been set
aside. For one thing, the Chinese attack shattered Communism as a
political force even in Calcutta.
The prevailing theory now is that the Chinese had less ambitious aims
to begin with: to take the high ground and the key military passes
away from the Indians, and to finally establish, once and for all,
Chinese control of the Aksai Chin plateau in Ladakh, so as to
safeguard the vital military roads to Sinkiang province. The Chinese
may have been unprepared to exploit the almost total collapse of
India's armed forces and may even have been surprised by their swift
success. On this reading, the terms of the Chinese cease-fire offer
become intelligible. The Nov. 7 line would in effect barter away the
sizable Chinese gains in NEFA for Indian acceptance of China's
property rights in Aksai Chin.
Viewed from Peking, the difficulties of supply through the Himalayas
in dead of winter might make the Communists hesitate to try to occupy
Assam, especially since India's determined show of national unity, and
the West's evident willingness to support India to the hilt. There is
a significant indication of one Chinese anxiety in the cease-fire
offer. After warning that renewed war will "bring endless disaster to
India," Peking says: "Particularly serious is the prospect that if
U.S. imperialism is allowed to become involved, the present conflict
will grow into a war in which Asians are made to fight Asians,
entirely contrary to the fundamental interests of the Indian people."
Implicit in those words are Red Chinese memories of the prolonged
Korean war. which ended in a gory stalemate.
India's angry millions, armed, trained and aided by the U.S., must be
a prospect that not even Mao Tse-tung relishes facing. Instead, by in
effect quitting while they are ahead, the Chinese can play the
peacemakers in the short-sighted eyes of the neutral nations, while
having dramatically demonstrated their military superiority over India
and without having to abandon the long-range threat. Says Madame
Pandit: "This attack was far more than just an attack on one border.
India is completely and wholly dedicated to democracy and not to some
kind of 'Asian democracy.' China's motive was to humiliate India and
to prove democracy is unworkable in Asia."
Without Meaning. Even if Nehru were prepared to give away Ladakh in
return for a Chinese pullback elsewhere, he is committed to clearing
all Indian territory of the invaders. And Nehru must know that the
situation has reached a point where he can never again trust a Red
Chinese promise and that the relationship between India and China has
changed irrevocably. His policy of nonalignment has not been
jettisoned. It has just ceased to have any meaning.
But Americans in New Delhi last week were irritated by evidence that
the Indian government still prefers equivocation to the plain truth.
Official requests went out to the Indian press not to print photos
showing the arrival of U.S. arms, and the twelve U.S. Air Force
transport planes sent by Washington to ferry Indian troops were made
to sound like leased aircraft flown by mercenaries. The crowds know
better. A current slogan is a revision of the earlier cry for
brotherhood with China: "Americans bhai bhai; Chini hai
hail" (Americans are our brothers; death to the Chinese!).
An Indian Cabinet minister, who disagrees with Nehru politically but
respects him, says passionately: "He will come to many changes now.
You cannot imagine how difficult it was for him to get rid of Menon.
Do not think it was easy for him to ask for American arms. Right now,
it is important not to push him into a corner in public." Another
Cabinet minister, who does not like Nehru, also counsels patience:
"His will to resist will wear down. It is already worn down a long
way. Hitherto, there was no opposition at all in India. Now, Nehru is
relying on his opposition. He may hate it. He has been thrown into the
company of people like me, people he does not like. We make strange
bedfellows, but together we are going to win the war."
To Americans it may sound like a peculiar way to win a war. But though
India moves at a different pace and speaks with a different voice few
could doubt last week the Indian determination to see that the
Himalayan defeats were avenged, however long it may take.
chhotemianinshallah
Pakistan: In Anguish, Not Anger
Friday, Nov. 30, 1962
While Red China's aggression was pushing India away from its historic
policy of nonalignment, it had the ironic counter-effect of nudging
once staunchly pro-Western Pakistan toward neutralism.
Pakistan-seemed far less concerned with the fact that the Chinese
invasion posed a real threat to its own frontiers than with how the
crisis would affect its bitter and longstanding dispute with India
over control of Kashmir. Bitterly. Pakistan pointed to the crack
Indian divisions still positioned along the U.N. cease-fire line as
proof that India was exaggerating the extent of the Chinese
incursions. Echoing influential Pakistani officials who labeled India
the "aggressor" in the border conflict. President Ayub Khan said that
"international Communism" was far less of a danger to Pakistan than
"Hindu imperialism," and that India was "inflating the present
situation beyond proportion to get arms" from the U.S. and Britain.
Understandably enough, the Pakistanis feel that they might as well not
have joined SEATO. since the unaligned Indians are getting arms from
the U.S. without having had to join any alliances. Pakistan also
argues that if Washington and London expected it to accept Indian
rearmament and not to take advantage of India's plight to invade
Kashmir, then Nehru should have been required in turn to promise to
settle the Kashmir issue. Although the U.S. got an Indian promise that
the new arms would not be used against Pakistan, Ayub's government
refused to be reassured. Ayub warned Washington that its continued
support of Nehru might force him to withdraw from both SEATO and
CENTO, if they should prove "of no use" to Pakistan any longer.
Ayub was strongly seconded by his Foreign Minister, Mohammed Ali.
Speaking "in anguish, not anger," Ali told the National Assembly that
"in the national interest we shall make friends—whoever is interested
to accept our hand. If friends let us down, we shall not consider them
as friends. Friends that stand by us, we will stand by." He did not
have to look far for new friends. From Peking came an offer from Chou
En-lai for a nonaggression pact between Red China and Pakistan, as
well as an invitation to Ali to visit the Chinese capital to discuss
arbitration of the border problems between the two countries. With
almost indecent haste, Ali accepted the invitation.
chhotemianinshallah
India: Thunder on Left & Right
Friday, Aug. 23, 1963
On the eve of the 16th anniversary of Indian independence, 2,000
demonstrators marched outside Parliament in Delhi, waving banners and
chanting: "Leave the throne, Jawaharlal." Inside the horseshoe-shaped
chamber, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru faced the first no-confidence
motion in his 16 years in power.
The censure motion was sponsored by Nehru's most outspoken political
foe, stooped, acerbic J. B. Kripalani, a political independent who was
returned to Parliament only two months ago in a surprising by-election
victory, after having been swamped by now discredited ex-Defense
Minister Krishna Menon in last year's general election. Kripalani
proposed to censure the government among other things, over official
cor ruption, spiraling food prices and prohibitively high taxation.
Though Kripalani is pro-Western, the censure proposal became an
umbrella for all kinds of other Nehru critics, including leftists
angered by Nehru's few tentative steps away from nonalignment.
One major leftist target was India's agreement to permit Voice of
America broadcasts for three hours daily over a transmitter to be
built by the U.S. in Calcutta, and Nehru is now trying to back out of
it. Another target: the joint air defense exercises that the Indian
air force will soon hold with the U.S. and British air commands. In an
effort to silence his leftist critics. Nehru has won extensive
promises from Russia and its satellites for missiles, fighters, and
small arms. Top government officials expect little in substance from
Soviet aid promises, but insist that the symbolism of such aid is
necessary to maintain India's image of nonalignment.
With Nehru's Congress Party holding a massive 229-seat plurality in
Parliament, there is no chance that the censure motion will be
carried. But Nehru is plainly worried over the rising opposition on
both the right and the left and over the by-election trend away from
the party in what were once considered impregnable Congress
constituencies. He has promised to shake up his government and to
demand the resignation of some Cabinet ministers so that they can work
full time on organizational duties to revitalize the party. Nehru's
plan is scorned by C. Rajagopalachari, 84, leader of India's small,
dynamic, free-enterprising Swantantra Party. "Theatricals do not cure
diseases," says C. R. "The Congress Party is sick, and I do not want
sick persons in charge of the government."
chhotemianinshallah
India: The Empty Chair
Friday, Jan. 17, 1964
It had been obvious for months that Jawaharlal Nehru was in failing
health.
He walked unsteadily, had difficulty getting in and out of
automobiles, often dozed off while talking to visitors. His voice was
frail, his skin puffy and loose.
More and more, Nehru was forced to take to his bed with internal
disorders.
Last week, at 74, he suffered the most serious illness of all, a
stroke that left him bedridden and partially paralyzed.
Suddenly India was faced with its most pressing leadership crisis
since independence in 1947.
Quiet & Subdued. The blow fell in the ancient Hindu temple town of
Bhubaneswar, 220 miles southwest of Calcutta, where 10,000 delegates,
officials, newsmen and hangers-on were gathered for the Congress
Party's 68th annual convention. Bhubaneswar had worn a festive air.
Green, white and saffron party flags fluttered from hundreds of
flagpoles, and pictures of Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi adorned shop
windows. On his arrival, Nehru was so weak that aides had to lift him
from a helicopter, and when he finally was able to walk, he shuffled
away with back bent and head bowed. At a flag-raising ceremony, his
words were almost inaudible. At the first party sessions, Nehru was
quiet and subdued. Then he collapsed.
From Delhi, four doctors, including a heart specialist, were flown to
his bedside. The first medical bulletins were evasive, referred to
overwork and his need for rest. At last the doctors let it be known
that Nehru had lost the feeling in his "left limbs," finally admitted
that his whole left side was affected. It was, friends admitted,
paralysis.
Fearing the political consequences of the Prime Minister's disability,
Nehru's closest aides seemed bent on minimizing its seriousness.
Indira Gandhi showed up at Congress meetings, announced airily that
her father was already sitting up in bed and reading, remarked that he
had even disobeyed doctors' orders by taking a bath.
Internal Dissension. As a result, while world headlines talked of
India's leadership crisis, the delegates at Bhubaneswar went about
their business almost as if nothing had happened. As was expected in
advance, the party overwhelmingly reaffirmed its faith in liquor
abstinence, the wearing of simple, homespun clothing, and its belief
in socialism (though left-wing amendments calling for nationalization
of banks and the rice industry were firmly rejected).
On the dais in the main conference hall, the single empty easy chair
set aside for Nehru's use symbolized the big problem that now faced
India: Who will succeed its stricken leader? The
Congress Party has been racked with internal dissension ever since
Nehru last fall asked a number of top Cabinet officers—including Food
Minister S. K. Patil, Home Minister Lai Bahadur Shastri, and Finance
Minister Morarji Desai —to resign, ostensibly to reorganize the party
and revitalize its strength among the masses. But it is generally felt
that Nehru actually intended the move as a ruse to shake out of the
Cabinet all potential contenders for his post. Wise to the scheme, the
ousted ministers set about building up personal followings for a
succession fight.
None of the top contenders has the following and the mass appeal to
rule alone as Nehru has done; instead, they must build a coalition
from among the various factions within the party. Once a top favorite,
the ascetic, blunt-spoken Morarji Desai, 67, has strong backing among
the party's right wing. But he suffered a serious loss of popular
support last year when his budget raised taxes to almost prohibitive
levels in order to finance the defense effort against Red China.
Mrs. Wilson. Smartest politician in the succession sweepstakes is
Patil, 63, the political boss of Bombay and a favorite of conservative
business elements. Patil has little love for Nehru, personally favors
a more pragmatic brand of socialism more concerned with practical
accomplishments than with abstract ideological arguments. Closest
personally to Nehru is Shastri, 59, whose primary advantage is that he
has fewer enemies than any other candidate. But over the long haul,
Shastri is a lackluster personality and a colorless campaigner.
Top Indian government officials feel that as long as Nehru stays
alive, he will cling stubbornly to the prime-ministership. With Nehru
bedridden, the political position of his daughter Indira has become
greatly enhanced. Long a Congress Party troubleshooter and her
father's top political confidante, Indira has been privy to more top-
level decisions than any of Nehru's subordinates. Since ex-Defense
Minister Krishna Menon's fall from grace, she has also spread the
extreme left-wing views that Nehru wanted publicized but for political
reasons did not want to articulate himself. Indira will be her
father's main link to the world outside his sickroom and by screening
all his visitors will exert, as did Mrs. Woodrow Wilson during her
disabled husband's final months in office, an enormous amount of
influence. Congress Party left-wingers are hopeful that an extended
convalescence will help promote Indira's candidacy and enable her to
broaden her political base.
Speak, Mother India. Yet the question remains as to whether India's
domestic problems, which defeated a healthy Nehru, are not too
pressing for an invalid Prime Minister. Population increases still
outstrip the rise in national income, and more than 75% of the
country's 450 million people are illiterate. Government machinery is
so cumbersome that for a tragic length of time a cholera epidemic in
West Bengal went virtually unattended. Three-quarters of the
population lives on less than 20¢ a day, food is short, prices are
rising, and the third Five-Year Plan is foundering. Land reform is
only partially implemented, and many basic industries are half idle.
At week's end, the decision was made to keep Nehru in warm,
semitropical Bhubaneswar for a few more days rather than risk moving
him to New Delhi. When he returns to the capital, declared aides, the
airport will be closed and photographers barred, for India's revered
leader would probably return on a stretcher. Meanwhile, Nehru
surrendered control of government administration to two of his Cabinet
Ministers—Home Minister Gulzari Lal Nanda and Finance Minister T. T.
Krishnamachari.
Having known no other leader since Gandhi, the Indian people were
reluctant to speculate about the eventual succession. Newspapers at
first played down the illness story, dutifully printed only the
official medical bulletins. But a Calcutta paper dared do more than
wish Nehru well. "Please retire," the paper pleaded. "For a full 50
years, India's millions have accepted your directives. Now you must
listen to their fervent appeal. If Mother India could speak, she would
urge you affectionately, 'My restless son, don't tire yourself any
more.' "
chhotemianinshallah
INDIA: The Adventurous Life
Monday, May. 04, 1959
Handsomely mounted on a white horse, India's Prime Minister Nehru last
week cantered up a road in the hill resort of Mussoorie. Looking as
fit as a much younger man and wearing a red rose in his buttonhole, 69-
year-old Jawaharlal Nehru dismounted at Birla House, a large English-
style cottage, and strode across the green lawn in the glittering
afternoon sunshine that drenched the surrounding fir trees and the
distant snowy peaks of the Himalayas. A line of Tibetan officials
bowed to Nehru, presented him with an armload of ceremonial white
scarves. The curtains parted in the main doorway, and out stepped the
smiling Dalai Lama for his first meeting with Nehru since the God-King
of Tibet fled the Red Chinese reconquest of his homeland (TIME, April
13). "How are you?" asked Nehru. Answered the Dalai Lama in his best
English: "I am quite nice."
Soothing Reply. Nehru had made quite a day of his visit to Mussoorie.
That morning, he gave a political pep talk to local Congress Party
workers, then moved on to Mussoorie's Savoy Hotel to address the
Travel Agents Association of India, crisply advising his audience that
travel "should involve some adventure, some risk, some hardship,"
because the "comfortable life is rightly boring and dull."
The admonitions he gave to travelers were ones that Nehru was in no
mood to follow himself against aggressive Red China. Speaking about
India's relations with Peking, Nehru soft-pedaled all thought of risk,
hardship and adventure. It was almost as if he were setting out to
prove that the revolt in Tibet—"the treacherous armed rebellion," in
Peking's words—was nothing to get excited about.
From Red China came the boast—for the sixth week in a row—that the
rebellion had been put down, this time with 2,000 rebel casualties and
the "wiping out of rebel nests" along the Indian border. At least one
man outside Red China knew pretty well what was happening across his
secluded border, but Nehru was not saying. His consulate in Lhasa has
the only radio link with the free world. But, for reasons of state, as
well as personal inclination, Nehru was following a policy of see-no-
evil, speak-no-evil regarding Red China. There were reports that he
had sent additional troop re-enforcements to the Tibet border; he was
known not to wish to be subjected to an influx of Tibetan refugees.
Peking had obviously concluded that the way to handle Nehru was to
menace him. Though an articulate denouncer of distant injustices,
Nehru now told the press outside the Dalai Lama's house that he did
not want "this matter to become a subject of heated exchanges and
heated debates. I want to avoid the situation's getting worse." To
newsmen eager to talk to the God-King, Nehru replied that he was sure
the Dalai Lama was "more interested in a peaceful solution of the
Tibetan problem than in press interviews."
Nehru suggested that Red China send its own puppet ruler of Tibet, the
Panchen Lama, plus any interested Red Chinese emissaries, to visit the
Dalai Lama and see for themselves that he was not being held "under
duress" as the Red radio proclaimed. Nehru hoped that conditions would
"some day" relax so that the God-King might go home to Tibet. His own
contribution, whether intentionally or not, was to deaden the world's
outrage, while the Red Chinese put down the rebellion.
Friendly Letters. Red China returned harsh insults for Nehru's soft
words. The Peking radio continued to scream that the rebellion had
been instigated by "Indian expansionists" and "foreign imperialists"
and bluntly named Nehru's daughter Indira, 41, and his sister Madame
Pandit, 58, as co-conspirators with the Tibetan "reactionaries."
Stubbornly, the Reds repeated the big lie that the God-King's
statement in India that he had fled Tibet of his own volition and his
denouncement of the Reds for treaty breaking were "fabrications" by
imperialist intriguers.
After a four-hour conference with the Dalai Lama, Nehru emerged from
Birla House and, faced by a battery of cameras and microphones, gave
reporters a two-minute interview. It had been, said Nehru, "a very
full talk, I hope a helpful talk." Then he offered an unintentional
assist to the Red propagandists by conceding that, while in Lhasa, the
Dalai Lama had indeed written "friendly" letters to the Red commandant
because he 1) was passing through difficult and troubled times, and 2)
was trying to avoid open conflict with Peking.
Having made it clear to all—and especially to Red China—that the Dalai
Lama would get political asylum in India but no help in regaining his
homeland, Nehru remounted his white horse and traveled—avoiding risk,
hardship and adventure—off into the evening.
chhotemianinshallah
Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-Tung), the son of a peasant farmer, was born in
Chaochan, China, in 1893. He became a Marxist while working as a
library assistant at Peking University and served in the revolutionary
army during the 1911 Chinese Revolution.
Inspired by the Russian Revolution the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)
was established in Shanghai by Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao in June 1921.
Early members included Mao, Zhou Enlai, Zhu De and Lin Biao. Following
instructions from the Comintern members also joined the Kuomintang.
Over the next few years Mao, Zhu De and Zhou Enlai adapted the ideas
of Lenin who had successfully achieved a revolution in Russia. They
argued that in Asia it was important to concentrate on the countryside
rather than the towns, in order to create a revolutionary elite.
Mao worked as a Kuomintang political organizer in Shanghai. With the
help of advisers from the Soviet Union the Kuomintang (Nationalist
Party) gradually increased its power in China. Its leader, Sun Yat-sen
died on 12th March 1925. Chiang Kai-Shek emerged as the new leader of
the Kuomintang. He now carried out a purge that eliminated the
communists from the organization. Those communists who survived
managed to established the Jiangxi Soviet.
The nationalists now imposed a blockade and Mao Zedong decided to
evacuate the area and establish a new stronghold in the north-west of
China. In October 1934 Mao, Lin Biao, Zhu De, and some 100,000 men and
their dependents headed west through mountainous areas.
The marchers experienced terrible hardships. The most notable passages
included the crossing of the suspension bridge over a deep gorge at
Luting (May, 1935), travelling over the Tahsueh Shan mountains
(August, 1935) and the swampland of Sikang (September, 1935).
The marchers covered about fifty miles a day and reached Shensi on
20th October 1935. It is estimated that only around 30,000 survived
the 8,000-mile Long March.
When the Japanese Army invaded the heartland of China in 1937, Chiang
Kai-Shek was forced to move his capital from Nanking to Chungking. He
lost control of the coastal regions and most of the major cities to
Japan. In an effort to beat the Japanese he agreed to collaborate with
Mao Zedong and his communist army.
During the Second World War Mao's well-organized guerrilla forces were
well led by Zhu De and Lin Biao. As soon as the Japanese surrendered,
Communist forces began a war against the Nationalists led by Chaing
Kai-Shek. The communists gradually gained control of the country and
on 1st October, 1949, Mao announced the establishment of People's
Republic of China.
In 1958 Mao announced the Great Leap Forward, an attempt to increase
agricultural and industrial production. This reform programme included
the establishment of large agricultural communes containing as many as
75,000 people. The communes ran their own collective farms and
factories. Each family received a share of the profits and also had a
small private plot of land. However, three years of floods and bad
harvests severely damaged levels of production. The scheme was also
hurt by the decision of the Soviet Union to withdraw its large number
of technical experts working in the country. In 1962 Mao's reform
programme came to an end and the country resorted to a more
traditional form of economic production.
As a result of the failure on the Great Leap Forward, Mao retired from
the post of chairman of the People's Republic of China. His place as
head of state was taken by Liu Shaoqi. Mao remained important in
determining overall policy. In the early 1960s Mao became highly
critical of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union. He was for example
appalled by the way Nikita Khrushchev backed down over the Cuban
Missile Crisis.
Mao became openly involved in politics in 1966 when with Lin Biao he
initiated the Cultural Revolution. On 3rd September, 1966, Lin Biao
made a speech where he urged pupils in schools and colleges to
criticize those party officials who had been influenced by the ideas
of Nikita Khrushchev.
Mao was concerned by those party leaders such as Liu Shaoqi, who
favoured the introduction of piecework, greater wage differentials and
measures that sought to undermine collective farms and factories. In
an attempt to dislodge those in power who favoured the Soviet model of
communism, Mao galvanized students and young workers as his Red Guards
to attack revisionists in the party. Mao told them the revolution was
in danger and that they must do all they could to stop the emergence
of a privileged class in China. He argued this is what had happened in
the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev.
Lin Biao compiled some of Mao's writings into the handbook, The
Quotations of Chairman Mao, and arranged for a copy of what became
known as the Little Red Book, to every Chinese citizen.
Zhou Enlai at first gave his support to the campaign but became
concerned when fighting broke out between the Red Guards and the
revisionists. In order to achieve peace at the end of 1966 he called
for an end to these attacks on party officials. Mao remained in
control of the Cultural Revolution and with the support of the army
was able to oust the revisionists.
The Cultural Revolution came to an end when Liu Shaoqi resigned from
all his posts on 13th October 1968. Lin Biao now became Mao's
designated successor.
Mao now gave his support to the Gang of Four: Jiang Qing (Mao's fourth
wife), Wang Hongwen, Yao Wenyuan and Zhange Chungqiao. These four
radicals occupied powerful positions in the Politburo after the Tenth
Party Congress of 1973.
Mao Zedong died in Beijing on 9th September, 1976.
chhotemianinshallah
China
China is a major country in East Asia. The population is predominantly
ethnic Chinese (Han) with significant minorities in Tibert, Xinjiang
and Mongolia.
In 1644 China was ruled by the Qing dynasty and by the 18th century
the country had become very prosperous. Several rebellions took place
in the 19th century. Defeat in the Sino-Japanese War (1894) and the
Boxer Rising encouraged reforms but the dynasty ended in the Chinese
Revolution of 1911.
Empires of the Silk Road
China: A New History
Sun Yat-sen briefly became president and with Song Jiaoren established
the Kuomintang (National People's Party). When the party was
suppressed in 1913 by General Yuan Shikai, Sun Yat-sen escaped to
Japan.
Sun Yat-sen returned to Guangzhou and with the the help of advisers
from the Soviet Union the Kuomintang gradually increased its power in
China. In 1924 it adopted the "Three Principles of the
People" (nationalism, democracy and social reform). He also
established the Whampoa Military Academy under Chiang Kai-Shek.
Sun Yat-sen died on 12th March 1925. After a struggle with Wang Ching-
Wei, Chiang Kai-Shek eventually emerged as the leader of the
Kuomintang. He now carried out a purge that eliminated the communists
from the organization. Those communists who survived managed to
established the Jiangxi Soviet.
The nationalists now imposed a blockade and Mao Zedong decided to
evacuate the area and establish a new stronghold in the north-west of
China. In October 1934 Mao, Lin Biao, Zhu De, and some 100,000 men and
their dependents headed west through mountainous areas.
The marchers experienced terrible hardships. The most notable passages
included the crossing of the suspension bridge over a deep gorge at
Luting (May, 1935), travelling over the Tahsueh Shan mountains
(August, 1935) and the swampland of Sikang (September, 1935).
The marchers covered about fifty miles a day and reached Shensi on
20th October 1935. It is estimated that only around 30,000 survived
the 8,000-mile Long March.
When the Japanese Army invaded the heartland of China in 1937, Chiang
was forced to move his capital from Nanking to Chungking. He lost
control of the coastal regions and most of the major cities to Japan.
In an effort to beat the Japanese he agreed to collaborate with Mao
Zedong and his communist army.
After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Chiang and his government received
considerable financial support from the United States. General Joseph
Stilwell, head of American Army Forces in China, Burma and India
(CBI), disagreed with this policy, arguing that Chiang Kai-Shek was an
inept leader and was ignorant of the fundamentals of modern warfare.
Stilwell was accused of being pro-communist and in October 1944
Stilwell was recalled to the United States and was replaced by General
Albert Wedemeyer.
During the Second World War Mao's well-organized guerrilla forces were
well led by Zhu De and Lin Biao. As soon as the Japanese surrendered,
Communist forces began a war against the Nationalists led by Chiang
Kai-Shek. The communists gradually gained control of the country and
on 1st October, 1949, Mao announced the establishment of People's
Republic of China. Chiang and the remnants of his armed forces fled to
Formosa (Taiwan).
In 1958 Mao Zedong announced the Great Leap Forward, an attempt to
increase agricultural and industrial production. This reform programme
included the establishment of large agricultural communes containing
as many as 75,000 people. The communes ran their own collective farms
and factories. Each family received a share of the profits and also
had a small private plot of land. However, three years of floods and
bad harvests severely damaged levels of production. The scheme was
also hurt by the decision of the Soviet Union to withdraw its large
number of technical experts working in the country. In 1962 Mao's
reform programme came to an end and the country resorted to a more
traditional form of economic production.
As a result of the failure on the Great Leap Forward, Mao retired from
the post of chairman of the People's Republic of China. His place as
head of state was taken by Liu Shaoqi. Mao remained important in
determining overall policy. In the early 1960s Mao became highly
critical of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union. He was appalled by
the way Nikita Khrushchev backed down over the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Mao Zedong became openly involved in politics in 1966 when with Lin
Biao he initiated the Cultural Revolution. On 3rd September, 1966, Lin
Biao made a speech where he urged pupils in schools and colleges to
criticize those party officials who had been influenced by the ideas
of Nikita Khrushchev.
The First Emperor of China
The Imperial Capital of China
Mao was concerned by those party leaders such as Liu Shaoqi, who
favoured the introduction of piecework, greater wage differentials and
measures that sought to undermine collective farms and factories. In
an attempt to dislodge those in power who favoured the Soviet model of
communism, Mao galvanized students and young workers as his Red Guards
to attack revisionists in the party. Mao told them the revolution was
in danger and that they must do all they could to stop the emergence
of a privileged class in China. He argued this is what had happened in
the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev.
Lin Biao compiled some of Mao's writings into the handbook, The
Quotations of Chairman Mao, and arranged for a copy of what became
known as the Little Red Book, to every Chinese citizen.
Zhou Enlai at first gave his support to the campaign but became
concerned when fighting broke out between the Red Guards and the
revisionists. In order to achieve peace at the end of 1966 he called
for an end to these attacks on party officials. Mao Zedong remained in
control of the Cultural Revolution and with the support of the army
was able to oust the revisionists.
The Cultural Revolution came to an end when Liu Shaoqi resigned from
all his posts on 13th October 1968. Lin Biao now became Mao's
designated successor.
Mao now gave his support to the Gang of Four: Jiang Qing (Mao's third
wife), Wang Hongwen, Yao Wenyuan and Zhange Chungqiao. These four
radicals occupied powerful positions in the Politburo after the Tenth
Party Congress of 1973.
Mao Zedong died in Beijing on 9th September, 1976. After the death of
Mao the power of the Gang of Four declined dramatically. In 1980 they
were found guilty of plotting against the state. Jiang Qing and Zhange
Chungqiao, who were considered to be the leaders, were sentenced to
death (later commuted to life imprisonment). Wang Hongwen and Yao
Wenyuan received lengthy prison sentences.
chhotemianinshallah
Sun Yat-sen
Sun Yat-sen, the son of a farmer, was born in 1866. He moved to Hawaii
where he was brought up by his older brother. He studied medicine in
Hong Kong and after graduating in 1892 he worked in Macao, Guangzhou
and Honolulu. Sun Yat-sen became interested in politics and
established the Revive China Society.
In 1895 Sun Yat-sen took part at Guangzhou in his first abortive
uprising. Forced into exile he lived in Japan, the United States and
Britain. While in London he was kidnapped and imprisoned in the
Chinese legation. In danger of being executed the British Foreign
Office got involved and obtained his release.
The Qing dynasty was finally overthrown in the Chinese Revolution of
1911. Sun Yat-sen briefly became president and with Song Jiaoren
established he Kuomintang (National People's Party). When the party
was suppressed in 1913 by General Yuan Shikai, Sun Yat-sen escaped to
Japan.
Sun Yat-sen returned to Guangzhou and with the the help of advisers
from the Soviet Union the Kuomintang gradually increased its power in
China. In 1924 it adopted the "Three Principles of the
People" (nationalism, democracy and social reform). He also
established the Whampoa Military Academy under Chiang Kai-Shek.
Sun Yat-sen died of cancer in Beijing in 1925.
(1) Su Kaiming, Modern China (1985)
In February 1923, Sun Yat-sen returned to Guangzhou where he
immediately set up a headquarters of a new revolutionary government.
Soviet Russia sent Michael Borodin (1884-1951) and some military
advisers to help him, and a provisional central committee of the
Kuomintang which included a number of Communists was organized.
The Chinese Communist Party held its Third National Congress in
Guangzhou in June 1923, and the question of forming a revolutionary
united front with the Kuomintang was discussed. The congress affirmed
Sun Yat-sen's contribution to the Chinese revolution and resolved to
help him in reorganizing the Kuomintang and establishing cooperation
between the two parties.
The gap between Sun Yat-sen and the West continued to widen. When he
threatened in December to seize the customs revenues in the port of
Guangzhou, the powers staged a naval demonstration to preserve the
status quo. Thwarted, Sun angrily stated, "We no longer look to the
Western powers.
Our faces are turned toward Russia."
In January 1924, Sun Yat-sen called the First National Congress of the
reorganized Kuomintang in Guangzhou. Among the Communists who attended
were Li Dazhao, Mao Zedong and Qu Qiubai (Chu Chiu-pai, 1899-1935).
The congress adopted the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal policy advanced
by the Communists, agreed to absorb individual Communists and
Socialist Youth League members into the Kuomintang, and decided to
reorganize the Kuomintang into a revolutionary alliance of workers,
peasants, the petty-bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie. In this way,
new blood was infused into the ranks of the Kuomintang and Sun Yat-sen
became the leader of a revitalized revolutionary movement.
(2) Qi Wen, China (1979)
In 1923, the Chinese Communist Party decided to establish a
revolutionary united front. It helped Sun Yat-sen reorganize the
Kuomintang (the old Tong Meng Hui was reorganized into the Kuomintang
after the Revolution of 1911). With the formation of the Kuomintang-
Communist united front, the Chinese Communist Party mobilized the
masses on a broad scale, and the revolutionary situation developed
vigorously. It continued to rise after the death of Sun Yat-sen in
1925. Organized and energized by the Party, the revolutionary forces
swept away the reactionary forces in Guangdong, and in 1926 the
Northern Expeditionary War began. Supported by the masses, the
revolutionary army defeated the counter-revolutionary armies of the
Northern warlords and occupied central and south China. The worker-
peasant movement grew rapidly throughout the country.
Seeing that the warlord regime they supported was tottering in the
sweep of the revolutionary tide, the imperialist forces hastily looked
for new agents and finally picked Chiang Kai-shek who had worked his
way into the position of Commander-in-Chief of the National
Revolutionary Army". In April 1927, at a crucial moment in the forward
advance of the Northern Expeditionary War, Chiang staged, with the
active support of the big bourgeoisie and landlord class, a counter-
revolutionary coup d'etat against the Chinese Communist Party and the
revolutionary people.
(3) Sun Yat-sen, letter to the Kuomintang (1925)
For 40 years I have devoted myself to the cause of the people's
revolution with but one end in view: the elevation of China to a
position of freedom and equality among the nations. My experience
during these 40 years has convinced me that to attain this goal we
must bring about an awakening of our own people and ally ourselves in
common struggle with those people of the world who treat us as
equals.
(4) Sun Yat-sen, letter to Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Communist
Party (1925)
I leave behind me a party which, as has always been my wish, will be
bound up with you in the historic work of the final liberation of
China and other exploited nations from the imperialist order. By the
will of fate, I must leave my work unfinished and hand it over to
those who, remaining true to the principles and teachings of the
party, will show themselves to be my true followers.
Taking leave of you, dear comrades, I want to express the hope that
the day will come when the U.S.S.R. will welcome a friend and ally in
a mighty, free China, and that in the great struggle for the
liberation of the oppressed peoples of the world, both these allies
will go forward to victory hand in hand.
chhotemianinshallah
Kuomintang
The Kuomintang (National People's Party) was established in 1912 by
Sun Yat-sen and Song Jiaoren. When the party was suppressed in 1913
Sun Yat-sen and his military commander, Chiang Kai-Shek, escaped to
Japan.
With the help of advisers from the Soviet Union the Kuomintang
gradually increased its power in China. In 1924 it adopted the "Three
Principles of the People" (nationalism, democracy and social reform).
Sun Yat-sen died on 12th March 1925. After a struggle with Wang Ching-
Wei, Chiang Kai-Shek eventually emerged as the leader of the
Kuomintang. He now carried out a purge that eliminated the communists
from the organization. In 1928 the reformed Koumintang captured
Beijing and was able to establish a government in Nanjing.
When the Japanese Army invaded the heartland of China in 1937, Chiang
was forced to move his capital from Nanking to Chungking. He lost
control of the coastal regions and most of the major cities to Japan.
In an effort to beat the Japanese he agreed to collaborate with Mao
Zedong and his communist army.
After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Chiang and his government received
considerable financial support from the United States. General Joseph
Stilwell, head of American Army Forces in China, Burma and India
(CBI), disagreed with this policy, arguing that Chiang Kai-Shek was an
inept leader and was ignorant of the fundamentals of modern warfare.
Stilwell was accused of being pro-communist and in October 1944
Stilwell was recalled to the United States and was replaced by General
Albert Wedemeyer.
During the Second World War the communist forces were well led by Zhu
De and Lin Biao. As soon as the Japanese surrendered, the communists
began a war against the Nationalists. The communists gradually gained
control of the country and on 1st October, 1949, Mao announced the
establishment of People's Republic of China. Chiang Kai-Shek and the
remnants of his armed forces fled to Formosa (Taiwan).
(1) Su Kaiming, Modern China (1985)
(3) Zhong Wenxian, Mao Zedong (1986)
In June 1923 Mao Zedong attended the Third National Congress of the
Chinese Communist Party, which adopted the policy of cooperation with
the Kuomintang, then led by Dr Sun Yat-sen, for the purpose of forming
a national anti-imperialist and anti-feudal united front to include
all democratic classes. The congress also decided that all members of
the Communist Party were to join the Kuomintang as individuals.
Elected a member of the Central Executive Committee by the congress,
Mao Zedong began to play a role in the work of the central leadership.
After the Kuomintang-Communist cooperation was brought about, he was
elected an alternate member of the Central Executive Committee of the
Kuomintang at its First and Second National Congresses, held in
January 1924 and January 1926.
(4) Sun Yat-sen, letter to the Kuomintang (1925)
For 40 years I have devoted myself to the cause of the people's
revolution with but one end in view: the elevation of China to a
position of freedom and equality among the nations. My experience
during these 40 years has convinced me that to attain this goal we
must bring about an awakening of our own people and ally ourselves in
common struggle with those people of the world who treat us as
equals.
(5) Sun Yat-sen, letter to Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Communist
Party (1925)
I leave behind me a party which, as has always been my wish, will be
bound up with you in the historic work of the final liberation of
China and other exploited nations from the imperialist order. By the
will of fate, I must leave my work unfinished and hand it over to
those who, remaining true to the principles and teachings of the
party, will show themselves to be my true followers.
Taking leave of you, dear comrades, I want to express the hope that
the day will come when the U.S.S.R. will welcome a friend and ally in
a mighty, free China, and that in the great struggle for the
liberation of the oppressed peoples of the world, both these allies
will go forward to victory hand in hand.
(6) Mao Zedong, interviewed by Edgar Snow in Red Star Over China
(1936)
In April the counter-revolutionary movement had begun in Nanjing and
Shanghai, and a general massacre of organized workers had taken place
under Chiang Kai-shek. The same measures were carried out in
Guangzhou. On May 21 the Xu Kexiang Uprising occurred in Hunan. Scores
of peasants and workers were killed by the reactionaries. Shortly
afterward the 'Left' Kuomintang at Wuhan annulled its agreement with
the Communists and 'expelled' them from the Kuomintang and from a
Government which quickly ceased to exist.
Many Communist leaders were now ordered by the Party to leave the
country, go to Russia or Shanghai or places of safety. I was ordered
to go to Sichuan. I persuaded Chen Duxiu to send me to Hunan instead,
as secretary of the Provincial Committee, but after ten days he
ordered me hastily to return, accusing me of organizing an uprising
against Tang Shengzhi, then in command at Wuhan. The affairs of the
Party were now in a chaotic state. Nearly everyone was opposed to.
Chen Duxiu's leadership and his opportunist line. The collapse of the
entente at Wuhan soon afterward brought about his downfall.
(7) Su Kaiming, Modern China (1985)
After setting up his military headquarters at Nanchang, the capital of
Jiangxi Province, Chiang Kai-shek considered himself strong enough to
defy the authority of the revolutionary Nationalist government at
Wuhan, which was then dominated by Kuomintang left-wingers (including
Mme. Sun Yat-sen) and Communists. In January 1927, he demanded that
the government be moved from Wuhan to Nanchang, where he was in
complete control. In reply, the central committee of the Kuomintang at
Wuhan took away his leading positions in the party, government and
army in an attempt to prevent him from seizing all power.
Bankers from Shanghai, politicians representing various warlord
governments and the agents of foreign imperialists all converged on
Nanchang to offer Chiang their help. In secret talks he was promised a
loan of 60,000,000 Chinese dollars if he would break with the
Communists and the Soviet Union and suppress the peasants and workers.
Chiang quickly agreed.
In the early hours of April 12, 1927, thousands of thugs from the
underworld Green Gang came out of the International Settlement
disguised as workers to attack the workers' armed militia. Pretending
to oppose "internal dissension among the workers", Chiang Kai-shek
ordered his troops to disarm the workers and occupy the headquarters
of the General Trade Union, where a spurious union composed of
underworld figures was immediately set up. Next day the Shanghai
workers called a mass rally and demanded the return of their weapons.
Unaware that Chiang Kai-shek had turned against the revolution, they
went to the General Headquarters of the Northern Expeditionary Army to
present their petition, only to be mowed down by machine-gun fire. The
blood of hundreds of workers stained the rain-washed streets of
Shanghai red.
chhotemianinshallah
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6140
Fifteen years after communism was officially pronounced dead, its
spectre seems once again to be haunting Europe. Last month, the
Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly voted to condemn the
"crimes of totalitarian communist regimes", linking them with Nazism
and complaining that communist parties are still "legal and active in
some countries". Now Göran Lindblad, the conservative Swedish MP
behind the resolution, wants to go further. Demands that European
ministers launch a continent-wide anti-communist campaign - including
school textbook revisions, official memorial days and museums - only
narrowly missed the necessary two-thirds majority. Yesterday,
declaring himself delighted at the first international condemnation of
this "evil ideology", Lindblad pledged to bring the wider plans back
to the Council of Europe in the coming months.
He has chosen a good year for his ideological offensive: this is the
50th anniversary of Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin and the
subsequent Hungarian uprising, which will doubtless be the cue for
further excoriation of the communist record. The ground has been well
laid by a determined rewriting of history since the collapse of the
Soviet Union that has sought to portray 20thcentury communist leaders
as monsters equal to or surpassing Hitler in their depravity - and
communism and fascism as the two greatest evils of history's bloodiest
era. The latest contribution was last year's bestselling biography of
Mao by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, keenly endorsed by George Bush and
dismissed by China specialists as "bad history" and "misleading".
Paradoxically, given that there is no communist government left in
Europe outside Moldova, the attacks have if anything become more
extreme as time has gone on. A clue as to why that might be can be
found in the rambling report by Lindblad that led to the Council of
Europe declaration. Blaming class struggle and public ownership, he
explained that "different elements of communist ideology such as
equality or social justice still seduce many" and "a sort of nostalgia
for communism is still alive". Perhaps the real problem for Lindblad
and his rightwing allies in eastern Europe is that communism is not
dead enough - and they will only be content when they have driven a
stake through its heart and buried it at the crossroads at midnight.
The fashionable attempt to equate communism and Nazism is in reality a
moral and historical nonsense. Despite the cruelties of the Stalin
terror, there was no Soviet Treblinka or Sobibor, no extermination
camps built to murder millions. Nor did the Soviet Union launch the
most devastating war in history at a cost of more than 50 million
lives - in fact it played the decisive role in the defeat of the
German war machine. Lindblad and the Council of Europe adopt as fact
the wildest estimates of those "killed by communist regimes" (mostly
in famines) from the fiercely contested Black Book of Communism, which
also underplays the number of deaths attributable to Hitler. The real
records of repression now available from the Soviet archives are
horrific enough (799,455 people were recorded as executed between 1921
and 1953 and the labour camp population reached 2.5 million at its
peak) without engaging in an ideologically-fuelled inflation game.
But in any case, none of this explains why anyone might be nostalgic
in former communist states, now enjoying the delights of capitalist
restoration. The dominant account gives no sense of how communist
regimes renewed themselves after 1956 or why western leaders feared
they might overtake the capitalist world well into the 1960s. For all
its brutalities and failures, communism in the Soviet Union, eastern
Europe and elsewhere delivered rapid industrialisation, mass
education, job security and huge advances in social and gender
equality. It encompassed genuine idealism and commitment, captured
even by critical films and books of the post-Stalin era such as
Wajda's Man of Marble and Rybakov's Children of the Arbat. Its
existence helped to drive up welfare standards in the west, boosted
the anticolonial movement and provided a powerful counterweight to
western global domination.
It would be easier to take the Council of Europe's condemnation of
communist state crimes seriously if it had also seen fit to denounce
the far bloodier record of European colonialism - which only finally
came to an end in the 1970s. This was a system of racist despotism,
which dominated the globe in Stalin's time. And while there is
precious little connection between the ideas of fascism and communism,
there is an intimate link between colonialism and Nazism. The terms
lebensraum and konzentrationslager were both first used by the German
colonial regime in south-west Africa (now Namibia), which committed
genocide against the Herero and Nama peoples and bequeathed its ideas
and personnel directly to the Nazi party.
Around 10 million Congolese died as a result of Belgian forced labour
and mass murder in the early 20th century; tens of millions perished
in avoidable or enforced famines in British-ruled India; up to a
million Algerians died in their war for independence, while
controversy now rages in France about a new law requiring teachers to
put a positive spin on colonial history. Comparable atrocities were
carried out by all European colonialists, but not a word of
condemnation from the Council of Europe - nor over the impact of
European intervention in the third world since decolonisation.
Presumably, European lives count for more.
No major 20th-century political tradition is without blood on its
hands, but battles over history are more about the future than the
past. Part of the current enthusiasm in official western circles for
dancing on the grave of communism is no doubt about relations with
today's Russia and China. But it also reflects a determination to
prove there is no alternative to the new global capitalist order - and
that any attempt to find one is bound to lead to suffering and
bloodshed. With the new imperialism now being resisted in both the
Muslim world and Latin America, growing international demands for
social justice and ever greater doubts about whether the environmental
crisis can be solved within the existing economic system, the pressure
for political and social alternatives will increase. The particular
form of society created by 20th-century communist parties will never
be replicated. But there are lessons to be learned from its successes
as well as its failures.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Colum...1710891,00.html
chhotemianinshallah
Chiang Kai-shek, the son of a wine merchant, was born in Fenghua,
China, on 31st October 1887. His father died when he was a child
leaving the family in extreme poverty. He was sent to live with
relatives but he ran away and joined the provincial army.
Chiang was a good soldier and he was eventually sent to the military
academy in Paoting. In 1907 he attended the Military State College in
Tokyo. During this period he became a supporter of Sun Yat-sen, the
leader of the Kuomintang (Nationalist Party). During the 1911
revolution Chiang led a regiment that captured Shanghai. After the
counter-revolution that followed, Chiang returned to Japan.
With the help of advisers from the Soviet Union the Kuomintang
gradually increased its power in China. In 1924 Chiang became head of
the Whampoa Military Academy.
Sun Yat-sen died on 12th March 1925. After a struggle with Wang Ching-
Wei, Chiang eventually emerged as the leader of the Kuomintang. He now
carried out a purge that eliminated the communists from the
organization.
In 1926 Chiang commanded the army which aimed to unify China. He
defeated the communist army and forced the survivors to make the
famous Long March to Shensi in North West China. Chiang eventually
established a government in Nanjing. Major financial reforms were
carried out and the education system and the road transport were both
improved. Chiang also established the New Life Movement in 1934 which
reasserted traditional Confucian values to combat communist ideas.
When the Japanese Army invaded the heartland of China in 1937, Chiang
was forced to move his capital from Nanking to Chungking. He lost
control of the coastal regions and most of the major cities to Japan.
In an effort to beat the Japanese he agreed to collaborate with Mao
Zedong and his communist army.
After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Chiang and his government received
considerable financial support from the United States. General Joseph
Stilwell, head of American Army Forces in China, Burma and India
(CBI), disagreed with this policy, arguing that Chiang was an inept
leader and was ignorant of the fundamentals of modern warfare.
Stilwell was accused of being pro-communist and in October 1944
Stilwell was recalled to the United States and was replaced by General
Albert Wedemeyer.
During the Second World War the communist guerrilla forces were well
led by Zhu De and Lin Biao. As soon as the Japanese surrendered,
Communist forces began a war against the Nationalists. The communists
gradually gained control of the country and on 1st October, 1949, Mao
Zedong announced the establishment of People's Republic of China.
Chiang and the remnants of his armed forces fled to Formosa (Taiwan).
His autobiography, Summing up at Seventy , was published in 1957.
Chiang Kai-shek died on 5th April 1975.
chhotemianinshallah
On 12th March 1925, Sun Yat-sen, the leader of the Kuomintang died. He
was replaced by Chaing Kai-Shek who now carried out a purge that
eliminated the communists from the organization. Those communists who
survived managed to established the Jiangxi Soviet.
The nationalists now imposed a blockade and Mao Zedong decided to
evacuate the area and establish a new stronghold in the north-west of
China. In October 1934 Mao, Zhou Enlai, Lin Biao, Zhu De, and some
100,000 men and their dependents headed west through mountainous
areas.
The marchers experienced terrible hardships. The most notable passages
included the crossing of the suspension bridge over a deep gorge at
Luting (May, 1935), travelling over the Tahsueh Shan mountains
(August, 1935) and the swampland of Sikang (September, 1935).
The marchers covered about fifty miles a day and reached Shensi on
20th October 1935. Only around 30,000 survived the 8,000-mile march.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Zhou Enlai, Mao Zedong (1978)
During the Great Revolution, Chairman Mao was already aware that the
peasants were the largest ally and that the people's revolution could
not triumph without them. And sure enough, the revolution suffered
defeat because his views weren't listened to. Later, when we got to
the countryside. Chairman Mao saw that in order to carry out the
revolution it is necessary not only to rely on the peasants, but also
to win over the middle and petty bourgeoisie. As Chiang Kai-shek's
counter-revolutionary treachery became further exposed, only the
comprador-bureaucrat and feudal landlord classes supported him. But a
group of people inside the Communist Party made "Left" deviationist
mistakes and were very narrow in their outlook, holding that the
middle and petty bourgeoisie were unreliable. They didn't listen to
Chairman Mao, and the result was that the revolution suffered another
setback and we had to march 25,000 li.
(2) Hans Suyin wrote about the Long March in his book The Morning
Deluge (1972)
The conditions under which the Long March began could not have been
worse, with totally inadequate food supplies, much cumbersome and
useless baggage, no battle plans in relation to enemy troop movements.
Li Teh was the man chiefly responsible for the conduct of this
evacuation. Backed by Chin Pang-hsien, he overrode the opinions of
other members of the Revolutionary Military Council, as he had done
persistently during the fifth counter campaign.
During the last four months, up till the final day of departure,
peasants of the base had laboured at earth fortifications and
trenches; the new recruits in the Army had very poor training, severe
shortages had affected their health. "Where were we going? Some were
told we were going to beat the landlords and make revolution . . . We
were told many different things. We did not know where we were going."
It appears that all that Li Teh knew of military science was the
straight, straight line. He drew a straight line and that was the line
of march. But one important detail had been forgotten. Maps. There
were no maps except the maps Mao had collected. These maps did not
indicate the straight, straight roads which Li Teh wanted for marching
on. The Red Army men, exhausted after months of combat, of
malnutrition, lack of salt, defeats, had had no time to rest. Yet
these incredible peasants and workers hurled themselves at the lines
of blockhouses, machine gun nests, trenches, fortifications, barbed
wire entanglements, which surrounded the Juichin base, and broke them.
Nine battles were fought against 100 regiments of the Kuomintang;
25,000 Red Army men died in the breakthrough.
During the first ten days the orders were to walk by night and rest by
day; but there was no rest, as the open columns were pitilessly
strafed by German-manned airplanes. The orders were changed to four
hours of marching and four hours rest, day and night. But again there
was no rest, for they were attacked, had no time to eat, to find
shelter, water, before they were on the march again.
We fought every day, we were outnumbered. We could only pluck up
courage, and sing: "The Red Army fears not death/Who fears death is
not a Red Army man." From the rear, from both sides as well as from
the air, in front of them, the enemy attacked. "We were so tired, we
strapped ourselves to trees, to our guns, we strung ourselves to each
other. We slept standing up, we slept walking. We had only one thing
in mind, sleep. But there was no sleep. The strong pulled the weak. We
did not want to straggle, to be left behind. Long rows of us roped
ourselves together so as to keep on the march. We called it sleep
flying.
Always going straight as a ruler, the Red Army arrived on the east
bank of the Hsiang river. It had to be crossed, for now the "plan" was
to march straight across Hunan and then northwest, to join the base of
the Second Front Army, although by then the bulk of the Second Front
Army was elsewhere. A vast Kuomintang force barred the way, yet the
river had to be forded. The Red Army waded through, the tall carrying
the short; the children of 12 and 13 who in their hundreds had come to
the Army and served as orderlies, cookboys, carriers and trumpeters
hitched themselves onto the veterans' shoulders.
The Red Army fought (how they fought!) with marvellous courage, stood
in two columns to allow their noncombatants to
use the lane between them to cross the river. There were not enough
stretcher-bearers, many wounded lay in heaps dying. They stuffed cloth
in their own mouths to keep from screaming. Many cadres also died,
fighting side by side with the soldiers. Mao Zedong went to the
wounded, but could not do very much except cover one with his
overcoat.
The battle of the Hsiang river lasted a week, with horrifying losses.
The dead and the dying littered the bank. This insane
attempt cost another 30,000 men. "We had to leave some of the wounded
behind, there was no way to carry them. By now we had no footwear,
some of us did not eat for four days; yet we fought." "I remember how
it rained and it rained, we wallowed in mud, we sank in it; but we
went through." According to Liu Po-cheng, by now half of the troops
had been either killed or wounded grievously. But the "Head on,
straight on" Li Teh would not change the orders.
(3) Tan Ching-lin's account of the Long March appeared in Stories of
the Long March (1958)
From Kangmaoszu, the marshes stretched like a great sea, vague, gloomy
and illimitable. In sunless days, there was no way to tell the
direction. Treacherous bogs were everywhere which sucked a man down
once he stepped off the firmer parts, and more quickly if he tried to
extricate himself. We could advance only with minute care, stepping on
grass-clumps. Even so, one could not help feeling nervous, for the
grass mounds sank with the pressure and black water would rise and
submerge the foot. Soon after one passed, the grass mound would rise
to its original position, leaving not a trace of the footprint. It was
really like traversing a treacherous quicksand. Fortunately, the
advance unit had left a course hair rope which led meanderingly to the
depth of the morass. We proceeded carefully along this rope, fearing
that we might break it, for we knew clearly this was no ordinary rope,
but a "life-line" that was set up by fraternal units at the cost of
the lives of many good comrades.
We tried out almost all kinds of wild plants along our way. Later we
discovered a sort of prickly, stumpy tree denuded of
leaves but with tiny red berries the size of a pea, and with a sour-
sweet taste like cherries. This was accounted the best of our
discoveries. Whenever this tree appeared in the distance, we would run
straight toward it with a sudden flush of vigour. And some comrades,
forgetting they were in a swamp, would run headlong into the mire and
disappear. Those who reached the tree would begin eating, and when
they had their fill, would pluck the rest for the wounded and sick
comrades.
On the sixth day, someone dug out a kind of aqueous plant the size of
a green turnip which tasted sweet and crisp. Everybody at once
searched for it. It proved poisonous. Those who ate it vomited after
half an hour; several died on the spot. Death, however, could not be
allowed to delay our progress. Unfastening the quilts of the martyrs
and covering their bodies we paid them the deep tribute all Red Army
heroes warrant, and continued to push forward.
(4) Mon Hsu was interviewed about the Long March by Agnes Smedley for
her book The Great Road (1956)
Today I discovered a comrade struggling in the muddy water. His body
was crunched together and he was covered with muck. He gripped his
rifle fiercely, which looked like a muddy stick. Thinking he had
merely fallen down and was trying to get up, I tried to help him
stand. After I pulled him up he took two steps, but the entire weight
of his body was on me, and he was so heavy that I could neither hold
him up nor take a step. Urging him to try and walk alone, I released
him. He fell on the path and tried to rise. I tried again to lift him
but he was so heavy and I so weak that it was impossible. Then I saw
that he was dying. I still had some parched wheat with me and I gave
him some but he could not chew, and it was clear that no food could
save him. I carefully put the parched wheat back in my pocket, and
when he died I arose and passed on and left him lying there. Later,
when we reached a resting place I took the wheat from my pocket but I
could not chew it. I kept thinking of our dying comrades. I had no
choice but to leave him where he fell, and had I not done this I would
have fallen behind and lost contact with our army and died. Yet I
could not eat that parched wheat.
(5) Chang Kuo-hua's account of the Long March appeared in Stories of
the Long March (1958)
The higher we went, the narrower the path became. The slope was
getting steeper, the air thinner. It was very dangerous to ride, so I
dismounted and, grasping the tail of the mule, continued to struggle
upwards. On this path rising through the sombre, virgin forest, were
several other comrades who like me, were ill. They climbed, gritting
their teeth, following closely the footsteps of the comrade in front.
At eleven a.m. we had, after much difficulty, reached to within six li
of the summit when the bugle sounded for a rest. All sat down on the
side of the path. Some ran down to the gully to drink water. Others
took out their rations and began to eat. We would give the final
battle to the snow mountain after we had eaten.
Though this section was not long, every step demanded the strength of
my whole body. I purged less frequently, but I felt awfully weak, as
if I had not eaten for a long, long time. The air suddenly became
thinner when we were some two hundred metres from the summit.
Breathing became more difficult. With head spinning and eyes blurred,
I could hardly stand, let alone go forward. 'Now I am done for', I
said to myself. But immediately thought: 'Am I going to be defeated
when the summit is in sight? I must not fall, for that would be the
end of everything.'
I controlled myself with the utmost effort. I was struggling
desperately when, luckily, comrades from the signal squad came up and
gave me a hand. Just at this moment there was a thud from behind,
followed by an outcry. I looked back. A carrier had fallen to the
track, pole and all. Steadying my gaze, I saw that it was the young
comrade Li Chiu-sheng who, so short a time before, had challenged me
to a competition. I was racked with grief. We had lost another close
comrade-in-arms.
The Supply Section head, hearing what happened, quickly hurried back
and, with tear-filled eyes, buried Li Chiu-sheng's
body.
Without warning there came a blast of wind. The sun was quickly
shrouded by a heavy black cloud, and soon the whole sky darkened.
Rain, intermixed with hail, came pattering down. The storm gathered
force, and hailstones, the size of potatoes, beat down on us. The men
covered their heads with basins, or shrouded them in quilts. I
struggled with all my might to fold up two sheepskins. One I gave to
my chief; the other I wrapped over my head.
Eventually the storm passed. Strewn on the track were ice and snow
which were soon trodden into a lane as deep as a man's height as the
troops proceeded. On both sides of this lane lay numerous dear
comrades who, for the future of the people of the motherland, had
struggled until they breathed their last. They sleep everlasting on
this snow mountain. 'The nation's heroes are immortal.'
My chief, pole on his shoulder, leading me by the hand, continued to
advance towards the last stretch.
'It is no easy task to carry on the revolution', he kept saying to me.
'And aren't those comrades who now lie on the roadside heroes who
sacrificed themselves for it?'
As he talked, I saw his eyes redden. A few hot tears fell on my hand.
'We are still alive,' he went on, 'we mustn't slacken our effort. We
must take up the cause of the martyrs and continue to
struggle.'
Hearing his words I was too moved for speech. Though I had not eaten
for days and was racked by illness, I was a Communist. I was still
quite young. But so long as I had one breath left in me, I would exert
my last ounce of strength to scale the mountain. Gritting my teeth, I
climbed and climbed and at last was at the summit.
(6) Chen Changfeng was Mao Zedong's orderly. He wrote an account of
Mao Zedong and the Long March in 1973.
In June 1955, after crossing the Dadu River, we came to the foot of
Jiajin Mountain, a towering, snowcovered peak. The June sun had not
yet set but its heat had lost its power in the face of this great icy
mass.
We paused for a day at its foot. Chairman Mao had advised us to
collect ginger and chilli to fortify ourselves against the bitter cold
as we climbed the pass over the mountain. We started the climb in the
early morning of the next day.
The peak of Jiajin Mountain pierced the sky like a sword point
glittering in the sunlight. Its whole mass sparkled as if decorated
with a myriad glittering mirrors. Its brightness dazzled your eyes.
Every now and again clouds of snow swirled around the peak like a vast
umbrella. It was an unearthly, fairyland sight.
At the start the snow was not so deep and we could walk on it fairly
easily. But after twenty minutes or so the drifts became deeper and
deeper. A single careless step could throw you into a crevasse and
then it might take hours to extricate you. If you walked where the
mantle of snow was lighter, it was slippery; for every step you took,
you slid back three! Chairman Mao was walking ahead of us, his
shoulders hunched, climbing with difficulty. Sometimes he would slip
back several steps. Then we gave him a hand; but we too had difficulty
in keeping our foothold and then it was he who caught our arms in a
firm grip and pulled us up. He wore no padded clothes. Soon his thin
grey trousers were wet through and his black cotton shoes were shiny
with frost.
The climb was taking it out of us. I clambered up to him and said:
"Chairman! It's too hard for you, better let us support you!" I stood
firm beside him. But he only answered shortly: "No, you're just as
tired as I am!" and went on.
Half way up the mountain a sudden, sharp wind blew up. Thick, dark
clouds drifted along the top of the range. The gusts blew up the snow
which swirled around us viciously.
I hurried a few steps forward and pulled at his jacket. "Snow's
coming. Chairman!" I yelled.
He looked ahead against the wind. "Yes, it'll be on us almost at once.
Let's get ready!" No sooner had he spoken than hailstones, as big as
small eggs, whistled and splashed down on us. Umbrellas were useless
against this gusty sea of snow and ice. We held an oilskin sheet up
and huddled together under it with Chairman Mao in the centre. The
storm raged around us as if the very sky were falling. All we could
hear were the confused shouts of people, neighing of horses and
deafening thunder claps. Then came a hoarse voice from above us.
"Comrades! Hold on! Don't give up! Persistence means victory!" I
lifted my head and looked up. Red flags were flying from the top of
the pass. I looked enquiringly at Chairman-Mao.
"Who's that shouting there?"
"Comrades from the propaganda team," the Chairman replied. "We must
learn from them. They've got a stubborn spirit!"
The snowstorm dropped as suddenly as it had started, and the warm, red
sun came out again. Chairman Mao left the oilskin shelter and stood up
on the snowy mountainside. The last snowflakes still whirled around
him.
"Well, how did we come out of that battle?" he asked. "Anyone
wounded?"
No one reported any hurts.
As we went up higher, the going grew more difficult. When we were
still at the foot of the mountain, the local people had told us: "When
you get to the top of the mountain, don't talk nor laugh, otherwise
the god of the mountain will choke you to death." We weren't
superstitious, but there was some harsh truth in what they said. Now I
could hardly breathe. It seemed as if my chest was being pressed
between two millstones. My heartbeats were fast and I had difficulty
in talking, let alone laughing. I felt as if my heart would pop out of
my mouth if I opened it. Then I looked at Chairman Mao again. He was
walking ahead, stepping firmly against the wind and snow. At the top
of the mountain the propaganda team shouted again:
"Comrades, step up! Look forward! Keep going!"
Finally we gained the summit of the mountain pass. White snow
blanketed everything. People sat in groups of three or five. Some were
so exhausted that they lay down.
(7) Kang Cheng-teh's account of the Long March appeared in Stories of
the Long March (1958)
Popa was the largest mountain village around there, with 900 Tibetan
families living in stone houses that looked like square
fortifications. The Tibetans had all fled before the troops arrived.
We could see red cloth strips hanging at all the doors which were
sealed with charms or even locked. The yards were bare of everything,
excepting a bit of firewood. To show our respect for minority people,
the leadership decided that we should not enter the houses but bivouac
outside the village.
The weather in early spring was still cold enough to make one shiver.
More so, sleeping in the open at night, for a fire warmed the front
but left the back icy cold. All one could do against the damp ground
was to spread some straw over it.
Food posed a serious problem, for there was not enough even of grass
roots and tree bark to suffice for all. The number of the wounded and
the sick was mounting every day.
We decided to rest, recuperate and reorganise here.
It was said that a melon couldn't be detached from its stem, nor a
child from its mother. So how could the Red Army exist apart from the
people? But no troops had ever come here before, and the Tibetans were
far from knowing that we were troops of the people. When they heard
that troops were coming, their headman led them off to the mountains-,
driving away sheep and cattle. The llamas in the temple also left.
We must get our strength, the people, to come back. The leadership
issued orders that mass discipline should be strictly observed; that
the customs and habits of the national minority should be respected;
that the red cloth strips and charms on the doors should be left
untouched; that the streets should be swept every day; and that we,
the propaganda section, should all go out with the interpreters (one
or two Hans who knew Tibetan were attached to every company) and try
all we could to find the people and persuade them to return.
We divided our section into several groups. Some inscribed on walls
big characters in Tibetan in conspicuous places in the village,
slogans of the "three disciplines and eight points for attention" of
the Red Army, and the Party's policy towards national minorities. Some
went to the mountains to look for the people. We spent three or four
days each trip, passing the nights in the wild mountains, in the
forests or on the unbounded grassland. Often we would hear human
voices and spot fresh dung of sheep or cattle without seeing a human
shadow.
We had been on the job a dozen days when luck directed us to a stone
cave in which the Tibetan headman was hidden. After much explaining
and propagandising we learned that he longed for a horse. That would
have been no difficulty at all in the past; but now all horses had
been killed for food except the one ridden by the divisional
commander. When on our return we mentioned this, he at once ordered
his orderly to send the horse over.
The headman was extremely happy with the gift; yet he did not feel
completely assured. He sent some men back with us to have a look at
things. When these people saw the slogans at the village entrance, and
discovered that the locks, the red cloth strips and the charms over
the doors were untouched, that not one of the articles hidden within
the seams of the walls was missing, that the streets were swept clean,
and that we bivouacked outside the village in the cold, with stewed
wild vegetables for food, they were profoundly moved and, palm to
palm, saluted to us. Some did not wait but ran straight back to the
mountain and related to the headman and their countrymen what they had
seen in their village.
One by one the Tibetans returned from the mountains and the grassland,
driving some 37,000 sheep and cattle laden with bags of barley and
chanpa (a food made of barley flour and butter). With the headman in
the lead, they opened the doors of their houses and, despite our
protestations, took us into their homes with great fuss and ceremony.
Some unearthed bacon which had been buried underground and presented
it to us. They also made a gift of 300 sheep and cattle to us.
(8) Yang Teh-chi's account of the Long March appeared in Stories of
the Long March (1958)
Sixteen names were called. Looking at these husky fellows, I thought
the battalion commander had chosen well.
Suddenly a fighter broke from the ranks. 'I'll go too! I must go!' he
cried, running towards the battalion commander. It was the messenger
of the 2nd Company.
The battalion commander looked at him. 'Go!' he said, after a while.
He was moved by the scene and approved this exception. The messenger
brushed away his tears and ran quickly to join the crossing party.
The eighteen heroes (the battalion commander himself included) were
equipped each with a broad sword, a tommy-gun, a pistol, half a dozen
grenades and some working tools. They were organised into two parties.
The one led by Hsiung Shang-lin, commander of the 2nd Company, was to
cross first.
The waters of the Tatu rushed and roared. I scanned the enemy on the
opposite shore through my field-glasses. They seemed very quiet.
The solemn moment had come. Hsiung Shang-lin and his men - eight in
all - jumped on to the boat.
'Comrades! The lives of the one hundred thousand Red Army men depend
on you. Cross resolutely and wipe out the enemy!'
Amid cheering the boat left the south bank.
The enemy, obviously getting impatient, fired at the boat.
'Give it to them!'
Our artillery opened up. Chao Chang-cheng, our magic gunner, swung his
gun into position. 'Bang! Bang!' The enemy's
fortifications were sent flying into the sky. Our machine-guns and
rifles also spoke. The sharp-shooters, more tense than their fellow
fighters crossing, fired away feverishly. Shells showered on the enemy
fortifications; machine-gun fire swept the opposite shore. The boatmen
dug their blades into the water with zest.
The boat progressed, tossing on the surging waters. Bullets landed
around it, sending up spray. The eyes of everybody ashore were glued
on the courageous team.
Suddenly, a shell dropped beside the boat, creating a wave which shook
the craft violently.
'Ah, it's the end!' My heart was in my mouth. The boat rose and fell
with the wave, then resumed its normal course.
On it went, nearer and nearer the opposite shore. Now it was only five
or six metres from it. The soldiers stood at the bow, ready to jump.
Suddenly a grenade and a hand mine were rolled from the top of the
hill, exploding with a loud report halfway down, sending up a pall of
white smoke. It seemed the enemy was really going to make a charge. I
looked through my field-glasses and, just as I had expected, the enemy
soldiers were sallying out from the hamlet. There were at least 200 of
them against our few. Our crossing party would be fighting against
overwhelming odds with the river at their back. My heart tightened.
'Fire!' I ordered the gunners.
Followed two deafening reports. The mortar shells directed by Chao
Chang-cheng exploded right among the enemy. The heavy machine-guns rat-
rattled.
'Come on! Give it to them hard!'
Shouts arose from the slope. The enemy scattered in a fluster, running
for their lives.
'Fire, fire!' I ordered.
We pumped another shower of metal at them. Our heroes who had landed
dashed forward, firing with their light and heavy weapons. The enemy
retreated. Our men occupied the defence works at the ferry. But the
enemy was still around.
The boat came back quickly. The eight other men, led by the battalion
commander, went on board.
'Advance with the greatest possible speed, support the comrades who
have landed!' I heard the battalion commander say to his men.
The boat pushed away and made quickly for the opposite shore. The
enemy on the hill, trying to organise its entire fire to
destroy our second landing party, fired desperately towards the middle
of the river.
The little boat dashed through wave after wave and dodged shower after
shower of bullets.
A whole hour passed before it reached the shore. I took a deep breath
of relief.
There ensued a duel of artillery fire between us and the enemy on the
hill. The enemy threw a shower of hand mines and began to charge at
the call of the bugle.
The two groups of landing heroes joined forces - eighteen of them -
rushing towards the enemy, hurling their grenades, firing their tommy-
guns and brandishing their swords. Utterly routed, the enemy ran
desperately towards the rear of the hill. The north bank came under
the complete control of our landing party.
After a while the boat returned to the south bank. This time I brought
with me a number of heavy machine-gunners to consolidate the defence
of the position.
It was getting dark. More and more Red Army men crossed safely.
Pursuing the enemy, we captured two more boats on the lower reaches
which sped up our crossing. By the forenoon of the next day, the whole
regiment was on the opposite bank.
chhotemianinshallah
Zhou Enlai (Chou En-lai), the son of wealthy parents, was born in
Jiangsu, China, in 1898. He was educated in a missionary college in
Tianjin before studying at a university in Japan. He moved to France
in 1920 where he helped to form the overseas branch of the Chinese
Communist Party. He also lived in Britain and Germany before returning
to China in 1924.
As members of the Communist Party Mao Zedong, Zhu De and Zhou Enlai
adapted the ideas of Lenin who had successfully achieved a revolution
in Russia in 1917. They argued that in Asia it was important to
concentrate on the countryside rather than the towns, in order to
create a revolutionary elite.
Zhou Enlai also worked closely with the Kuomintang and was appointed
deputy director of the political department of the Whampoa Military
Academy. With the help of advisers from the Soviet Union the
Kuomintang gradually increased its power in China. Its leader, Sun Yat-
sen died on 12th March 1925. Chiang Kai-Shek emerged as the most
important figure in the organization. He now carried out a purge that
eliminated the communists from the organization. Those communists who
survived managed to established the Jiangxi Soviet.
The nationalists now imposed a blockade and Mao Zedong decided to
evacuate the area and establish a new stronghold in the north-west of
China. In October 1934 Mao, Zhou Enlai, Lin Biao, Zhu De, and some
100,000 men and their dependents headed west through mountainous
areas.
The marchers experienced terrible hardships. The most notable passages
included the crossing of the suspension bridge over a deep gorge at
Luting (May, 1935), travelling over the Tahsueh Shan mountains
(August, 1935) and the swampland of Sikang (September, 1935).
The marchers covered about fifty miles a day and reached Shensi on
20th October 1935. It is estimated that only around 30,000 survived
the 8,000-mile Long March.
When the Japanese Army invaded the heartland of China in 1937, Chiang
Kai-Shek was forced to move his capital from Nanking to Chungking. He
lost control of the coastal regions and most of the major cities to
Japan. In an effort to beat the Japanese he agreed to collaborate with
Mao Zedong and his communist army.
During the Second World War the communist guerrilla forces were well
led by Zhu De and Lin Biao. As soon as the Japanese surrendered,
Communist forces began a war against the Nationalists led by Chaing
Kai-Shek. The communists gradually gained control of the country and
on 1st October, 1949, Mao Zedong announced the establishment of
People's Republic of China.
Zhou Enlai became prime minister and foreign minister. In 1954 he
headed the Chinese delegation to the Geneva Conference. The following
year he advocated Third World unity at the Bandung Conference.
As a result of the failure on the Great Leap Forward, Mao retired from
the post of chairman of the People's Republic of China. His place as
head of state was taken by Liu Shaoqi. Mao remained important in
determining overall policy. In the early 1960s Mao became highly
critical of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union. He was for example
appalled by the way Nikita Khrushchev backed down over the Cuban
Missile Crisis.
Mao Zedong became openly involved in politics in 1966 when with Lin
Biao he initiated the Cultural Revolution. On 3rd September, 1966, Lin
Biao made a speech where he urged pupils in schools and colleges to
criticize those party officials who had been influenced by the ideas
of Nikita Khrushchev.
Mao was concerned by those party leaders such as Liu Shaoqi, who
favoured the introduction of piecework, greater wage differentials and
measures that sought to undermine collective farms and factories. In
an attempt to dislodge those in power who favoured the Soviet model of
communism, Mao galvanized students and young workers as his Red Guards
to attack revisionists in the party. Mao told them the revolution was
in danger and that they must do all they could to stop the emergence
of a privileged class in China. He argued this is what had happened in
the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev.
Zhou Enlai at first gave his support to the campaign but became
concerned when fighting broke out between the Red Guards and the
revisionists. In order to achieve peace at the end of 1966 he called
for an end to these attacks on party officials. Mao remained in
control of the Cultural Revolution and with the support of the army
was able to oust the revisionists.
Although he continued to be attacked by the Red Guards Zhou Enlai
survived in power and was the main architect of the Détente policy
with the United States and met Richard Nixon in China in February
1972. Zhou Enlai died in Beijing on 8th January 1976.
(1) Zhou Enlai, Mao Zedong (1978)
During the Great Revolution, Chairman Mao was already aware that the
peasants were the largest ally and that the people's revolution could
not triumph without them. And sure enough, the revolution suffered
defeat because his views weren't listened to. Later, when we got to
the countryside. Chairman Mao saw that in order to carry out the
revolution it is necessary not only to rely on the peasants, but also
to win over the middle and petty bourgeoisie. As Chiang Kai-shek's
counter-revolutionary treachery became further exposed, only the
comprador-bureaucrat and feudal landlord classes supported him. But a
group of people inside the Communist Party made "Left" deviationist
mistakes and were very narrow in their outlook, holding that the
middle and petty bourgeoisie were unreliable. They didn't listen to
Chairman Mao, and the result was that the revolution suffered another
setback and we had to march 25,000 li. Then Chairman Mao proposed that
we unite with Chiang Kai-shek and other members of the upper strata to
resist Japanese aggression. But some people said that if we wanted
unity, there shouldn't be any struggle. Chairman Mao replied that
Chiang and the others were our domestic enemy; we were uniting with
them in order to fight the national enemy. But they were not reliable
partners or allies, and we must guard against them; otherwise, they
might turn on us. We took measures to avert Right deviations and to
prevent unqualified compromises. During the present War of Liberation,
"Left" deviationist mistakes were made in agrarian reform in the
countryside. In order to eliminate the landlord class, landlords were
given poor land or no land at all so that they could not eke out a
living; or too many people were classified as feudal rich peasants or
landlords. Moreover, on the question of executions, it was stipulated
that no one should be executed except for those who had committed
serious crimes, refused to mend their ways' and were bitterly hated by
the people. But, sometimes, when the people were filled with wrath,
these distinctions were not made, and the leadership did not attempt
to persuade the masses, so too many people were put to death. This had
an adverse effect on our united front with the peasantry, and
particularly with the middle peasants. This mistake was also corrected
by Chairman Mao.
(2) Zhou Enlai, Mao Zedong (1978)
Reactionaries, including Chiang Kai-shek, often claim that they are
for freedom of thought. As everybody knows, that
is nonsense, for what freedom is there under Chiang Kai-shek's rule?
The people are suffering oppression and exploitation. Only the small
handful of reactionary landlords and bureaucrat-capitalists are free -
free to exploit, oppress and slaughter the people. In the bourgeois-
democratic countries, only the bourgeoisie have freedom of thought,
which is denied to the workers and peasants. In our new-democratic
country, the people will enjoy full freedom of thought. Aside from
reactionary ideology, all other kinds will be allowed to exist. Not
only progressive, socialist or communist but also religious ideas may
exist. The propagation of reactionary ideas is not allowed, but apart
from that, there is freedom of speech, the press, assembly and
association. The Communist Party holds that historical materialism is
correct and that Mao Zedong Thought is correct. These ideas, of
course, should be propagated. But it does not mean that other
ideologies are not allowed to exist. We educate people in our
ideology, but they are free to choose whether to listen or not,
whether to accept or not. This is the only approach that is truly
educational and appropriate to leadership - an approach of working
together with other people, a co-operative approach.
(3) Jack Anderson, Confessions of a Muckraker (1979)
In his mid-forties, Chou En-lai had a handsome face, which lingers in
my memory for its black eyes and incandescent intelligence. He was
slight of build but indefatigable; he affected simplicity but was an
elegant man, graceful of movement, accomplished in English and French
as well as Chinese dialects, buttressing his arguments with historical
and literary allusions that evinced a formidable education. And one
caught Hashes of a ruthless rationalism that would sacrifice the lives
of millions to the triumph of an idea. Walter Robertson, the State
Department's Far Eastern expert, described the Chou En-lai of those
years as "one of the most charming, intelligent and attractive men of
any race" he had ever known. "But he'll cut your throat."
Even his formulations of official propaganda were artfully plausible,
but it was his side excursions that kept me coming back to trespass
upon his time. He would expound on the true sources of power behind
the fagades of constitutions and ballot boxes; on the requirements for
a just society in that half of the world where a man counted for no
more than an ox, and a woman less; on the ingredients of peace in a
world whose balance was fundamentally altered by the reemergence of
Asia; on the tragedy for America as well as for China if we continued
to ally ourselves to a Kuomintang
which could not win but which could indefinitely prolong China's agony
and the world's instability.
chhotemianinshallah
Lin Biao, the son of a landowner, was born in Wuhan, China, in 1908.
At the age of 18 he joined the Socialist Youth League. He attended the
Whampoa Military Academy where he met Zhou Enlai. In 1926 took part in
the Northern Expedition to suppress the warlords who had ruled the
countryside since the collapse of the monarchy in 1911.
In 1927 Chiang Kai-Shek emerged as the leader of the Kuomintang. He
now carried out a purge that eliminated the communists from the
organization. Those communists who survived, including Lin Biao,
managed to establish the Jiangxi Soviet.
The nationalists now imposed a blockade and Mao Zedong decided to
evacuate the area and establish a new stronghold in the north-west of
China. In October 1934 Mao, Lin Biao, Zhou Enlai, Zhu De and some
100,000 men and their dependents headed west through mountainous
areas.
The marchers experienced terrible hardships. The most notable passages
included the crossing of the suspension bridge over a deep gorge at
Luting (May, 1935), travelling over the Tahsueh Shan mountains
(August, 1935) and the swampland of Sikang (September, 1935).
The marchers covered about fifty miles a day and reached Shensi on
20th October 1935. It is estimated that only around 30,000 survived
the 8,000-mile Long March.
Lin Biao played an important role in developing the military tactic of
guerrilla warfare. As soon as the Japanese surrendered, Communist
forces began a war against the Nationalists led by Chiang Kai-Shek. He
was seriously wounded in 1938 and received medical treatment in the
Soviet Union.
Lin Biao became commander of the North West People's Liberation Army
in 1945. Lin Biao's strategy was to abandon the cities to the
Nationalists and to concentrate on winning the support of the peasants
in the countryside. He isolated the Nationalist troops in their
garrisons and gradually forced unit after unit to surrender. By 1948
his soldiers had conquered the whole of Manchuria.
Lin's Biao's army also played an important role in the capture of
Beijing, Wuhan, Guangzhou and Hainan Island. The People's Liberation
Army gradually gained control of the whole country and on 1st October,
1949, Mao Zedong announced the establishment of People's Republic of
China.
Lin Biao was responsible for Chinese forces during the Korean War
(1950-53) and was promoted to the rank of marshal in 1955. As Minister
of Defence he worked closely with Mao Zedong during the the Cultural
Revolution. On 3rd September, 1966, Lin Biao made a speech where he
urged pupils in schools and colleges to criticize those party
officials who had been influenced by the ideas of Nikita Khrushchev.
Mao and Lin Biao were concerned by those party leaders such as Liu
Shaoqi, who favoured the introduction of piecework, greater wage
differentials and measures that sought to undermine collective farms
and factories. In an attempt to dislodge those in power who favoured
the Soviet model of communism, Mao galvanized students and young
workers as his Red Guards to attack revisionists in the party. Mao
told them the revolution was in danger and that they must do all they
could to stop the emergence of a privileged class in China. He argued
this is what had happened in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin and
Nikita Khrushchev.
It was Lin Biao who compiled some of Mao's writings into the handbook,
The Quotations of Chairman Mao, and arranged for a copy of what became
known as the Little Red Book, to every Chinese citizen.
Zhou Enlai at first gave his support to the campaign but became
concerned when fighting broke out between the Red Guards and the
revisionists. In order to achieve peace at the end of 1966 he called
for an end to these attacks on party officials. Mao Zedong remained in
control of the Cultural Revolution and with the support of the army
was able to oust the revisionists.
The Cultural Revolution came to an end when Liu Shaoqi resigned from
all his posts on 13th October 1968. Lin Biao now became Mao's
designated successor. He was also a supporter of the Gang of Four.
In September 1971, Lin Biao was killed in an airplane crash in
Mongolia. The official explanation given at the time was that he had
been involved in a failed plot to kill Mao Zedong and was killed while
fleeing to the Soviet Union.
chhotemianinshallah
China and India at odds
By N.V. Subramanian, Special to Gulf News
Published: September 23, 2009, 23:09
Peaceable, focused on India's economic rise and aware that the country
can ill-afford military tension at this juncture, Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh is quietly but desperately trying to prevent relations
with China from deteriorating further. However, he is not being
assisted in this by nationalist forces within, and the Chinese
leadership is not being entirely successful in reigning in hawks in
the People's Liberation Army (PLA).
Over the past few months, there have been provocations from the
Chinese side along the 3,200 kilometre disputed India-China border,
including air violations in Ladakh, PLA hooliganism among settled
Ladakhi tribal populations in Indian territory in Jammu and Kashmir,
PLA incursions in Arunachal Pradesh (which China claims), and a
Chinese-Pakistani joint-venture dam project in Pakistan-controlled
Kashmir, which India lodged a protest against some days ago.
Additionally, China blocked an Asian Development Bank loan to India
because a small portion of it was earmarked for a watershed management
project in Arunachal Pradesh and, tellingly, before the thirteenth
round of Sino-Indian border talks last month, the Union Cabinet
cleared funding for it internally.
Since India and China fought a war in 1962, relations have been
fraught, despite peacemaking attempts by prime ministers Rajiv Gandhi,
P.V. Narasimha Rao and Singh. By recognising the Tibetan Autonomous
Region as Chinese, Vajpayee hoped to win recognition for Arunachal
Pradesh, but China merely adjusted online maps to show another
previously disputed Sikkim state as India's - mostly for the purpose
of resuming border trade. China is keen on acquiring Arunachal
Pradesh, especially the Tawang tract where the sixth Dalai Lama was
born, to strengthen its hold on the contentious Tibet region. The
present Dalai Lama's forthcoming visit to Arunachal Pradesh has
angered China, but India is not willing to put further curbs on him.
Because of China's opacity, it is difficult to determine whether the
tensions on the border are the result of a power struggle - the PLA
flexing its muscles to prove independence from the political
leadership - or a show of strength to counter the impression of a
weakened centre following the recent Uighur riots. When China is
perceived to be weak on Taiwan, Tibet or the Uighur question, the
leadership has had to take provocative action.
The Singh government has tended to take the Chinese civilian
leadership at its word when it says that it wants peaceful relations,
and that there is space for both India and China to rise. As such, it
has either denied reports of Chinese incursions or played down such
violations. However, the Indian military is in an unusually defiant
mood. While confidence-building military exercises are planned in
Ladakh and the government has bolstered Arunachal Pradesh's security
with at least 60,000 mountain troops and two squadrons of Su-30
fighters, the armed forces are using the press to persuade the public
that Chinese border violations should not be taken lightly. However,
the political leadership's assessment is that any military tension
with China would affect India's rise. As this article was being
written, an internal meeting on China to be chaired by National
Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan was called off so as not to add to the
growing media hysteria.
Currently, the Chinese military is superior to that of India's - at
least in the eastern sector of the disputed India-China border.
Deterrence-wise, India is robustly outclassed, with recently expressed
doubts about its thermonuclear weapon tested in May 1998 adding to the
nuclear imbalance. And there is no certainty that in a limited war
with China, Pakistan would not open a second front.
The United States has tended to intervene to prevent conflict between
India and Pakistan. But in the India-China border dispute, there is no
third party mediation. The Singh government hopes that if it refrains
from provoking China, tensions will somehow dissipate.
N.V.Subramanian is the editor of News Insight, and writes
internationally on strategic affairs.
chhotemianinshallah
In 1958 Mao Zedong announced the Great Leap Forward, an attempt to
increase agricultural and industrial production. This reform programme
included the establishment of large agricultural communes containing
as many as 75,000 people. The communes ran their own collective farms
and factories. Each family received a share of the profits and also
had a small private plot of land. However, three years of floods and
bad harvests severely damaged levels of production. The scheme was
also hurt by the decision of the Soviet Union to withdraw its large
number of technical experts working in the country. In 1962 Mao's
reform programme came to an end and the country resorted to a more
traditional form of economic production.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CHINAliu.htm
Liu Shaoqi, the son of a landowner, was born in Yinshan, China, in
1898. While at school he met Mao Zedong. After studying Russian in
Shanghai he went to live in the Soviet Union.
On his return he joined the Chinese Communist Party. Sun Yat-sen,
leader of the Kuomintang, died on 12th March 1925. Chiang Kai-Shek
emerged as the new leader of the Kuomintang. He now carried out a
purge that eliminated the communists from the organization. Those
communists who survived managed to established the Jiangxi Soviet.
The nationalists now imposed a blockade and Mao Zedong decided to
evacuate the area and establish a new stronghold in the north-west of
China. In October 1934 Liu Shaoqi, Mao Zedong, Lin Biao, Zhu De, and
some 100,000 men and their dependents headed west through mountainous
areas.
The marchers experienced terrible hardships. The most notable passages
included the crossing of the suspension bridge over a deep gorge at
Luting (May, 1935), travelling over the Tahsueh Shan mountains
(August, 1935) and the swampland of Sikang (September, 1935).
The marchers covered about fifty miles a day and reached Shensi on
20th October 1935. It is estimated that only around 30,000 survived
the 8,000-mile Long March.
When the Japanese Army invaded the heartland of China in 1937, Chiang
Kai-Shek was forced to move his capital from Nanking to Chungking. He
lost control of the coastal regions and most of the major cities to
Japan. In an effort to beat the Japanese he agreed to collaborate with
Mao Zedong and his communist army.
During this period Liu Shaoqi became an expert in the theory of party
organization and in 1939 published How to be a Good Communist. In 1943
he became Secretary General of the Chinese Communist Party.
During the Second World War the communist guerrilla forces were well
led by Zhu De and Lin Biao. As soon as the Japanese surrendered,
Communist forces began a war against the Nationalists led by Chaing
Kai-Shek. The communists gradually gained control of the country and
on 1st October, 1949, Mao announced the establishment of People's
Republic of China. Soon afterwards Liu Shaoqi was appointed Vice-
Chairman under Mao.
As a result of the failure on the Great Leap Forward, Mao Zedong
retired from the post of chairman of the People's Republic of China.
Liu Shaoqi replaced Mao as head of state. Mao remained important in
determining overall policy. In the early 1960s Mao became highly
critical of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union. He was for example
appalled by the way Nikita Khrushchev backed down over the Cuban
Missile Crisis.
Mao Zedong became openly involved in politics in 1966 when with Lin
Biao he initiated the Cultural Revolution. On 3rd September, 1966, Lin
Biao made a speech where he urged pupils in schools and colleges to
criticize those party officials who had been influenced by the ideas
of Nikita Khrushchev.
Mao was concerned by those party leaders such as Liu Shaoqi, who
favoured the introduction of piecework, greater wage differentials and
measures that sought to undermine collective farms and factories. In
an attempt to dislodge those in power who favoured the Soviet model of
communism, Mao galvanized students and young workers as his Red Guards
to attack revisionists in the party. Mao told them the revolution was
in danger and that they must do all they could to stop the emergence
of a privileged class in China. He argued this is what had happened in
the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev.
Zhou Enlai at first gave his support to the campaign but became
concerned when fighting broke out between the Red Guards and the
revisionists. In order to achieve peace at the end of 1966 he called
for an end to these attacks on party officials. Mao remained in
control of the Cultural Revolution and with the support of the army
was able to oust the revisionists.
The Cultural Revolution came to an end when Liu Shaoqi resigned from
all his posts on 13th October 1968. Lin Biao now became Mao's
designated successor.
Liu Shaoqi was banished to Henan Province where he died in 1969.
chhotemianinshallah
Nikita Khrushchev, the grandson of a serf and the son of a coal miner,
was born in Kalinovka, Ukraine on 5th April, 1894. After a brief
formal education Khrushchev found work as a pipe fitter in Yuzovka.
During the First World War Khrushchev became involved in trade union
activities and after the October Revolution joined the Bolsheviks.
In January, 1919, Khrushchev joined the Red Army and fought against
the Whites in the Ukraine during the Civil War. After leaving the army
he returned to Yuzovka where he returned to school to finish his
education.
Khrushchev remained active in the Communist Party and in 1925 was
employed as party secretary of the Petrovsko-Mariinsk. Lazar
Kaganovich, the general-secretary of the Ukrainian Communist Party,
was impressed with Khrushchev and invited him to accompany him to the
14th Party Congress in Moscow.
With the support of Kaganovich, Khrushchev made steady progress in the
party hierarchy. In 1938 Khrushchev became secretary of the Ukrainian
Communist Party and was employed by Joseph Stalin to carry out the
Great Purge in the Ukraine. The following year he became a full member
of the Politburo.
After the invasion of Poland in 1940 Khrushchev was given the
responsibility of suppressing the Polish and Ukrainian nationalists.
When the German Army invaded the Soviet Union in June, 1941,
Khrushchev arranged the evacuation of much of the region's industry.
During the Second World War Khrushchev granted the rank lieutenant
general, and was given the task of organizing guerrilla warfare in the
Ukraine against the Germans.
When the German Army retreated in 1944 Khrushchev was once again
placed in control of the Ukraine and the rebuilding of the region.
Khrushchev job was made more difficult by the famine of 1946. This
brought him into conflict with Joseph Stalin who accused Khrushchev of
concentrating too much on feeding the people living of the Ukraine
rather than exporting food to the rest of the Soviet Union.
Khrushchev was demoted in 1951 and replaced as the minister
responsible for agriculture. On the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953,
Gregory Malenkov became both prime minister and head of the Communist
Party. He appeared to be a reformer and called for a higher priority
to be given to consumer goods.
In September, 1953, Khrushchev became first secretary of the Communist
Party. He arranged for the execution of Lavrenti Beria, head of the
Secret Police and gradually he gained control of the party machinery.
In 1955 he joined with Nikolai Bulganin to oust Gregory Malenkov from
power.
During the 20th Party Congress in February, 1956, Khrushchev launched
an attack on the rule of Joseph Stalin. He condemned the Great Purge
and accused Stalin of abusing his power. He announced a change in
policy and gave orders for the Soviet Union's political prisoners to
be released.
In the summer of 1956 Gregory Malenkov, Nikolai Bulganin, Vyacheslav
Molotov and Lazar Kaganovich attempted to oust Khrushchev This was
unsuccessful and Khrushchev now purged his opponents in the Communist
Party.
Khrushchev's de-Stalinzation policy encouraged people living in
Eastern Europe to believe that he was willing to give them more
independence from the Soviet Union. In Hungary the prime minister Imre
Nagy removed state control of the mass media and encouraged public
discussion on political and economic reform. Nagy also released anti-
communists from prison and talked about holding free elections and
withdrawing Hungary from the Warsaw Pact.
Khrushchev became increasingly concerned about these developments and
on 4th November 1956 he sent the Red Army into Hungary. During the
Hungarian Uprising an estimated 20,000 people were killed. Nagy was
arrested and replaced by the Soviet loyalist, Janos Kadar. Imre Nagy
was imprisoned and executed in 1958.
In 1958 Khrushchev replaced Gregory Malenkov as prime minister and was
now the undisputed leader of both state and party. In the Soviet Union
he promoted reform of the Soviet system and began to place an emphasis
on the production of consumer goods rather than on heavy industry.
Khrushchev eased censorship in the Soviet Union and allowed One Day in
the Life of Ivan Denisovich, by Alexander Solzhenitsyn to be
published. Some pointed out that this was part of his de-Stalinization
policy and did not reflect a genuine increase in freedom. His critics
pointed out that books such as Doctor Zhivago by Boris Pasternak were
still banned.
In 1959 Khrushchev announced a change in foreign policy. In 1959
visited the United States and offered "the capitalist countries
peaceful competition". Khrushchev was due to attend the Paris Summit
Conference in 1960 when a reconnaissance plane was shot down over the
Soviet Union. He cancelled the meeting and later that year at the
Union Nations he attacked Western influence in the Congo.
When John F. Kennedy replaced Dwight Eisenhower as president of the
United States he was told about the CIA plan to invade Cuba. Kennedy
had doubts about the venture but he was afraid he would be seen as
soft on communism if he refused permission for it to go ahead.
Kennedy's advisers convinced him that Castro was an unpopular leader
and that once the invasion started the Cuban people would support the
ClA-trained forces.
On April 14, 1961, B-26 planes began bombing Cuba's airfields. After
the raids Cuba was left with only eight planes
and seven pilots. Two days later five merchant ships carrying 1,400
Cuban exiles arrived at the Bay of Pigs. The attack was a total
failure. Two of the ships were sunk, including the ship that was
carrying most of the supplies. Two of the planes that were attempting
to give air-cover were also shot down. Within seventy-two hours all
the invading troops had been killed, wounded or had surrendered.
At the beginning of September 1962, U-2 spy planes discovered that the
Soviet Union was building surface-to-air missile (SAM) launch sites.
There was also an increase in the number of Soviet ships arriving in
Cuba which the United States government feared were carrying new
supplies of weapons. President Kennedy complained to the Soviet Union
about these developments and warned them that the United States would
not accept offensive weapons (SAMs were considered to be defensive) in
Cuba.
On September 27, a CIA agent in Cuba overheard Castro's personal pilot
tell another man in a bar that Cuba now had nuclear weapons. U-2 spy-
plane photographs also showed that unusual activity was taking place
at San Cristobal. However, it was not until October 15 that
photographs were taken that revealed that the Soviet Union was placing
long range missiles in Cuba.
President Kennedy's first reaction to the information about the
missiles in Cuba was to call a meeting to discuss what should be done.
Fourteen men attended the meeting and included military leaders,
experts on Latin America, representatives of the CIA, cabinet
ministers and personal friends whose advice Kennedy valued. This group
became known as the Executive Committee of the National Security
Council. Over the next few days they were to meet several times.
At the first meeting of the Executive Committee of the National
Security Council, the CIA and other military advisers explained the
situation. After hearing what they had to say, the general feeling of
the meeting was for an air-attack on the
missile sites. Remembering the poor advice the CIA had provided before
the Bay of Pigs invasion, John F. Kennedy decided to wait and instead
called for another meeting to take place that evening. By this time
several of the men were having doubts about the wisdom of a bombing
raid, fearing that it would lead to a nuclear war with the Soviet
Union. The committee was now so divided that a firm decision could not
be made.
The Executive Committee of the National Security Council argued
amongst themselves for the next two days. The CIA and the military
were still in favour of a bombing raid and/or an invasion. However,
the majority of the committee gradually began to favour a naval
blockade of Cuba.
Kennedy accepted their decision and instructed Theodore Sorensen, a
member of the committee, to write a speech in
which Kennedy would explain to the world why it was necessary to
impose a naval blockade of Cuba.
As well as imposing a naval blockade, Kennedy also told the air-force
to prepare for attacks on Cuba and the Soviet Union. The army
positioned 125,000 men in Florida and was told to wait for orders to
invade Cuba. If the Soviet ships carrying weapons for Cuba did not
turn back or refused to be searched, a war was likely to begin.
Kennedy also promised his military advisers that if one of the U-2 spy
planes were fired upon he would give orders for an attack on the Cuban
SAM missile sites.
The world waited anxiously. A public opinion poll in the United States
revealed that three out of five people expected fighting to break out
between the two sides. There were angry demonstrations outside the
American Embassy in London as people protested about the possibility
of nuclear war. Demonstrations also took place in other cities in
Europe. However, in the United States, polls suggested that the vast
majority supported Kennedy's action.
On October 24, President John F. Kennedy was informed that Soviet
ships had stopped just before they reached the United States ships
blockading Cuba. That evening Khrushchev sent an angry note to Kennedy
accusing him of creating a crisis to help the Democratic Party win the
forthcoming election.
On October 26, Khrushchev sent Kennedy another letter. In this he
proposed that the Soviet Union would be willing to
remove the missiles in Cuba in exchange for a promise by the United
States that they would not invade Cuba. The next day a second letter
from Khrushchev arrived demanding that the United States remove their
nuclear bases in Turkey.
While the president and his advisers were analyzing Khrushchev's two
letters, news came through that a U-2 plane had been shot down over
Cuba. The leaders of the military, reminding Kennedy of the promise he
had made, argued that he should now give orders for the bombing of
Cuba. Kennedy refused and instead sent a letter to Khrushchev
accepting the terms of his first letter.
Khrushchev agreed and gave orders for the missiles to be dismantled.
Eight days later the elections for Congress took place. The Democrats
increased their majority and it was estimated that Kennedy would now
have an extra twelve supporters in Congress for his policies.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was the first and only nuclear confrontation
between the United States and the Soviet Union. The event appeared to
frighten both sides and it marked a change in the development of the
Cold War.
The Military and the leaders of the Communist Party felt humiliated by
Khrushchev climbdown over Cuba. His agricultural policy was also a
failure and the country was forced to import increasing amounts of
wheat from Canada and the United States.
On 14th October, 1964, the Central Committee forced Khrushchev to
resign. He lived in retirement in Moscow where he wrote his memoirs,
Khrushchev Remembers (1971). Nikita Khrushchev died on 11th September,
1971.
chhotemianinshallah
Cuban Missile Crisis
At the beginning of September 1962, U-2 spy planes discovered that the
Soviet Union was building surface-to-air missile (SAM) launch sites.
There was also an increase in the number of Soviet ships arriving in
Cuba which the United States government feared were carrying new
supplies of weapons. President John F. Kennedy complained to the
Soviet Union about these developments and warned them that the United
States would not accept offensive weapons (SAMs were considered to be
defensive) in Cuba.
As the Cubans now had SAM installations they were in a position to
shoot down U-2 spy-planes. Kennedy was in a difficult situation.
Elections were to take place for the United States Congress in two
month's time. The public opinion polls showed that his own ratings had
fallen to their lowest point since he became president.
In his first two years of office a combination of Republicans and
conservative southern Democrats in Congress had blocked much of
Kennedy's proposed legislation. The polls suggested that after the
elections he would have even less support in Congress. Kennedy feared
that any trouble over Cuba would lose the Democratic Party even more
votes, as it would remind voters of the Bay of Pigs disaster where the
CIA had tried to oust Fidel Castro from power. One poll showed that
over 62 per cent of the population were unhappy with his policies on
Cuba. Understandably, the Republicans attempted to make Cuba the main
issue in the campaign.
This was probably in Kennedy's mind when he decided to restrict the
flights of the U-2 planes over Cuba. Pilots were also told to avoid
flying the whole length of the island. Kennedy hoped this would ensure
that a U-2 plane would not be shot down, and would prevent Cuba
becoming a major issue during the election campaign.
On 27th September, a CIA agent in Cuba overheard Castro's personal
pilot tell another man in a bar that Cuba now had nuclear weapons. U-2
spy-plane photographs also showed that unusual activity was taking
place at San Cristobal. However, it was not until 15th October that
photographs were taken that revealed that the Soviet Union was placing
long range missiles in Cuba.
President Kennedy's first reaction to the information about the
missiles in Cuba was to call a meeting to discuss what should be done.
Robert S McNamara, Secretary of State for Defence, suggested the
formation of the Executive Committee of the National Security Council.
Fourteen men attended the meeting and included military leaders,
experts on Latin America, representatives of the CIA, cabinet
ministers and personal friends whose advice Kennedy valued. Over the
next few days they were to meet several times. During their
discussions they considered several different strategies for dealing
with the crisis. They included the following:
(1) Do nothing. The United States should ignore the missiles in Cuba.
The United States had military bases in 127 different countries
including Cuba. The United States also had nuclear missiles in several
countries close to the Soviet Union. It was therefore only right that
the Soviet Union should be allowed to place missiles in Cuba.
(2) Negotiate. The United States should offer the Soviet Union a deal.
In return for the Soviet Union dismantling her missiles in Cuba, the
United States would withdraw her nuclear missiles from Turkey and
Italy.
(3) Invasion. Send United States troops to Cuba to overthrow Castro's
government. The missiles could then be put out of action and the
Soviet Union could no longer use Cuba as a military base.
(4) Blockade of Cuba. Use the United States Navy to stop military
equipment reaching Cuba from the Soviet Union.
(5) Bomb Missile Bases. Carry out conventional air-strikes against
missiles and other military targets in Cuba.
(6) Nuclear Weapons. Use nuclear weapons against Cuba and/or the
Soviet Union.
When discussing these strategies. President Kennedy and his advisers
had to take into consideration how the Soviet Union and Cuba would
react to decisions made by the United States.
Bay of Pigs: Part 1
Bay of Pigs: Part 2
blockading Cuba. That evening Nikita Khrushchev sent an angry note to
Kennedy accusing him of creating a crisis to help the Democratic Party
win the forthcoming election.
On October 26, Khrushchev sent Kennedy another letter. In this he
proposed that the Soviet Union would be willing to remove the missiles
in Cuba in exchange for a promise by the United States that they would
not invade Cuba. The next day a second letter from Khrushchev arrived
demanding that the United States remove their nuclear bases in Turkey.
While the president and his advisers were analyzing Khrushchev's two
letters, news came through that a U-2 plane had been shot down over
Cuba. The leaders of the military, reminding Kennedy of the promise he
had made, argued that he should now give orders for the bombing of
Cuba. Kennedy refused and instead sent a letter to Khrushchev
accepting the terms of his first letter.
Khrushchev agreed and gave orders for the missiles to be dismantled.
Eight days later the elections for Congress took place. The Democrats
increased their majority and it was estimated that Kennedy would now
have an extra twelve supporters in Congress for his policies.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was the first and only nuclear confrontation
between the United States and the Soviet Union. The event appeared to
frighten both sides and it marked a change in the development of the
Cold War. Some of the direct consequences of the crisis include the
following:
(1) The two sides established a direct communications link that became
known as the Hot Line. It was hoped that this would help prevent
dangerous confrontations such as the Cuban Missile Crisis arising
again.
(2) Three months after the Cuban Missile Crisis the United States
secretly removed all its nuclear missiles from Turkey and Italy.
(3) A Test Ban Treaty was signed between the two countries in August
1963. The treaty prohibited the testing of nuclear weapons in the
atmosphere.
(4) The 1,113 prisoners captured during the Bay of Pigs invasion were
exchanged by Castro for $60 million in food, drugs, medicine and cash.
(5) The Soviet Union became determined to have a nuclear capability
that was equal to the United States. This was achieved by 1972.
(6) China accused the Soviet Union of being a 'paper-tiger' and
claimed to be the true leader of the Communist movement. The split
between the Soviet Union and China became wider.
(7) The United States became convinced that the Soviet Union would not
go to war over another communist country. It has been argued that this
encouraged the United States to help attempts to overthrow socialist
and communist governments in Vietnam, Nicaragua and Grenada.
chhotemianinshallah
As a result of the failure on the Great Leap Forward, Mao Zedong
retired from the post of chairman of the People's Republic of China.
However, he returned to power in 1966 when with Lin Biao he initiated
the Cultural Revolution. On 3rd September, 1966, Lin Biao made a
speech where he urged pupils in schools and colleges to criticize
those party officials who had been influenced by the ideas of Nikita
Khrushchev.
Mao was concerned by those party leaders such as Liu Shaoqi, the State
Chairman of China, who favoured the introduction of piecework, greater
wage differentials and measures that sought to undermine collective
farms and factories.
In an attempt to dislodge those in power who favoured the Soviet model
of communism, Mao galvanized students and young workers as his Red
Guards to attack revisionists in the party. Mao told them the
revolution was in danger and that they must do all they could to stop
the emergence of a privileged class in China. He argued this is what
had happened in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin and Nikita
Khrushchev.
Named after the army units organized by Mao Zedong in 1927, the Red
Guards eventually numbered several million people. As well as
revisionists the Red Guards criticised all Western influence in
China.
Lin Biao compiled some of Mao's writings into the handbook, The
Quotations of Chairman Mao, and arranged for a copy of what became
known as the Little Red Book, to every Chinese citizen.
Zhou Enlai at first gave his support to the campaign but became
concerned when fighting broke out between the Red Guards and the
revisionists. In order to achieve peace at the end of 1966 he called
for an end to these attacks on party officials. Mao remained in
control of the Cultural Revolution and with the support of the army
was able to oust the revisionists.
The Cultural Revolution came to an end when Liu Shaoqi resigned from
all his posts on 13th October 1968. Lin Biao now became Mao's
designated successor.
...and I am Sid Harth
chhotemianinshallah
Gang of Four
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Gang of Four (China))
The Gang of Four (simplified Chinese: 四人帮; traditional Chinese: 四人幫;
pinyin: Sìrén bāng) was the name given to a leftist political faction
composed of four Chinese Communist Party officials. They came to
prominence during the Cultural Revolution (1966-76) and were
subsequently charged with a series of treasonous crimes. The members
consisted of Jiang Qing, Mao Zedong's last wife and the leading figure
of the group, and her close associates Zhang Chunqiao, Yao Wenyuan,
and Wang Hongwen.
The Gang of Four effectively controlled the power organs of the
Communist Party of China through the latter stages of the Cultural
Revolution, although it remains unclear which major decisions were
made through Mao Zedong and carried out by the Gang, and which were
the result of the Gang of Four's own planning. The Gang of Four,
together with disgraced Communist general Lin Biao, were labeled the
two major "counter-revolutionary forces" of the Cultural Revolution
and officially blamed for the worst excesses of the societal chaos
that ensued during the ten years of turmoil. Their downfall in a coup
d'état on October 6, 1976, a mere month after Mao's death, brought
about major celebrations on the streets of Beijing and marked the end
of a turbulent political era in China.
Membership
The name was given to the group by Mao Zedong in what seemed like a
warning to Jiang Qing during which Mao stated, "Do not try to begin a
gang of four to accumulate power".
The group was led by Jiang Qing, and consisted of three of her close
associates, Zhang Chunqiao, Yao Wenyuan, and Wang Hongwen. Two other
men who were already dead in 1976, Kang Sheng and Xie Fuzhi, were
named as having been part of the "Gang". Chen Boda and Mao Yuanxin,
the latter being Mao's nephew, were also considered some of the Gang's
closer associates.
Most Western accounts consider that the actual leadership of the
Cultural Revolution consisted of a wider group, referring
predominantly to the members of the Central Cultural Revolution Group.
Most prominent was Lin Biao, until his flight from China and death in
a plane crash in 1971. Chen Boda is often classed as a member of Lin's
faction rather than Jiang Qing's.[1]
Role
The removal of this group from power is sometimes considered to have
marked the end of the Cultural Revolution, which had been launched by
Mao in 1966 as part of his power struggle with leaders such as Liu
Shaoqi, Deng Xiaoping and Peng Zhen. Mao placed Jiang Qing, who before
1966 had not taken a public political role, in charge of the country’s
cultural apparatus. Zhang, Yao and Wang were party leaders in Shanghai
who had played leading roles in securing that city for Mao during the
Cultural Revolution.
Around the time of the death of Lin Biao, the Cultural Revolution
began to lose impetus. The new commanders of the People's Liberation
Army demanded that order be restored in light of the dangerous
situation along the border with the Soviet Union (see Sino-Soviet
split). The Premier, Zhou Enlai, who had accepted the Cultural
Revolution but never fully supported it, regained his authority, and
used it to bring Deng Xiaoping back into the Party leadership at the
10th Party Congress in 1973. Liu Shaoqi had meanwhile died in prison
in 1969.
Near the end of Mao's life, a power struggle occurred between the Gang
of Four and the alliance of Deng Xiaoping, Zhou Enlai, and Ye
Jianying.
Fall
It is now officially claimed by the Chinese communist party that Mao
in his last year turned against Jiang Qing and her associates, and
that after his death on 9 September 1976, they attempted to seize
power (the same allegation made against Lin Biao in 1971). Even
decades later, it is impossible to know the full truth of these
events.
It does appear that their influence was in decline before Mao's death:
when Zhou Enlai died in January 1976, he was succeeded not by one of
the radicals but by the unknown Hua Guofeng. In April 1976, Hua was
officially appointed Premier of the State Council. Upon Mao's death
Hua was named Communist Party chairman as well.
The "Gang" had arranged for Deng Xiaoping's purge in April 1976
(however, he would return and by 1978 become the real power of the
Party). They hoped that the key military leaders Wang Dongxing and
Chen Xilian would support them, but it seems that Hua won the Army
over to his side. On 6 October 1976, Hua had the four leading radicals
and a number of their lesser associates arrested. A massive media
campaign was then launched against them, dubbing them the Gang of Four
and blaming them for all the excesses of the Cultural Revolution.
(Note that four has the same sound as 'death' in Chinese, and is
sometimes viewed as an unlucky number.)
Han Suyin gives a detailed account of their overthrow:
An emergency session of the Politburo was to take place in the Great
Hall of the People that evening. Their presence was required. Since
Wang Dongxing had been their ally, they did not suspect him... As they
passed through the swinging doors into the entrance lobby, they were
apprehended and led off in handcuffs. A special 8431 unit then went to
Madam Mao's residence at No. 17 Fisherman's Terrace and arrested her.
That night Mao Yuanxin was arrested in Manchuria, and the
propagandists of the Gang of Four in Peking University and in
newspaper offices were taken into custody. All was done with quiet and
superb efficiency. In Shanghai, the Gang's supporters received a
message to come to Beijing 'for a meeting'. They came and were
arrested. Thus, without shedding a drop of blood, the plans of the
Gang of Four to wield supreme power were ended.
—[2]
Beginning on October 21, nationwide denunciations of the Gang began,
which culminated in the December releases of files related to the
Gang's alleged crimes to the public. Celebrations were prominent but
not limited to the streets of Beijing and other major cities.
Aftermath
Immediately after the coup d’etat, Hua Guofeng, who appears to be
Mao's designated successor, Marshall Ye Jianying, and economic czars
Chen Yun and Li Xiannian formed the core of the next party leadership.
[3] These three, together with the newly rehabilitated Deng Xiaoping
and bodyguard cum coup leader Wang Dongxing were elected party Vice
Chairmen at the August 1977 11th National Party Congress.[4] At the
politburo level, the membership of all four living marshals, 7 other
generals and at least five others with close military ties reflects
the deep concern for national stability.
Trial
In 1981, the four deposed leaders were subjected to a show trial and
convicted of anti-party activities. During the trial, Jiang Qing in
particular was extremely defiant, protesting loudly and bursting into
tears at some points. She was the only member of the Gang of Four who
bothered to argue on her behalf. The defence's argument was that she
obeyed the orders of Chairman Mao Zedong at all times. Zhang Chunqiao
refused to admit any wrong as well. Yao Wenyan and Wang Hongwen
expressed repentance and confessed their alleged crimes.
The prosecution separated political errors from actual crimes. Among
the latter were the usurpation of state power and party leadership;
the persecution of some 750,000 people, 34,375 of whom died during the
period 1966-76.[5] The official records of the trial have not yet been
released.
Jiang Qing and Zhang Chunqiao received death sentences that were later
commuted to life imprisonment, while Wang Hongwen and Yao Wenyuan were
given life and twenty years in prison, respectively. They were all
released later. All members of the Gang of Four have since died; Jiang
Qing committed suicide in 1991, Wang Hongwen died in 1992, and Zhang
Chunqiao and Yao Wenyuan died in 2005.
Supporters of the Gang of Four, including Chen Boda and Mao Yuanxin,
were also sentenced.
"Little Gang of Four"
In the struggle between the conservative Hua Guofeng's clique and the
one of Deng Xiaoping, a new term emerged, pointing to Hua's four
closest collaborators, Wang Dongxing, Wu De, Ji Dengkui, and Chen
Xilian. In 1980 they were charged with "grave errors" in the struggle
against the Gang of Four and demoted from the Political Bureau to mere
Central Committee membership.
References
^ Glossary of Names and Identities in Mao's Last Revolution, by
Roderick MacFarquhar and Michael Schoenhals, Harvard University Press
2006.
^ Eldest Son: Zhou Enlai and the Making of Modern China, Han Suyin,
1994. page 413.
^ http://www.chaos.umd.edu/history/prc4.html and http://www.wm.edu/cwa/A04PDFs/05.pdf,
p.26-27
^ Political Leaders: China
^ http://www.country-studies.com/china/the-four-modernizations,-1979-82.html
chhotemianinshallah
History of the People's Republic of China
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The history of the People's Republic of China details the history of
mainland China since October 1, 1949, when, after a near complete
victory by the Communist Party of China (CPC) in the Chinese Civil
War, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China (PRC) from
atop Tiananmen (the gate of heavenly peace). The PRC has for several
decades been synonymous with China, but it is only the most recent
political entity to govern mainland China, preceded by the Republic of
China (ROC) and thousands of years of imperial dynasties.
1949–1976: Socialist transformation under Mao Zedong
Main article: History of the People's Republic of China (1949–1976)
Before the formation of the People's Republic of China, the Chinese
communist party established the Chinese Soviet Republic between 1931
to 1934. It was the first time when there were two Chinas. It was
eventually destroyed by the Government of the Republic of China.
Following the Chinese Civil War (國共内戰) and the victory of Mao Zedong's
(毛澤東) Communist forces over the Kuomintang (KMT,國民黨, hanyu pinyin:
Guomindang, GMD) forces of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (蔣中正, hanyu
pinyin: Jiang Jieshi), who fled to Taiwan, Mao declared the founding
of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949. Mao's first goal
was a total overhaul of the land ownership system, and extensive land
reforms. China's old system of landlord ownership of farmland and
tenant peasants was replaced with a distribution system in favor of
poor/landless peasants. Mao laid heavy emphasis on class struggle and
theoretical work, and in 1953 began various campaigns to persecute
former landlords and merchants, including the execution of more
powerful landlords. Drug trafficking in the country as well as Foreign
investment were largely wiped out. Many buildings of historical and
cultural significance as well as countless artifacts were destroyed by
the Maoist regime, since they were considered reminders of the
"feudal" past.
Mao believed that socialism would eventually triumph over all other
ideologies, and following the First Five-Year Plan based on a Soviet-
style centrally controlled economy, Mao took on the ambitious project
of the Great Leap Forward in 1958, beginning an unprecedented process
of collectivization in rural areas. Mao urged the use of communally
organized iron smelters to increase steel production, pulling workers
off of agricultural labor to the point that large amounts of crops
rotted unharvested. Mao decided to continue to advocate these smelters
despite a visit to a factory steel mill which proved to him that high
quality steel could only be produced in a factory; he thought that
ending the program would dampen peasant enthusiasm for his political
mobilization, the Great Leap Forward.
The destruction of balance constitutes leaping forward and such
destruction is better than balance. Imbalance and headache are good
things.
Mao, May 1958, in a speech.[1]
The implementation of Maoist thought in China may have been
responsible for over 70 million excessive deaths during peacetime,[2]
[3] with the Cultural Revolution, Anti-Rightist Campaign of 1957-58,
[4] and the Great Leap Forward. Because of Mao's land reforms during
the Great Leap Forward, which resulted in massive famines, thirty
million perished between 1958 and 1961. By the end of 1961 the birth
rate was nearly cut in half because of malnutrition. [5] Active
campaigns, including party purges and "reeducation" resulted in the
imprisonment or execution of those deemed to hold views contrary to
Maoist ideals. [6] Mao's failure with the Leap reduced his power in
government, whose administrative duties fell to Liu Shaoqi and Deng
Xiaoping.
Supporters of the Maoist Era claim that under Mao, China's unity and
sovereignty was assured for the first time in a century, and there was
development of infrastructure, industry, healthcare, and education,
which raised standard of living for the average Chinese. They also
claimed that campaigns such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural
Revolution were essential in jumpstarting China's development and
"purifying" its culture. More nuanced arguments claim that though the
consequences of both these campaigns were economically and humanly
disastrous, they left behind a "clean slate" on which later economic
progress could be built. Supporters often also doubt statistics or
accounts given for death tolls or other damages incurred by Mao's
campaigns, attributing the high death toll to natural disasters,
famine, or other consequences of political chaos during the rule of
Chiang Kai-Shek.
Critics of Mao's regime assert that Mao's administration imposed
strict controls over everyday life, and believe that political
campaigns such as the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution and
many others during Mao's era (1949-1976) contributed to or caused
millions of deaths, incurred severe economic costs, and damaged
China's cultural heritage. The Great Leap Forward in particular
preceded a massive famine in which[7] 30–40 million people died; most
Western and many Chinese analysts attribute this to poor agricultural
and economic planning.
To impose socialist orthodoxy and rid China of "old elements", and at
the same time serving certain political goals, Mao began the Cultural
Revolution in May 1966. The campaign was far reaching into all aspects
of Chinese life. Red Guards terrorized the streets as many ordinary
citizens were deemed counter-revolutionaries. Education and public
transportation came to a nearly complete halt. Daily life involved
shouting slogans and reciting Mao quotations. Many prominent political
leaders, including Liu and Deng, were purged and deemed "capitalist-
roaders". The campaign would not come to a complete end until the
death of Mao in 1976.
1976–1989: Rise of Deng Xiaoping and economic reforms
Main article: History of the People's Republic of China (1976–1989)
Mao Zedong's death was followed by a power struggle between the Gang
of Four, Hua Guofeng, and eventually Deng Xiaoping. Deng would
maneuver himself to the top of China's leadership by 1980. At the 3rd
Plenum of the 11th CPC Congress, Deng embarked China on the road to
Economic Reforms and Openness (Gaige Kaifang), policies that began
with the de-collectivization of the countryside, followed with
industrial reforms aimed at decentralizing government controls in the
industrial sector. On the subject of Mao's legacy Deng coined the
famous phrase "7 parts good, 3 parts bad", and avoided denouncing Mao
altogether. Deng championed the idea of Special Economic Zones (SEZs),
areas where foreign investment would be allowed to pour in without
strict government restraint and regulations, running on a basically
capitalist system. Deng laid emphasis on light industry as a stepping
stone to the development of heavy industries.
Supporters of the economic reforms point to the rapid development of
the consumer and export sectors of the economy, the creation of an
urban middle class that now constitutes 15% of the population, higher
living standards (which is shown via dramatic increases in GDP per
capita, consumer spending, life expectancy, literacy rate, and total
grain output) and a much wider range of personal rights and freedoms
for average Chinese as evidence of the success of the reforms.
Although standards of living improved significantly in the 1980s,
Deng's reforms were not without criticism. Conservatives asserted that
Deng opened China once again to various social evils, and an overall
increase in materialistic thinking, while liberals attacked Deng's
unrelenting stance on the political front. Liberal forces began
manifesting with different forms of protest against the Party's
totalitarian leadership, which in 1989 lead to weeks of spontaneous
protests in the Tiananmen Square protests. After the government
imposed martial law and sent in military tanks and soldiers to
suppress the demonstrations, thousands of student protesters were
killed and innocent bystanders were run over and crushed to death by
tanks while Chinese soldiers fired bullets indiscriminately into
crowds of onlookers without provocation in and around the center of
Beijing. As a result, China's international image was destroyed
overnight, and its government became a pariah state in the world
because vivid images of slaughterings of innocent lives by the
military machinery of a nominal communist government had been
repeatedly presented to the world by BBC and CNN, in spite of China's
futile efforts to whitewash its many atrocities committed against its
own citizens since 1949. Western countries and multilateral
organizations briefly suspended their formal ties with China's
government under Premier Li Peng's leadership, which was directly
responsible for the military curfew and bloody crackdown.
Critics of the economic reforms, both in China and abroad, claim that
the reforms have caused wealth disparity, environmental pollution,
rampant corruption, widespread unemployment associated with layoffs at
inefficient state-owned enterprises, and has introduced often
unwelcome cultural influences. Consequently they believe that China's
culture has been corrupted, the poor have been reduced to a hopeless
abject underclass, and that the social stability is threatened. They
are also of the opinion that various political reforms, such as moves
towards popular elections, have been unfairly nipped in the bud.
Regardless of either view, today, the public perception of Mao has
improved at least superficially; images of Mao and Mao related objects
have become fashionable, commonly used on novelty items and even as
talismans. However, the path of modernization and market-oriented
economic reforms that China started since the early 1980s appears to
be fundamentally unchallenged. Even critics of China's market reforms
do not wish to see a backtrack of these two decades of reforms, but
rather propose corrective measures to offset some of the social issues
caused by existing reforms.
In 1979, the Chinese government instituted a one child policy to try
to control its rapidly increasing population. The controversial policy
resulted in a dramatic decrease in child poverty. The law currently
applies to about a third of mainland Chinese.
1989–2002: Economic growth under the third generation
Main article: History of the People's Republic of China (1989–2002)
After Tiananmen, Deng Xiaoping retired from public view. While keeping
ultimate control, power was passed onto the third generation of
leadership led by Jiang Zemin, who was hailed as its "core". Economic
growth, despite foreign trade embargoes, returned to a fast pace by
the mid-1990s. Jiang's macroeconomic reforms furthered Deng's vision
for "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics". At the same time,
Jiang's period saw a continued rise in social corruption in all areas
of life. Unemployment skyrocketed as unprofitable SOE's were closed to
make way for more competitive ventures, internally and abroad. The ill-
equipped social welfare system was put on a serious test. Jiang also
laid heavy emphasis on scientific and technological advancement in
areas such as space exploration. To sustain vast human consumption,
the Three Gorges Dam was built, attracting supporters and widespread
criticism. Environmental pollution became a very serious problem as
Beijing was frequently hit by sandstorms as a result of
desertification.
The 1990s saw two foreign colonies returned to China, Hong Kong from
Britain in 1997, and Macau from Portugal in 1999. Hong Kong and Macau
mostly continued their own governance, retaining independence in their
economic, social, and judicial systems. Jiang and President Clinton
exchanged state visits, but Sino-American relations took very sour
turns at the end of the decade. Much controversy surrounded the NATO
bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999, which the U.S.
government claimed was due to bad intelligence and false target
identification (DCI statement). Many conflicting reports have
alternately claimed that the bombing was deliberate or accidental.
Inside the US, the Cox Report stated that China had been stealing
various top US military secrets. And in 2001, a Chinese fighter jet
collided with a US spy plane, inciting further outrage with the
Chinese public, already dissatisfied with the US.
On the political agenda, China was once again put on the spotlight for
the banning of public Falun Gong activity in 1999. Silent protesters
from the spiritual movement sat outside of Zhongnanhai, asking for
dialogue with China's leaders. Jiang saw it as threatening to the
political situation and outlawed the group altogether, while using the
mass media to denounce it as an evil cult.
Conversely, Premier Zhu Rongji's economic policies held China's
economy strong during the Asian Financial Crisis. Economic growth
averaged at 8% annually, pushed back by the 1998 Yangtze River Floods.
After a decade of talks, China was finally admitted into the World
Trade Organization. Standards of living improved significantly,
although a wide urban-rural wealth gap was opened, as China saw the
reappearance of the middle class. Wealth disparity between East and
the Western hinterlands continued to widen by the day, prompting
government programs to "develop the West", taking on such ambitious
projects such as the Qinghai-Tibet Railway. The burden of education
was greater than ever. Rampant corruption continued despite Premier
Zhu's anti-corruption campaign that executed many officials.
2002–present
Main article: History of the People's Republic of China (2002–present)
The first major crisis faced by China in the 21st century as a new
generation of leaders led by Hu Jintao after assuming power was the
public health crisis involving SARS, an illness that seemed to have
originated out of Guangdong province. China's position in the war on
terror drew the country closer diplomatically to the United States.
The economy continues to grow in double-digit numbers as the
development of rural areas became the major focus of government
policy. In gradual steps to consolidate his power, Hu Jintao removed
Shanghai Party Chief Chen Liangyu and other potential political
opponents amidst the fight against corruption, and the on-going
struggle against once powerful Shanghai clique. The assertion of the
Scientific Perspective to create a Harmonious Society is the focus of
the Hu-Wen administration, as some Jiang-era excesses are slowly
reversed. Although the administration continues to face pressure to
reform the political system and the party, the Hu-Wen administration
is comparatively better received than the Jiang administration. In the
years after Hu's rise to power, respect of basic human rights in China
continue to be a source of concern.
The political status and future of Taiwan remain uncertain, but steps
have been taken to improving relations between the Communist Party and
several of Taiwan's pro-unification parties, notably former rival
Kuomintang.
The continued economic growth of the country as well as its sporting
power status has gained China the right to host the 2008 Summer
Olympics. However, this had also put Hu's administration under intense
spotlight. While the 2008 Olympic is commonly understood to be a come-
out party for People's Republic of China, in light of the March 2008
Tibet protests, the government received heavy scrutiny. The Olympic
torch was met with protest en route. Within the country these
reactions were met with a fervent wave of nationalism with accusations
of Western bias against China.
In May 2008, a massive earthquake registering 8.0 on the Richter scale
hit Sichuan province of China, exacting a death toll officially
estimated at approximately 70,000. The government responded more
quickly than in it did with previous events, and has allowed foreign
media access to the regions that were hit the hardest. The adequacy of
the government response was generally praised, and the relief efforts
extended to every corner of Chinese life.
In May and June 2008, heavy rains in southern China caused severe
flooding in the provinces of Anhui, Hunan, Jiangxi, Fujian and
Guangdong, with dozens of fatalities and over a million people forced
to evacuate.
References
^ Speeches At The Second Session Of The Eighth Party Congress
^ Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, Mao: The Untold Story (Jonathan Cape,
2005) Page 3.
^ policy autumn 06_Edit5.indd
^ Teiwes, Frederick C., and Warren Sun. 1999. 'China's road to
disaster: Mao, central politicians, and provincial leaders in the
unfolding of the great leap forward, 1955-1959. Contemporary China
papers. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. pp 52-55.
^ MacFarquhar, Roderick. 1974. The origins of the Cultural Revolution.
London: Published for Royal Institute of International Affairs, East
Asian Institute of Columbia University and Research Institute on
Communist Affairs of Columbia by Oxford University Press. p 4.
^ Perry Link - Legacy Of a Maoist Injustice - washingtonpost.com
^ White, Matthew. Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the
Twentieth Century Hemoclysm (November 2005).
[edit] External links
"Rethinking ‘Capitalist Restoration’ in China" by Yiching Wu
History of the People's Republic of China by P.M. Calabrese
China Timeline: A Chronology of Key Events in China by Gerhard K.
Heilig
China from the Inside - 2006 PBS documentary. KQED Public Television
and Granada Television for PBS, Granada International and the BBC.
chhotemianinshallah
History of the People's Republic of China (1976–1989)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In September 1976, the People's Republic of China was left with no
central authority figure, both symbolically and administratively,
after Mao Zedong's death. The Gang of Four were dismantled, but Hua
Guofeng continued to persist on Mao-era policies. After a bloodless
power struggle, Deng Xiaoping came onto the helm to reform the Chinese
economy and government institutions in their entirety. Deng, however,
was conservative with wide-ranging political reform, and with the
combination of unforeseen problems that resulted from the economic
reform policies, the country underwent another political crisis with
the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.
Power struggles after Mao's death
Bringing back Deng Xiaoping
The demise and arrest of the Gang of Four prompted nationwide
celebrations, including parades in the streets of Beijing and other
major cities. The Gang of Four symbolized everything that went wrong
during the ten years of chaos of the Cultural Revolution, and their
demise, the general populace had expected, would mark the beginning of
a new era. Hua Guofeng, however, desired to continue the policies set
during the Cultural Revolution, and coined this maintenance the Two
Whatevers, setting the standard that "whatever policies Chairman Mao
set, we will continue to uphold; whatever orders Chairman Mao gave, we
will continue to follow." Hua's reliance on Maoist orthodoxy led him
to continue a cult of personality surrounding his own image alongside
Mao's, equating his presence to that of Mao, but pinpointing the focus
at a nominally separate era. To provide for distinct identity, Hua
attempted his own change of the Chinese written language by further
simplifying characters. A small number of these Hua-era
simplifications continue to be in use informally, as there was no
formal sanction of their legitimacy after Hua left office. In early
1977, the National Anthem was changed to reflect pure communist
ideology rather than revolutionary drive, inserting lyrics exclusively
dealing with Mao Zedong Thought and building an ideal socialist
nation, as opposed to the wartime patriotism reflected by the original
lyrics.
Hua's policies received relatively little support, and he was regarded
as an unremarkable leader, lacking political support within the
Politburo. At the time Deng Xiaoping was still living in seclusion
because of "political mistakes," and the issue of his return to
politics was yet again put on the table. Deng had insisted on
supporting all of Hua's policies in one of the letters the two men
exchanged, to which Hua responded that Deng had "made mistakes, and
rightfully must continue to receive criticism." The arrest of the Gang
of Four, Hua said, did not justify that Deng's "revisionist" ideas
should resurface. During a Politburo meeting in March 1977, many
members voiced support for Deng's return, to no avail. In a letter to
Hua dated April 10, Deng Xiaoping wrote, "I am fully behind Chairman
Hua's policies and agenda for the country". This letter would be
openly discussed in the politburo, and in July 1977, Deng Xiaoping was
restored in his former posts. By August, with his election as the new
Committee Vice-Chairman, and the Central Military Commission's Vice-
Chairman, Deng guaranteed the elevation of his supporters, Hu Yaobang,
Zhao Ziyang and Wan Li.
Deng becomes Paramount Leader
Although Hua continued in his leadership role, it became apparent by
early 1978 that Deng and Hua were divided along fine political and
ideological lines. As Vice-Premier in charge of Technology and
Education, Deng restored the University Entrance Examinations in 1977,
opening the doors of post-secondary education to nearly a generation
of youth who lacked this opportunity because of the Cultural
Revolution. He elevated the social status of intellectuals from the
lows of the Cultural Revolution to becoming an "integral part of
socialist construction." Hua, however, insisted on continuing the
Maoist line. Deng's stance towards intellectuals was seen as the first
of a series of reversals in policy set during the Cultural Revolution,
and it proved popular with a large segment of the politburo. Deng's
support grew by the day, and his fresh, pragmatic ideas became more
welcome than Hua's archaic, and sometimes stubborn views.
Deng chaired the 11th National Congress of the Communist Party of
China, China's de jure legislative body, and stressed the importance
of the Four Modernizations, a series of advances in various fields
aimed at strengthening the country by adapting to modern standards. By
then Deng was poised to make a final political move to grab power. On
May 11, 1978, the Guangming Daily newspaper published an article,
inspected by Deng's supporter Hu Yaobang, titled "Practice sets the
only Standard to Examine Truth".[1] The article stressed the
importance of uniting theory and practice, denounced the dogmatic
euphoria of the Mao era, and was, in fact, an outright criticism on
Hua's Two Whatevers policy. This article was reprinted in many
newspapers across the country, and echoed widespread support amongst
party organs and the general populace. Discussions sprung up
nationwide in government and military organizations, and Deng's novel
and pragmatic stance gained increasing popularity.
In April, Deng began the political rehabilitation of those who were
formerly labeled "rightists" and counter-revolutionaries, a campaign
led by Hu Yaobang that pardoned the wrongly accused, restoring the
reputation of many party elders and intellectuals who were purged
during the Cultural Revolution and other Mao-era campaigns. Prominent
politically-disgraced people including Peng Dehuai, Zhang Wentian, He
Long and Tao Zhu were given belated rank-appropriate funerals at the
Babaoshan Revolutionary Cemetery. Liu Shaoqi was given a large state
funeral in May 1982, when the country was asked to mourn the former
President some 15 years after his death.
The power transition from Hua to Deng was confirmed in December 1978,
at the Third Plenum of the Central Committee of the Eleventh National
Party Congress, a turning point in China's history. The course was
laid for the party to move the world's most populous nation toward the
ambitious targets of the Four Modernizations.
After a decade of turmoil brought about by the Cultural Revolution,
the new direction set at this meeting was toward economic development
and away from class struggle. The plenum endorsed major changes in the
political, economic, and social system. Hua renounced his "Two
Whatevers" and offered a full self-criticism. Replacing the old focus
of class struggles was the new policy focused on economic
construction.
It also instituted sweeping personnel changes, culminating in the
elevation of two key supporters of Deng Xiaoping and the reform
program, Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang. In contrast to previous
leadership changes, Hua would resign his posts one by one, and retired
peacefully to private life. The events helped to set a precedent that
losing a high-level leadership struggle would not result in physical
harm. Hua was replaced by Zhao Ziyang as Premier of the State Council
in September 1980, and by Hu Yaobang as party General Secretary of the
party in September 1982. Until the mid-1990s, Deng Xiaoping was
China's de facto leader, retaining only the official title of Chairman
of the Central Military Commission, but not the chief offices of the
State, government, or the Party.
With changes to the Chinese Constitution in 1982, the president was
conceived of as a "figurehead" head of state, with actual power
resting in the hands of the Premier of the People's Republic of China
and the General Secretary of the Party, who were meant to be two
separate people. In the original plan, the Party would develop policy,
and the state would execute it. Deng's intentions was to have power
divided, thus preventing a cult of personality from forming as it did
in the case of Mao. The new emphasis on procedure, however, seemed
largely undermined by Deng himself, who took on none of the official
titles.
After 1979, the Chinese leadership moved toward more pragmatic
policies in almost all fields. The party encouraged artists, writers
and journalists to adopt more critical approaches, although open
attacks on party authority were not permitted. In late 1980, Mao's
Cultural Revolution was officially proclaimed a "mistake". Unlike
Nikita Khruschev's denounciation of Stalin, however, Deng did not
denounce Mao after he came to power as with Mao rested a large part of
the political legitimacy the Communist Party relied upon. Rather, he
continued to use Mao's symbol to guide certain policy principles. He
called Mao "70% right and 30% wrong".
Reform and opening up
A new page in diplomacy
Deng Xiaoping with US President Jimmy Carter, January 1979Relations
with the West improved markedly during Deng's term, although the
People's Republic of China had gained a certain degree of recognition
from the West in the late Mao era. In 1968, the government of Canadian
Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau initiated negotiations with the
People's Republic of China that led to the establishment of diplomatic
relations between China and Canada on October 13, 1970. Canada and
China established resident diplomatic missions in 1971, and it led to
a series of diplomatic successes in the west. The People's Republic of
China joined the United Nations in 1971, replacing the international
legitimacy previous held by the Kuomintang Government of the Republic
of China on the island of Taiwan. In February 1972, US President
Richard Nixon made an unprecedented eight-day visit to the People's
Republic of China and met with Mao Zedong. On February 22, 1973, the
United States and the PRC agreed to establish liaison offices.
Although both sides intended to establish diplomatic relations
quickly, this move was delayed until 1979 due to the Watergate
scandal.
Deng traveled abroad and had a series of amicable meetings with
western leaders, traveling to the United States in 1979 to meet
President Jimmy Carter at the White House. Carter finally recognized
the People's Republic, which had replaced the Taiwan-based Republic of
China as the sole Chinese government recognized by the UN Security
Council in 1971. One of Deng's achievements was the agreement signed
by the United Kingdom and the PRC on December 19, 1984 under which
Hong Kong was to be transferred to the PRC in 1997. With the 99-year
lease on the New Territories coming to an end, Deng agreed that the
PRC would not interfere with Hong Kong's capitalist system and would
allow the locals a high degree of autonomy for at least 50 years. This
"one country, two systems" approach has been touted by the PRC
government as a potential framework within which Taiwan could be
reunited with the mainland. Deng, however, did not improve relations
with the Soviet Union. He continued to adhere to the Maoist line of
the Sino-Soviet Split era, which stated that the Soviet Union was a
superpower equally as "hegemonist" as the United States, yet even more
threatening to the PRC because of its closer proximity. Deng brought
China conflict with Vietnam in 1979, following the Vietnam War, under
this subject of border disputes, and fought in the Sino-Vietnamese
War.
"Red China" was a frequent appellation for the PRC between the
Communist ascendancy and the mid-late 1970s with the rapprochement
between China and the West (generally within the capitalist/Western
bloc). The term was first used, before the establishment of the PRC,
in the late 1940s during the Chinese Civil War, to describe the
Communist side[2], and saw great prevalence in the 1950s, 1960s, and
early 1970s.[3] Starting around 1972-1973, following Richard Nixon's
visit to China and the beginning of rapprochment and mounting
likelihood of diplomatic normalization, the term began to drop in
usage significantly.[4] By the early 1980s, it was increasingly rare
in mainstream journalism and publications in the Western countries.
Since the early 1980s, however, the term remains in use in some
circles, particularly right-wing or conservative political discourse
and publications; nonetheless, some, including some conservatives,
feel the term is not applicable to China in the contemporary period as
the country is no longer a "monolithic political entity whose subjects
march in lockstep with an all-powerful Communist regime."[5] As of the
early 2000s, "Red China" still retains some use among more pro-right-
wing writers, especially when framing China as an economic or
political competitor or opponent (e.g. the "China threat" theory).[6]
"Red China" is sometimes used in more mainstream/less overtly partisan
journalism for metaphoric or comparative use (e.g. "Red China or
Green", New York Times article title[7]).
Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979
Main article: Sino-Vietnamese War
China's relations with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam began to
deteriorate seriously in the mid-1970s. After Vietnam joined the
Soviet-dominated Council for Mutual Economic Cooperation (Comecon) and
signed the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with the Soviet Union
in 1978, China branded Vietnam the "Cuba of the East" and called the
treaty a military alliance. Incidents along the Sino-Vietnamese border
increased in frequency and violence. In December 1978 Vietnam invaded
Cambodia, quickly ousted the pro-Mao Pol Pot regime, and overran the
country.
China's twenty-nine-day incursion into Vietnam in February 1979 was a
response to what China considered to be a collection of provocative
actions and policies on Hanoi's part. These included Vietnamese
intimacy with the Soviet Union, mistreatment of ethnic Chinese living
in Vietnam, hegemonistic "imperial dreams" in Southeast Asia, and
spurning of Beijing's attempt to repatriate Chinese residents of
Vietnam to China. In February 1979 China attacked along virtually the
entire Sino-Vietnamese border in a brief, limited campaign that
involved ground forces only. The Chinese attack came at dawn on the
morning of 17 February 1979, and employed infantry, armor, and
artillery. Air power was not employed then or at any time during the
war. Within a day, the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) had
advanced some eight kilometers into Vietnam along a broad front. It
then slowed and nearly stalled because of heavy Vietnamese resistance
and difficulties within the Chinese supply system. On February 21, the
advance resumed against Cao Bang in the far north and against the all-
important regional hub of Lang Son. Chinese troops entered Cao Bang on
February 27, but the city was not secured completely until March 2.
Lang Son fell two days later. On March 5, the Chinese, saying Vietnam
had been sufficiently chastised, announced that the campaign was over.
Beijing declared its "lesson" finished and the PLA withdrawal was
completed on March 16.
Hanoi's post-incursion depiction of the border war was that Beijing
had sustained a military setback if not an outright defeat. Most
observers doubted that China would risk another war with Vietnam in
the near future. Gerald Segal, in his 1985 book Defending China,
concluded that China's 1979 war against Vietnam was a complete
failure: "China failed to force a Vietnamese withdrawal from
[Cambodia], failed to end border clashes, failed to cast doubt on the
strength of the Soviet power, failed to dispel the image of China as a
paper tiger, and failed to draw the United States into an anti-Soviet
coalition." Nevertheless, Bruce Elleman argued that "one of the
primary diplomatic goals behind China's attack was to expose Soviet
assurances of military support to Vietnam as a fraud. Seen in this
light, Beijing's policy was actually a diplomatic success, since
Moscow did not actively intervene, thus showing the practical
limitations of the Soviet-Vietnamese military pact. ... China achieved
a strategic victory by minimizing the future possibility of a two-
front war against the USSR and Vietnam." After the war both China and
Vietnam reorganized their border defenses. In 1986 China deployed
twenty-five to twenty-eight divisions and Vietnam thirty-two divisions
along their common border.
The 1979 attack confirmed Hanoi's perception of China as a threat. The
PAVN high command henceforth had to assume, for planning purposes,
that the Chinese might come again and might not halt in the foothills
but might drive on to Hanoi. The border war strengthened Soviet-
Vietnamese relations. The Soviet military role in Vietnam increased
during the 1980s as the Soviets provided arms to Vietnam; moreover,
Soviet ships enjoyed access to the harbors at Danang and Cam Ranh Bay,
and Soviet reconnaissance aircraft operated out of Vietnamese
airfields. The Vietnamese responded to the Chinese campaign by turning
the districts along the China border into "iron fortresses" manned by
well-equipped and well-trained paramilitary troops. In all, an
estimated 600,000 troops were assigned to counter Chinese operations
and to stand ready for another Chinese invasion. The precise
dimensions of the frontier operations were difficult to determine, but
its monetary cost to Vietnam was considerable. By 1987 China had
stationed nine armies (approximately 400,000 troops) in the Sino-
Vietnamese border region, including one along the coast. It had also
increased its landing craft fleet and was periodically staging
amphibious landing exercises off Hainan Island, across from Vietnam,
thereby demonstrating that a future attack might come from the sea.
Low-level conflict continued along the Sino-Vietnamese border as each
side conducted artillery shelling and probed to gain high spots in the
mountainous border terrain. Border incidents increased in intensity
during the rainy season, when Beijing attempted to ease Vietnamese
pressure against Cambodian resistance fighters.
Since the early 1980s, China pursued what some observers described as
a semi-secret campaign against Vietnam that was more than a series of
border incidents and less than a limited small-scale war. The
Vietnamese called it a "multifaceted war of sabotage." Hanoi officials
have described the assaults as comprising steady harassment by
artillery fire, intrusions on land by infantry patrols, naval
intrusions, and mine planting both at sea and in the riverways.
Chinese clandestine activity (the "sabotage" aspect) for the most part
was directed against the ethnic minorities of the border region.
According to the Hanoi press, teams of Chinese agents systematically
sabotaged mountain agricultural production centers as well as lowland
port, transportation, and communication facilities. Psychological
warfare operations were an integral part of the campaign, as was what
the Vietnamese called "economic warfare"--encouragement of Vietnamese
villagers along the border to engage in smuggling, currency
speculation, and hoarding of goods in short supply.
Economic Reform and Opening up
Main article: Chinese economic reform
The new, pragmatic leadership emphasized economic development and
renounced mass political movements. At the pivotal Third Plenum of the
11th CCP Congress, opened on 22 December 1978[8], the leadership
adopted economic reform policies known as the Four Modernizations.
These tenets aimed at expanding rural income and incentives,
encouraging experiments in enterprise autonomy, reducing central
planning, and establishing direct foreign investment in Mainland
China. The Plenum also decided to accelerate the pace of legal reform,
culminating in the passage of several new legal codes by the National
People's Congress in June 1979.
The goals of Deng's reforms were summed up by the Four Modernizations:
the modernization of agriculture, industry, science and technology, as
well as the military. The strategy for achieving these aims, all of
which were designed to help China become a modern, industrial nation,
was "socialism with Chinese characteristics". It opened a new era in
Chinese history known as "Reforms and Opening up"(改革开放) to the Outside
World.
Deng argued that Mainland China was in the primary stage of socialism
and that the duty of the party was to perfect "socialism with Chinese
characteristics." This interpretation of Chinese Marxism reduced the
role of ideology in economic decision-making and emphasized policies
that had been proven to be empirically effective, stressing the need
to "seek truth from facts". Disparaging Mao's idealistic,
communitarian values but not necessarily the values of Marx and Lenin,
Deng emphasized that socialism did not mean shared poverty. Unlike Hua
Guofeng, Deng believed that no policy should be rejected out of hand
simply because it had not been associated with Mao. Unlike more
conservative leaders such as Chen Yun, Deng did not object to policies
on the grounds that they were similar to those found in capitalist
nations.
Although Deng provided the theoretical background and the political
support to allow economic reform to occur, few of the economic reforms
that Deng introduced were originated by Deng himself. Local leaders,
often in violation of central government directives introduced many
reforms. If successful and promising, these reforms would be adopted
by larger and larger areas, and ultimately introduced nationally. Many
other reforms were influenced by the experiences of the East Asian
Tigers.
This is in sharp contrast to the economic restructuring, or
perestroika, undertaken by Mikhail Gorbachev, in which Gorbachev
himself originated most of the major reforms. Many economists have
argued that the bottom-up approach of Deng's reforms, in contrast to
the top-down approach of Perestroika, was a key factor in his success.
Contrary to popular misconceptions, Deng's reforms included
introduction of planned, centralized management of the macro-economy
by technically proficient bureaucrats, abandoning Mao's mass campaign
style of economic construction. However, unlike the Soviet model or
China under Mao, this management was indirect, through market
mechanisms, and much of it was modeled after economic planning and
control mechanisms in Western nations.
This trend did not impede the general move toward the market at the
microeconomic level. Deng sustained Mao's legacy to the extent that he
stressed the primacy of agricultural output and encouraged a
significant decentralization of decision-making in the rural economy
teams and individual peasant households. At the local level, material
incentives rather than political appeals were to be used to motivate
the labor force, including allowing peasants to earn extra income by
selling the produce of their private plots on the free market. In the
main move toward market allocation, local municipalities and provinces
were allowed to invest in industries that they considered most
profitable, which encouraged investment in light manufacturing. Thus,
Deng's reforms shifted China's development strategy to emphasize light
industry and export-led growth.
Light industrial output was vital for a developing country that was
working with relatively little capital. With its short gestation
period, low capital requirements, and high foreign exchange export
earnings, the revenues that the light-manufacturing sector generated
could be reinvested in more technologically advanced production and
further capital expenditures and investments. However, these
investments were not government-mandated, in sharp contrast to the
similar but much less successful reforms in Yugoslavia and Hungary.
The capital invested in heavy industry largely came from the banking
system, and most of that capital came from consumer deposits. One of
the first items of the Deng reforms was to prevent reallocation of
profits except through taxation or through the banking system; hence,
the reallocation in more "advanced" industries was somewhat indirect.
In short, Deng's reforms sparked an industrial revolution in China.
These reforms were a reversal of the Mao policy of economic self-
reliance. The PRC decided to accelerate the modernization process by
stepping up the volume of foreign trade, especially the purchase of
machinery from Japan and the West. By participating in such export-led
growth, the PRC was able to step up the Four Modernizations by taking
advantage of foreign funds, markets, advanced technologies, and
management experience. Deng also attracted foreign companies to a
series of Special Economic Zones, where capitalist business practices
were encouraged.
Another important focus of the reforms was the need to improve labor
productivity. New material incentives and bonus systems were
introduced. Rural markets selling peasants' homegrown products and the
surplus products of communes were revived. Not only did rural markets
increase agricultural output, they stimulated industrial development
as well. With peasants able to sell surplus agricultural yields on the
open market, domestic consumption stimulated industrialization, and
also created political support for more difficult economic reforms.
Deng's market socialism, especially in its early stages, was in some
ways parallel to Lenin's New Economic Policy and Bukharin's economic
policies, in that they all foresaw a role for private entrepreneurs
and markets based on trade and pricing rather than government mandates
of production. An interesting anecdotal episode on this note is the
first meeting between Deng and Armand Hammer. Deng pressed the
industrialist and former investor in Lenin's Soviet Union for as much
information on the NEP as possible.
Tiananmen Square protests
Main article: Tiananmen Square protests of 1989
At the same time, political dissent as well as social problems,
including inflation, political corruption, massive urban migration,
and prostitution emerged. The 1980s saw a surge in intellectual
material as the country emerged out of the ignorance of the Cultural
Revolution; the time period between 1982–89 saw freedom of the press
like never before, and has since then never been seen again. Two
prominent schools of thought emerged. One school composed of students
and intellectuals who urged greater economic and political reforms;
the other, composed of revolutionary party elders, became increasingly
skeptical on the pace and the ultimate goals of the reform program, as
it deviated from the intended direction of the Communist Party.
In December 1986, student demonstrators, taking advantage of the
loosening political atmosphere, staged protests against the slow pace
of reform, confirming party elders' fears that the current reform
program was leading to a kind of social instability, the same kind
that killed hundreds of millions between the years of the Opium War
and the founding of the PRC. Inspired by Fang Lizhi, a physicist from
University of Science and Technology of China who gave speeches
criticizing Deng's go slow policies, students took to protest. The
students were also disenchanted with the amount of control the
government exerted, citing compulsory calisthenics and not being
allowed to dance at rock concerts. Students called for campus
elections, the chance to study abroad, and greater availability of
western pop culture. Hu Yaobang, a protégé of Deng and a leading
advocate of reform, was blamed for the protests and forced to resign
as the CCP General Secretary in January 1987. In the "Anti Bourgeois
Liberalization Campaign", Hu would be further denounced. Premier Zhao
Ziyang was made General Secretary and Li Peng, a staunch conservative
who was unpopular with the masses, formerly Vice Premier and Minister
of Electric Power and Water Conservancy, was made Premier.
After Zhao became the party General Secretary, the economic and
political reforms he had championed came under increasing attack from
his colleagues. His proposal in May 1988 to accelerate price reform
led to widespread popular complaints about rampant inflation and gave
opponents of rapid reform the opening to call for greater
centralization of economic controls and stricter prohibitions against
Western influence. This precipitated a political debate, which grew
more heated through the winter of 1988–1989.
The death of Hu Yaobang on April 15, 1989, coupled with growing
economic hardship caused by high inflation and other social factors,
provided the backdrop for a large-scale protest movement by students,
intellectuals, and other parts of a disaffected urban population.
University students and other citizens in Beijing camped out at
Tiananmen Square to mourn Hu's death and to protest against those who
would slow reform. Their protests, which grew despite government
efforts to contain them, although not strictly anti-Government in
nature, called for an end to official corruption and for the defense
of freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of the People's Republic of
China. Protests also spread through many other cities, including
Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Chengdu.
On April 26, the central leadership, under Deng Xiaoping, issued the
4-26 Editorial on People's Daily, which was subsequently broadcast on
national media, denouncing all recent actions of protest a form of
"turmoil" (动乱). The editorial was the first in a series of events in
an effort to contain the escalating protests through forceful
measures. Thereafter, Deng's actions caused the presidency to have
much greater power than originally intended. Various leaders
sympathetic to the students, most notably Wan Li, then the NPC
Chairman with a degree of constitutional powers to prevent full
military action, were placed under house arrest after landing in
Beijing. Wan's seclusion ensured that President Yang Shangkun was
able, in cooperation with Deng, then-head of the Central Military
Commission, to use the office of the President to declare martial law
in Beijing and order the military crackdown of the protests. This was
in direct opposition to the wishes of the Party General Secretary Zhao
Ziyang and other members of the Politburo Standing Committee.
Martial law was declared on May 20, 1989. Late on June 3 and early on
the morning of June 4, a date now synonymous with the movement in the
Chinese language, military units were called from neighboring
provinces and brought into Beijing. Armed force was used to clear
demonstrators from the streets. Official PRC estimates place the
number of deaths at between two to three hundred, whilst groups such
as the Red Cross believe the number to be in the two to three thousand
range.
After the protests, the Chinese government faced hordes of criticism
from foreign governments for the suppression of the protests, the
government reined in remaining sources of dissent that were a threat
to order and stability, detained large numbers of protesters, and
required political re-education not only for students but also for
insubordinate party cadre and government officials. Zhao Ziyang would
be placed under house arrest until his death some 16 years later, and
due to the subject still being largely taboo in China, Zhao has not
yet been politically rehabilitated.
One Child Policy
Main article: One Child Policy
In 1979, the Chinese government instituted a one child policy or
"pinyin" to try to control its rapidly increasing population. The
policy, while controversial, is widely approved by the Chinese people,
and has resulted in a dramatic decrease in child poverty. The law
currently applies to about a third of the mainland Chinese, and does
not apply to indigenous peoples nor to offshore islands, such as Hong
Kong. As a result of this policy, the demographics of China are
rapidly changing.
References
^ 《光明日报》评论：实践是检验真理的唯一标准, retrieved from Sina.com. Dated May 11, 1978
^ [1][2]
^ [3][4][5]
^ [6][7]
^ China
^ [8][9]
^ Red China Or Green? - New York Times
^ MacFarquhar, Roderick (1987). "The succession to Mao and the end of
Maoism". in Roderick MacFarquhar. The Politics of China (2nd ed.).
Cambridge University Press. p. 320. ISBN 9780521588638.
http://books.google.com/books?id=yrkpx6iKq48C&pg=PA320&lpg=PA320&dq=22+December+Third+Plenum&source=web&ots=O4yN_Nvj1n&sig=Ko5uyW8OTmPZX-OaI0AMxyG40eQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result.
Retrieved 2008-12-11.
bademiyansubhanallah
Posted: Thu, Sep 24 2009. 1:10 PM IST
Corporate News
China dominates Forbes’ Asia Pacific business list
Four Indian firms made it to the list for the first time, including
Adani Enterprises, Axis Bank, Jindal Steel & Power and Tata
Consultancy ServicesAFP
Singapore: Chinese firms have maintained their dominance of the Asia
Pacific business scene, accounting for a third of a Forbes list of 50
large and profitable firms in the region released on Thursday.
Sixteen companies from China were in the list this year, up from 13 in
2008 and only five when the US business magazine first came out with
its “Fabulous 50” compilation in 2005, a Forbes statement said.
“The mainland’s fast growth continues to toss up hot new companies for
the list,” it said.
Out of the 24 newcomers this year, nine are from China, among them
Agile Property Holdings, Anhui Conch Cement, Digital China Holdings
and Tencent Holdings.
“The mainland firms, together with five from Taiwan and three from
Hong Kong account for almost half the entries, giving Greater China
the biggest regional representation,” Forbes said.
The list covers only companies with revenues or market capitalisation
of at least $3 billion and a five-year record of operating
profitability and a return on equity.
India followed closely behind China with 13 entries on the list, up
from nine last year.
Four Indian firms made it to the list for the first time, including
Adani Enterprises, Axis Bank, Jindal Steel & Power and Tata
Consultancy Services.
Taiwan’s five firms put the island in third, with Japan and Australia
tied at fourth with four firms each, Forbes said.
Japan, the world’s second biggest economy, had the most companies on
the list in 2005 at 13, but it has since fallen in the rankings in “a
sign of how its economy has stagnated,” according to Forbes.
chhotemianinshallah
China opposes Iran nuclear sanctions
STAFF WRITER 15:45 HRS IST
Beijing, Sept 24 (AFP) China today reiterated its opposition to
sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme, as Tehran came under
mounting pressure from world leaders at the United Nations to stop
uranium enrichment.
"We always believe that sanctions and pressure are not the way out,"
foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told reporters.
"At present, it is not conducive to diplomatic efforts."
Iran's suspect nuclear ambitions were atop the agenda at the UN
General Assembly yesterday, and even Russia signalled it could back
sanctions if Tehran failed to make concessions in talks with six major
powers next week.
But Jiang called for renewed diplomacy on the issue.
"We hope relevant parties will... redouble diplomatic efforts," she
said.
The West suspects Iran is trying to acquire a nuclear weapons
capability under the cover of a civilian atomic programme.
chhotemianinshallah
What Is A Credible Nuclear Deterrent?
By raising doubts about Pokhran-2, 11 years after the event, whose
political agenda are the scientists serving now?
Rajinder Puri
The debate among nuclear scientists on the success or failure of the
Pokhran-2 Test continues to be fierce. Nuclear scientist K Santhanam
who ignited the debate said that India will need to “carry out two to
three tests” to ensure its hydrogen bomb is working and “not rush to
sign” the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). In a TV interview Mr
Santhanam did concede however that India has an “atomic bomb
deterrent”. His objection is that India lacks a credible hydrogen
bomb. He wants more tests in order to ensure such a bomb and to
prevent India from signing the CTBT.
India’s eminent scientists are divided over the efficacy of the
Pokhran-2 Test. The late doyen among nuclear scientists, Raja Ramanna,
had endorsed the success of Pokhran-2. Others have rubbished the test.
We laymen need not enter into that controversy. We lack the expertise
to judge. However even laymen have the common sense and expertise to
judge politics. The decision to sign or not sign the CTBT is a
political decision. The need for a fusion bomb instead of a fission
bomb as a nuclear deterrent is a political decision. Nuclear scientist
Homi Sethna who supports Santhanam’s view said that politicians should
not meddle in scientific matters. He is right. But he should be
equally advised that scientists should not meddle in political
affairs.
What is a credible nuclear deterrent? It is not one that can match the
nuclear force of a big power. It is one that can deter a nuclear power
from bullying India. Hypothetically, if the US threatens to destroy
India with its thermonuclear power, it could. But if it knows that in
doing so India will destroy New York or Washington it would know the
price and it would, unless its leaders have gone insane, be deterred.
Nuclear scientists, like judges, may have great expertise in their
chosen vocation. That does not qualify them to butt into political
debate. They are capable of displaying considerable stupidity. India
needs fastest progress in missile and radar technologies in order to
perfect a pre-emptive delivery system. It does not, whether Pokhran-2
succeeded or failed, need a hydrogen bomb. And starry-eyed
intellectuals who look up to the scientists and to sections of
international opinion need to acquire self-confidence. They should
learn to think for themselves. Former nuclear hawk Dr Henry Kissinger
along with Congressman Sam Nunn is currently busying himself with ways
and means to achieve total nuclear disarmament. This wisdom has dawned
on him two decades after Rajiv Gandhi had proposed this goal. The
greatest threat to mankind, and especially to India, is that nuclear
weapons may fall into the hands of terrorists. That must be prevented.
Mr Santhanam still has not answered the question posed by this scribe
when he first raised doubts about the success of Pokhran-2. Why did he
not speak up when the test occurred? Why did he not speak up during
all the intervening eleven years? The possibility of India signing the
CTBT now is no credible explanation. After Pokhran-2 Prime Minister
Vajpayee seriously toyed with the idea of signing the CTBT. Why did
not our patriotic scientists speak up then? By raising doubts about
Pokhran-2 eleven years after the event whose political agenda are they
serving now?
Do tell us Mr Santhanam; do tell us Mr Sethna, why are you dabbling in
politics now?
Sid Harth
World: Spelling Chinese
Monday, Mar. 26, 1979Print Reprints Email Twitter LinkedIn Buzz up!
Facebook MORE...Add to my:
del.icio.us Technorati reddit Google Bookmarks Mixx StumbleUpon Blog
this on:
TypePad LiveJournal Blogger MySpace
Beginning this week, TIME will adopt the Pinyin (Chinese for phonetic
spelling) system of transcribing Chinese names of people and places
into English. Earlier this year, Peking officially changed to Pinyin
spellings in its foreign-language publications; U.S. Government
agencies, as well as many newspapers, magazines and news services in
America, Europe and Australia have subsequently decided to follow
suit.
Pinyin is a somewhat less cumbersome method of rendering Chinese words
in alphabetic form than the traditional Wade-Giles system, which
employs apostrophes and hyphens. Examples: Hua Guofeng instead of Hua
Kuofeng; Deng Xiaoping instead of Teng Hsiao-p'ing. Initially, TIME
plans to use the Pinyin spellings with the conventional Wade-Giles
rendering in parentheses. There will be exceptions. Mao Tse-tung (Mao
Zedong in Pinyin) and other familiar figures of history will not
appear in their Pinyin form. Nor will such widely used place names as
Peking (Beijing in Pinyin), Canton (Guangzhou), Tibet (Xizang) or Hong
Kong (Xianggang). China will remain China, and not become Zhongguo.
bademiyansubhanallah
Our Air force strength is one third of China: IAF chief
AFP 23 September 2009, 03:05pm IST
NEW DELHI: India's Air Force is just a third the size of rival China's
and far short of the aircraft required to meet the security challenges
it faces, the country's air force chief said Wednesday.
"Our present aircraft strength is inadequate. Aircraft strength is one
third that of China," said Air Chief Marshal PV Naik was quoted by a
news website on Wednesday.
"The government of India is doing a lot to augment air force
capability," he said in a speech in Gandhinagar, capital of India's
western Gujarat state.
The comments come against the backdrop of media reports about Chinese
army and air "incursions" into India in the past several weeks that
have been denied by both New Delhi and Beijing.
The Asian giants and economic rivals have yet to agree on their more
than 4,000 kilometre (2,480 mile) border, the dispute over which dates
back to a brief but bitter conflict in 1962 that exposed India's
military vulnerability.
India says China occupies 38,000 square kilometres (14,670 square
miles) of its territory, while Beijing claims 90,000 square kilometres
or the whole of the northeastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh.
Naik said there were two ways to counter China's reported incursions.
"One way is to take up weapons and go to the border. The other way is
to build systematic weapons capability to tackle the threat," he
said.
Naik's remarks follow similar ones by former navy chief Sureesh Mehta,
who last month said India could not compete with China on defence
spending and warned Beijing was "creating formidable military
capabilities".
India has begun trials of the world's leading fighter jets as it
prepares to place an order for 126 planes in a contract worth $12
billion.
bademiyansubhanallah
Indian scientists rejoice as Chandrayaan-1 traces water on moon
TNN 24 September 2009, 06:31pm IST
NEW DELHI: As news trickled out about Indian maiden lunar mission
tracing water molecules on the moon's surface, scientists rejoiced at
the discovery and hope that it will pave the way for growing
vegetation in the earth's natural satellite in future. ( Watch
Video )
"I am really very happy to know that the NASA payload on Chandrayaan-1
has traced water. If it is true then it will pave the way for growing
vegetation in moon surface in five or 10 years from now," renowned
scientist Y S Rajan said.
"Even if there is no water in its complete H20 format, still it's a
great feat. It will help make human venturing to moon a more enriching
experience. Those going to moon can combine the molecule and get
water.
"They can also break it and get oxygen which is a major problem for
scientists in space," said Rajan, who has written the book India 2020:
A Vision for the New Millennium, along with former president A P J
Abdul Kalam.
He said India's moon mission was a "great success" that proved ISRO's
capability and efficiency in managing key space projects. "We have
received loads of data from moon via our mission. It has certainly
enriched the global scientific community."
"The moon has distinct signatures of water," top American scientist
Carle Pieters confirmed on Thursday.
"The evidence of water molecules on the surface of the moon was found
by the moon mineralogy mapper (M3) of the US-based National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on board Chandrayaan-1,"
M3 principal investigator Pieters said in a paper published in the
journal Science.
Amitabha Ghosh, space scientist at NASA, said: "This is a very, very
important finding... If somehow water was found on the moon, you could
use that water right out there. You could extract it."
"Right now, we don't know what temperature it is, and whether there is
a cost effective way of extracting it," he added.
Mila Mitra, a scientist formerly associated with NASA said: "This is
truly significant because it will help find any trace of life on
moon."
"Now you will see more money being invested in moon missions. There
might be manned moon missions. Now you will see more emphasis on such
endeavours," she added.
S Chandrasekaran, another leading scientist, said: "Yes, we are very
happy. I was not part of the mission so cannot give technical details
but yes, the discovery is very significant. It is great and very
important."
Last year, former ISRO chief K Kasturirangan had told the news agency:
"For me personally, if Chandrayaan-1 manages to find evidence of water
on the moon, then that would be the biggest achievement."
Chandrayaan-1 was India's first unmanned lunar probe. It was launched
by the Indian Space Research Organisation in October 2008, and
operated until August 2009. The spacecraft carried five Indian
instruments and six from abroad, including M3 and another from NASA,
three from the European Space Agency (ESA), and one from Bulgaria.
bademiyansubhanallah
ISRO launches Oceansat-2, nano satellites from Sriharikota
TIMES NEWS NETWORK & AGENCIES 23 September 2009, 11:54am IST
NEW DELHI: India successfully launched its 16th remote-sensing
satellite Oceansat-2 and six nano European satellites in 1,200 seconds
with the help The Ocean Monitoring Satellite Oceansat-2 is seen 18
minutes after blast off in Chennai. (AFP)
The launch was carried out as per schedule at 11.51 am and ended at
12.06 pm.
The 44.4-metre tall, 230-tonne Indian rocket Polar Satellite Launch
Vehicle (PSLV) freed itself from the launch pad at the spaceport and
lifted itself up, lugging the 960-kg Oceansat-2 and the six nano
satellites all together weighing 20 kg.
In copybook style, the rocket first flung out Oceansat-2 at an
altitude of 720 km above the earth in a sun-synchronous orbit (SSO),
followed by the four nano satellites - also called Cubesats, each
weighing one kg. The remaining two, each weighing eight kg, were
attached to the rocket's fourth stage.
Of the six nano satellites, four are from Germany, one is from
Switzerland and one from Turkey. The seventh is a big one, India's
Oceansat-2 weighing 960 kg.
Soon after the satellites were put into orbit, Indian Space Research
Organisation's (ISRO) satellite tracking centres started monitoring
them.
President Pratibha Patil and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
congratulated the ISRO team for successful launch of Oceansat-2
satellite, saying this would herald a new beginning in understanding
of the oceans.
Vice-President Hamid Ansari who was present at the Satish Dhavan Space
Centre SHAR, congratulated the scientists and technocrats over this
splendid achievement for the nation.
Seven satellites in 1,200 seconds. The launch is similar to the one in
April 2008 when ISRO launched 10 satellites.
The sequence of ejection is very similar to the April 2008 launch
featuring one big satellite - Cartosat-2A and nine other nano
satellites - 10 in all: once the PSLV takes off and reaches a certain
height and velocity, it will first launch the Oceansat-2 and a few
seconds later, the first of four nano satellites. Every 10-12 seconds,
the PSLV will launch four satellites one after the other. (Two will
remain with the fourth stage).
"The rocket re-orients itself everytime a satellite is to be placed in
orbit. The re-orientation ensures one satellite doesn't collide with
another. The rocket effectively re-orients itself four to five times
in the space of one flight," a scientist explained.
The brain of the rocket would have made all calculations in advance -
from ejection of first satellite to the fifth. The exact moment of
ejection and then re-orientation for the next ejection is worked out
in advance. All mathematical calculations on the ground, launch
sequence and flight path have to work to zero error.
"There is no room for error. The rocket has to be in flight till the
last minute which means all systems on board have to function to
perfection. Once the first and second stages separate, and the fourth
stage (the engines) stop, the ejection process begins until every
satellite circulates in orbit," an official said.
Oceansat-2, India's second satellite to study oceans as well as
interaction of oceans and atmosphere, is the 16th remote sensing
satellite of India. It is in the shape of a cuboid with two solar
panels projecting from its sides. The satellite will map fishing zones
around India, measure ocean surface windspeeds as well as atmospheric
temperature and humidity.
This will be PSLV's 16th mission. From September 1993 to April 2009,
PSLV has been launched 15 times. Fourteen launches have been
successful continuously while only one has failed so far.
ISRO spokesperson S Satish told TOI: "It is known that PSLV has been a
very successful launch vehicle. Countries realise it is a vehicle or
rocket very well suited for launch of nano satellites. We were on to
our 16th mission with PSLV and Germany and Swtizerland were looking
for a mission. Our needs coincided and that's how we have the six nano
satellites."
In the April 2008 launch, eight nano satellites were built by
universities and research institutions in Canada and Germany.
Sid Harth
A file photo of ISRO Chairman G Madhavan Nair at a press conference at
ISRO Space centre in Bangalore. PTI Photo Photograph (1)
India's own MIP detects water on moon: Nair, NASA thanks ISRO
STAFF WRITER 16:50 HRS IST
Bangalore/Washington, Sept 25 (PTI) India's own Moon Impact Probe
(MIP) on board the country's maiden unmanned lunar craft had also
detected evidence of water on the moon in a finding confirmed by US
space agency NASA which too had an instrument onboard Chandrayaan-I.
The NASA meanwhile thanked ISRO for enabling the discovery of water on
Moon through Chandrayaan-I.
"We want to thank ISRO for making the discovery possible.
Moon till now was thought to be a very dry surface with lot of rocks,"
NASA director Jim Green told reporters in Washington.
In Bangalore, a beaming ISRO Chief G Madhavan Nair said the MIP while
descending from Chandrayaan-I to the moon surface about a fortnight
after it was launched in October picked up strong signals of water
particles. Nair's remark has triggered speculation whether an Indian
space mission was the first to discover water on Moon.
bademiyansubhanallah
UN resolution on NPT not directed against India: US
26 Sep 2009, 1446 hrs IST, PTI
PITTSBURGH/NEW YORK: The US today assured India that the UN Security
Council resolution on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT) issue
is not
directed against it and will not affect the Indo-US nuclear deal.
"We have been assured (by the US) that this is not a resolution
directed against India and that the US commitment to carry out its
obligations under the civil nuclear agreement, which we have signed
with the United States, remains undiluted," Singh, who interacted
twice with President Barack Obama during the G-20 Summit, told
reporters here.
"That (commitment on the nuclear deal) we have been assured officially
by the US Government," Singh said wrapping up his two-day visit.
He was replying to a question about the UNSC resolution asking all non-
NPT states, including India, to sign the NPT.
"Last night I met him (Obama) and today I was seated to his right
during lunch. I discussed some important issues with him," Singh said
on being asked whether he had any bilateral meetings with the US
President. Singh said because of paucity of time, Obama did not have
bilateral meetings with any leaders.
In New York, after a meeting between External Affairs Minister S M
Krishna and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a senior US official
said India's position on NPT and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
(CTBT) will not impact the nuclear deal.
bademiyansubhanallah
India and US to go ahead with the nuclear deal: Clinton
26 Sep 2009, 1039 hrs IST, PTI
NEW YORK: The United States today said India's position on non-
proliferation and CTBT will not impact the nuclear deal between the
two countries and expressed hope to move forward with the landmark
agreement.
"We've said before that the resolution that was passed on Thursday
unanimously by the Security Council does not have any bearing on our
bilateral civil nuclear cooperation," Assistant Secretary of State for
South and Central Asia Robert Blake said.
Blake was briefing journalists after a bilateral meeting between
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and External Affairs Minister S M
Krishna here.
The UNSC had adopted a resolution seeking all non NPT signatories to
join the treaty but India, which views it as discriminatory, refused
to accept it.
The senior US official said that discussion between Krishna and
Clinton also included cooperation between India and the US on higher
education, referring to Indian Lok Sabha bill that will enable more
foreign participation in the higher education sector.
"There are a number of American universities who are very eager to do
more. So we're very excited about that as well," he said.
bademiyansubhanallah
Canada says India nuclear deal imminent
26 Sep 2009, 1205 hrs IST, REUTERS
OTTAWA: Canada is close to signing a deal with India to sell nuclear
technology and materials, Trade Minister Stockwell Day said on Friday,
adding he was confident that remaining security concerns would be
resolved.
Day made similar comments in May, saying at that time that a deal was
imminent.
He told reporters on a conference call that he was now ironing out a
few final stumbling blocks.
"I had a telephone meeting just last week with India's national
security adviser. We are down to four fine points ... He and I both
agree that final agreement is possible within days, if not just a
matter of a few weeks," Day told reporters on a conference call from
India.
Day said he did not foresee any threat of Canadian materials being
diverted to military uses elsewhere in the region because of India's
commitment to allow inspections by the International Atomic Energy
Agency as well as tough transparency and reporting requirements.
"These are very strong provisions," he said.
Canada halted nuclear co-operation with India after the country
diverted material from Canadian-designed reactors to make a nuclear
bomb in 1974. The conflict between India and Pakistan at the time led
to widespread international concerns about India's nuclear
intentions.
Canada and other countries lifted their moratorium on nuclear trade
with India last year.
Day said one of the four items to be resolved before signing a deal
was the "question of reprocessing", without providing details.
"I'll let our negotiators make progress on those and the others
without unduly trying to raise pressure points publicly on them," he
said.
The deal means Canadian uranium producers will be able to sell to an
Indian market that is seen, along with China's, as one of the top
areas of growing demand for nuclear fuel.
Cameco, a top uranium miner, recently said it plans to open a
marketing office in India.
"Certainly we're looking forward to having the opportunity to do
business in India. It's a large market opportunity for any uranium
fuel supplier," said Cameco spokesman Lyle Krahn.
The company plans to open the office next month. "Once we have the
agreement in place, we'll certainly be moving forward," Krahn said. On
Wednesday, the Canadian government announced a similar nuclear deal
with Kazakhstan, where Cameco already has operations.
Sid Harth
Space, the big market
Hindustan Times
September 25, 2009
First Published: 23:29 IST(25/9/2009)
Last Updated: 23:31 IST(25/9/2009)
This week saw yet another successful multiple satellite launch, via
the trusty Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV), by the Indian Space
Research Organisation (Isro). The payloads included India’s Oceansat-2
remote sensing satellite and six nano satellites from Germany, Turkey
and Switzerland — at a modest price tag of Rs 235 crore. This launch
signals another notch in the belt for Isro, whose efforts at
indigenisation have succeeded despite budget constraints and
international technology denial regimes. It also shows the way forward
into India’s trajectory of welding science and technology to a
competitive business. Add to this the joint discovery with the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration of the ‘presence of
water on the moon’, and Indian space science can be seen in a new,
mature orbit.
Over the last few years Isro has helped India become self-reliant in
building launch vehicles for both polar and geostationary orbits and
spacecraft. By successfully injecting multiple satellites in a single
launch, it has managed to create a niche for itself in the global
space market, offering cost-effective satellite lift-offs for overseas
customers. From pollution monitoring to remote sensing and ocean
studies to space physics and more, small research satellites are where
it’s at — they are easier to launch, less time-consuming and cost-
effective, given that many can be launched simultaneously. The fact
that other major players like the US and France have now little
interest in the rent-a-rocket business has made Canada, Japan, the
Netherlands and Israel turn to India for sending their satellites up
in space.
It’s time now for us to cash in on the space rush. Besides providing a
thrifty launch pad, Isro needs to target the market for big
communication satellites. It has the requisite expertise after having
put a dozen national communications satellites in orbit. Given its
future ambitions that include a robotic landing on the moon and a
mission to Mars — and with the lifting of curbs on the launch of non-
commercial US satellites and satellites with US components on Indian
launch vehicles — one of India’s more successful research behemoths
should push for a full-blown lift-off.
bademiyansubhanallah
No need to be afraid of China: MoS Defence
TNN 27 September 2009, 02:44am IST
LEH: Beijing’s “non-adherence” to the Line of Actual Control (LAC)
that separates India and China has resulted in different perceptions
in the two countries on where the border lies, minister of state for
defence M M Pallam Raju said here, while adding “there is no need to
be afraid of China”.
Speaking on the sidelines of a conference in Leh, Raju said that till
the time the border dispute is resolved, “China may make attempts to
escalate the issue”.
“Mcmahon line delineates India and China. But they do not adhere to
that resulting in the problem. So they patrol the area they think is
theirs and we patrol the area we think is ours,” Raju told reporters.
The minister is on a visit to this region which borders China soon
after media reports of Chinese incursions into Indian territory,
reports of which both New Delhi and Beijing have denied.
Raju was quick to add that India was not underestimating the “threat
perception”. “India-China trade is increasing and it’s the main focus
of our relations,” he said. “But we are not underestimating the threat
perception. Whatever preparation has to be there from Indian side we
are doing it. Whatever surveillance is required we are doing it. The
number of incursions is same as last year. So there is no need to be
concerned,’’ he added.
bademiyansubhanallah
Water on Moon not of foreign origin: ISRO
Srinivas Laxman, TNN 27 September 2009, 02:25am IST
MUMBAI: What’s the source of water molecules on the Moon? Have these
originated from sources outside the Moon — the belief so far — or are
these
generated on the moon itself? According to Mylswamy Annadurai,
Chandrayaan-1 project director, the water molecules came from the Moon
surface — a major revelation made possible by the Indian mission.
Dispelling the age-old belief, Annadurai said: ‘‘The current thinking
was that only other planetary bodies were the source of water
molecules on the Moon. But, this mission has changed the thinking. The
new theory is that the water molecules were not from an outside
source, but are being generated then and there. This is now being
analysed.’’
Annadurai made this announcement on Saturday during a presentation at
the SIES College where he honoured a large number of student toppers.
Soon after NASA’s announcement that its Moon Minerology Mapper (M3)
had discovered water molecules in the Moon’s polar regions, many space
experts believed that the source of water molecules could have been
anoutside source like comets or solar winds. They believed that these
molecules could have been deposited several billion years ago and had
remained there. Annadurai said these water molecules were found for
the first time in the sunlight region of the Moon.
‘‘This is something new and we are also analysing this phenomenon. The
thinking was that these molecules could only exist in the shadowed
regions of the Moon’s crater. ‘‘Chandrayaan-1 has revolutionised
planetary science,’’ he added. According to him, the discovery of
water molecules is only the tip of the iceberg. ‘‘It is only the
starting point. More answers are coming,’’ he said.
Though Chandrayaan-1 was terminated on August 30 following a
communication failure, it has obtained ‘‘reams of data”.
‘‘Chandrayaan-1 has shown that we can walk shoulder-to-shoulder with
NASA. Chandrayaan-1 is truly a symbolic achievement and is set to
cross greater historic milestones in the days ahead,’’ Annadurai
stated.
He said one of the reasons why Chandrayaan-1 was able to complete its
scientific goals within a year instead of two is because Isro obtained
data from the mooncraft on a 24-hour basis instead of the earlier 12-
hour schedule.
bademiyansubhanallah
October 04, 2009
India has a moral commitment on Tibet
The govt has to be firm with China
Not Freeze; But Actively Discuss Border
By Ram Madhav
In 1980 when Deng Xiaoping suggested sector-wise approach to resolving
the border conflict between India and China it was presumed that he
was only resuming Zhou’s line. However when the border talks began in
1981 Indian side got clear indications that the Chinese are pursuing a
maximalist approach. By 1985 when the 6th round of talks began the
Chinese had started making open claims over Tawang in particular and
Arunachal Pradesh in general.
For the Chinese, the obvious policy appears to be to get the maximum
territorial advantage of the talks. That is the reason behind their
constant harping on Arunachal Pradesh. Even there the initial claims
were only over the Tawang region.
Till the 60s the Chinese were talking about a bilateral settlement on
Aksai Chin. The 38,000 sq. km. area part of Ladakh region came under
illegal occupation of the Chinese Red Army, which started constructing
the Karakoram Highway linking Tibet with Sinkiang region in the 50s.
Zhou Enlai, the then Premier of China, convinced Jawaharlal Nehru that
the McMahon Line is an ‘imperial leftover’ and hence China and India
should reject it. Under Krishna Menon Plan in 1960 it was even
proposed that India should agree for the Chinese control over Aksai
Chin while the Chinese on their part would agree for something
‘closer’ to McMahon Line in Arunachal Pradesh.
This, obviously, was not acceptable to India because China was
conspiring to annex Indian territory in exchange for another Indian
territory. The proposal failed; war followed; and we formally lost
control over the Aksai Chin region.
Subsequently Sikkim became the theatre of conflict. While India was
engaged in a war with Pakistan in 1965 the Chinese PLA was actively
making incursions into the Indian territory in Sikkim along the
Tibetan border. China blamed India for preventing its sheep from
grazing inside the Indian territory, which led to the incursions.
There were skirmishes between September and December in 1965 in that
region.
Tensions continued along the Sikkim-Tibet border where there was armed
conflict in September 1967 near Nathu La Pass when the PLA tried to
cross the border in large numbers. Indian troops had successfully
repulsed these advances.
By the 80s, the theatre shifted to the eastern sector and Arunachal
Pradesh became the new arena of conflict. While under the so-called
Krishna Menon Plan the Chinese were willing to agree for the Indian
claims in the eastern region in exchange for Aksai Chin, in 80s they
started making fresh claims over Arunachal Pradesh.
In 1980 when Deng Xiaoping suggested sector-wise approach to resolving
the border conflict between India and China it was presumed that he
was only resuming Zhou’s line. However, when the border talks began in
1981 Indian side got clear indications that the Chinese are pursuing a
maximalist approach. By 1985 when the 6th round of talks began the
Chinese had started making open claims over Tawang in particular and
Arunachal Pradesh in general.
What followed gives a clear idea of the Chinese method. There were
major border violations by China in 1987 in the Sumdorong Chu Valley
where the Chinese had penetrated deep into the Indian territory and
constructed a helipad and started bringing in reconnaissance. This had
led to a major military build-up and an eyeball-to-eyeball positioning
of both the troops.
Tensions ran very high for several years until the Narasimha Rao
regime signed a treaty with the Chinese Government in 1993. In a way
this treaty too could be called a victory for the Chinese side, as it
had resulted in both Indian and Chinese troops moving out of the
Sumdorong Chu Valley and leaving it a neutral region. Once again while
the Chinese had to vacate the territory that they occupied the Indians
were forced to vacate what belonged to them.
Almost five decades of efforts to resolve the border issues had
resulted only in India conceding every time and ending up as the
loser. Zhou talked of a ‘package deal’; Deng talked of sector-wise
approach. We today see neither of them to be relevant anymore. Of the
2500-km border only peaceful sector is the middle one-namely the Tibet-
Uttarakhand/Himachal border, which is not more than about 550 km.
The Chinese refuse to talk anymore about the Aksai Chin. For them it
is a settled fact. What is unfortunate is that even our own leadership
stopped talking about it. Rajiv Gandhi visited China in 1988;
Narasimha Rao in 1993 and Vajpayee in 2003. The nation has not heard
them talk about the occupation despite the fact that there is a
unanimous Parliament resolution of 1962 on getting that territory
back.
For the Chinese, the obvious policy appears to be to get the maximum
territorial advantage of the talks. That is the reason behind their
constant harping on Arunachal Pradesh. Even there the initial claims
were only over the Tawang region. These claims were based on the so-
called historical aspects like the birth of the 6th Dalai Lama
Tsangyang Gyatso there.
But now the claims extend to the entire state of Arunachal. In 2006,
just a couple of weeks ahead of the visit of the Chinese President Hu
Jintao to India, the Chinese Ambassador to Delhi Sun Yuxi had made the
outrageous claim that Arunachal Pradesh belonged to China. "In our
position the whole of what you call the state of Arunachal Pradesh is
Chinese territory, and Tawang (district) is only one place in it. We
are claiming all of that-that’s our position," he told the news
channel CNN-IBN. India forced China to call him back. But the events
after his return make it amply clear that the Chinese have their eyes
firmly set on that state.
For China the McMahon Line is only an excuse. This so-called
‘imperialist line’ is the one that demarcates the border between
Myanmar and China. It is thus clear that it either intends to occupy
more Indian territory or use it as a bargaining chip for something
else. The big question is: What could that something else be?
One of the most contentious issues between India and China has been
the presence of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and his people on the
Indian soil. Although successive Indian Governments, starting with
Jawaharlal Nehru in 1954, have conceded directly or indirectly that
Tibet is a part of China, the Chinese harbour serious apprehensions.
They see in HH the Dalai Lama not a venerable saintly figure but a
‘divisive politician’. They are convinced that it was His Holiness and
the agents of the West that were responsible for the recent uprising
in Tibet and apprehend more trouble in future.
India on its part tries to mollycoddle China by assuring it that its
soil wouldn’t be allowed to be used for any anti-China activities. Yet
the suspicions remain. They knew about the tremendous popularity HH
the Dalai Lama enjoys in Tibet even to this day despite his exile for
almost half-a-century. In the 80s, when his representatives were
allowed by the Chinese authorities to visit Tibet, they received
unprecedented and spontaneous welcome. That must have rattled the
Chinese leadership.
The Chinese attitude towards the Dalai Lama and his people hardened
quite a bit after that, which continues to this day. No effort is
spared by China to browbeat countries that extend an invitation to HH
the Dalai Lama. Very recently it pressurised Sri Lanka into
withdrawing its invitation to him. All this in spite of the fact that
countries like India categorically declared that Tibet is an internal
matter of China.
This brings us to the most crucial aspect of India-China relations-
i.e. the Tibetan exiles including the Dalai Lama, not Tibet. This
shift from Tibet to the Tibetans is very important today.
For India the critical issue is its sovereignty. The Government has to
be firm on that question. The policy of freezing border question and
addressing all other issues like bilateral trade and cultural
exchanges etc no longer works. It has to sit down and seriously work
on the demarcation of the border by exchanging maps. While doing that
we must act as equals, not as subordinates or inferiors.
What plagues Indian establishment is the utter lack of unanimity in
the ruling establishment. Reports suggest serious differences between
the PMO and the MEA on one side and the Defence Ministry and the Home
Ministry on the other.
India has a moral and ethical commitment to HH the Dalai Lama and his
people. Every Indian wants them to realise their dream of a return to
their homeland but with dignity and honour. India is duty-bound to
help in that process. Unfortunately our Government has completely
abdicated that duty. It is only the American official visitors who
raise the question of Tibet with their Chinese counterparts; we seldom
do that.
Just to reiterate: It is no longer the question of Tibet; it is the
question of the Tibetans now.
(To be continued)
bademiyansubhanallah
October 04, 2009
Thinking Aloud
US the wrong place to go to talk about Pak terror
By Dr. Jay Dubashi
The Chinese fooled even Nehru, for, he called all such incursions
cartographic aggressions-Nehru was a master of words, for didn’t he
spend time in Eton and Cambridge, where such words are coined?-meaning
they were no problems at all and not worth fighting over. The Chinese
didn’t think so. They may have invented paper two thousand years ago,
but they have more faith in their armies than that in their fancy
paperwork.
Our friend, Home Minister P Chidambaram is back from the US after
reporting to his bosses over there that Pakistan is not behaving
properly and India is deeply dissatisfied with progress of
‘investigations" into 26/11 supposed to be conducted by Pakistan. Read
that sentence again and you will start laughing. Firstly, it was the
Home Minister who was reporting to Washington, not the Foreign
Minister. Now, why should a home minister, or any minister for that
matter, report to anyone outside the country? Are we a colony of the
United States? Do we have to report to them every now and then as the
Viceroy used to do to 10 Downing Street from time-to-time when we were
indeed a colony?
Then comes the bit about investigations. Who says that Pakistan is
conducting investigations? The Pakistan government’s writ does not run
beyond a few miles outside Islamabad. How long since we had any news
about Asif Ali Zardari, who is supposed to be Pakistan’s President? Is
he still alive, maybe reading that book about Jinnah by his favourite
author, or has he been bumped, as most Pakistani presidents are? And
if he is out of action, who exactly has taken his place?
The fact is that if Chidambaram was in the US to complain about
Pakistan, he went to the wrong place. Pakistan, the little bit that
still exists on paper, and America are allies, and have been allies
ever since the birth of that country. The two allies collaborate
closely on everything from nuclear energy to missiles, and while
Pakistan pretends to fight the terrorists, America pretends to believe
it is really doing so. America has had bases in Pakistan for the last
50 years and will continue to do so till kingdom come. And currently
it provides a big base for their forces in Afghanistan.
In fact, Barack Obama has realised that he has lost the fight in
Afghanistan and the American people are tired of sending their young
men to fight all over the world from where they return home in
caskets. They do not know why they are fighting in Afghanistan just as
they did not know why they were fighting in Vietnam. The Vietnam war
was over long before it was officially declared closed and so is the
Afghan war. Actually, almost the whole of Afghanistan is now under the
Taliban, except a few bits around Kabul and it is a matter of time
before that falls too.
When Chidambaram goes to Washington to complain against Pakistan, he
will be complaining to the wrong party, for, as I said, Pakistan is an
ally of America, and nothing happens in Pakistan without the knowledge
of the United States. I am quite sure Washington has a copy of the
list of complaints he has taken with him. America is not a neutral
party in the affair; it is very much involved in everything that is
happening in Pakistan. If Chidambaram does not know this, he has a
great deal to learn, just as he had a great deal to learn about
finance when he became Finance Minister. If Chidambaram is so keen on
the Washington trip, let him have one, but let him not pretend that he
is doing anything useful. The Americans in the State Department, or to
whoever he will be reporting, will be laughing behind his back and
saying under their breath what a foolish lot Indians are, as our
minister goes from office to office asking for a hearing.
Then there is another colleague of Chidambaram’s in the cabinet, the
so-called Minister of External Affairs, so-called because we rarely
hear about him, and who, one would have thought, would be doing what
Chidambaram proposes to do. But SM Krishna, that is what his name is
in case you do not know, seems to be the least informed Foreign
Minister in this part of the world. He told reporters in Delhi that
the India-China border is the most peaceful around India and our
relations with China have never been friendlier.
You can say that again. Krishna feels that China’s incursions into
India-and this is what our air force has said in so many words-are no
incursions at all and in any case, there is a committee of experts to
look into such problems. "I don’t think", said the man who is more
interested in his wardrobe than in the goings-on in Ladakh, or
wherever it is that the Chinese are massing, and called for his tailor
to stitch another band-gala for his next outing in, where else,
Venezuela.
If small-time committees could tackle problems of incursions, you
would not need armies and navies at all. All wars start when nations
intrude, often with their armies, into other nations’ backyards. This
is how the Second World War started. Right up to the start of the war,
Neville Chamberlain was saying that everything was under control, that
all committees, to tackle border disputes were in place, and everybody
could switch off lights and go to sleep. Incidentally, Chamberlain was
fond of natty suits too, except that they were of the wrong cut, just
like Krishna’s suits!
Actually it was Chamberlain, like Krishna, who was going to sleep,
while Hitler was cooking up maps and alerting his cronies. Krishna is
basically a babu; he thinks that all problems can be solved if you
have proper files with proper notings and nothing can go wrong as long
as the files are there. And that is precisely what Krishna is saying.
He says that there are proper border dispute committees with a joint
secretary, a deputy secretary and maybe a couple of peons, and as long
as they have not reported anything, everything is fine. And if the
Chinese are really intent on creating trouble, they will first inform
the committee-in triplicate-and then we shall see what to do.
The Chinese fooled even Nehru, for, he called all such incursions
cartographic aggressions-Nehru was a master of words, for didn’t he
spend time in Eton and Cambridge, where such words are coined?-meaning
they were no problems at all and not worth fighting over. The Chinese
didn’t think so. They may have invented paper two thousand years ago,
but they have more faith in their armies than that in their fancy
paperwork. They came over the Himalayas, firing from all sides, and in
no time at all, had Nehru running for cover, looking for help. And
there was no trace of the border committees and, of course, Nehru’s
faithful but useless servant, Krishna Menon.
We have another Krishna who operated from Maurya Sheraton at a cost of
Rs one lakh per day, and he is going about mumbling the same nonsense.
Surely, the least Manmohan Singh can do is get another foreign
minister and send this Maurya Krishna back to wherever he came from!
bademiyansubhanallah
October 04, 2009
The Moving Finger Writes
China: An enemy at large
By M.V. Kamath
China is no friend of India. According to China expert Gordon Chang,
author of The Coming Collapse of China, "China sees India as an
adversary and wants to destabilise it". According to him, "China has
supported terrorists who operate in India and China transferred
nuclear weapons technology to Pakistan to keep India in check." The
closer Pakistan is at the breaking point, the more China will try to
encircle India by making friendly overtures towards India’s
neighbours.
Does anyone remember the time when India was forced to take action
against Pakistan forces in East Bengal as millions of refugees began
to pour into West Bengal following the revolt of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
against Islamabad’s military misrule? Forced to take military action,
India stormed into East Bengal and defeated the Pakistani Army and
took 90,000 Pakistani soldiers as prisoners-of-war. It was at that
time that one of India’s worst enemies, US Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger, tried to persuade China to attack India.
The same story at a different level is being enacted now. Pakistan
itself is in deep trouble. It is scared that India may take advantage
of its current situation and amass its troops along the Indo-Pak
border. Pakistan, under pressure from the US has withdrawn a sizeable
segment of its forces from the East for action against the Taliban in
the West. Pakistan is afraid that India might take this opportunity
and invade it. In the circumstances, the Pakistan Armed Forces must
have persuaded Beijing to indulge in illegal activities along the Sino-
Indian border to distract the Government of India.
According to the Indian Army chief, there were 21 Chinese incursions
in June, 20 in July and 24 in August. Between 2006 and 2008 Chinese
intrusions doubled from 140 incidents to 270. These are obvious
tactics, but they should be taken seriously. For Shri SM Krishna,
External Affairs Minister, to play down the aggressive tactics
employed by China in the Ladakh region by saying that the Sino-Indian
border is "most peaceful" fools no one. Shri Krishna may be playing
the diplomatic game but either he is unwilling to read up on history
or is ignorant of how China betrayed India even as Nehru and VK
Krishna Menon were espousing Hindi Chini bhai bhai.
China is no friend of India. According to China expert Gordon Chang,
author of The Coming Collapse of China, "China sees India as an
adversary and wants to destabilise it." According to him, "China has
supported terrorists who operate in India and China transferred
nuclear weapons technology to Pakistan to keep India in check." The
closer Pakistan is at the breaking point, the more China will try to
encircle India by making friendly overtures towards India’s
neighbours, Mynmar, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka. The United States
can do nothing. Either it doesn’t want to or is incapable of taking
China on-a nation to which it is deeply indebted. It is shocking to
think that it is beholden to Pakistan for containing the Taliban.
To see the United States, the only Super Power on earth grovelling at
the feet of Pakistan and promising it $7.5 billion in aid over five
years, most of which goes into the pockets of the Pakistan Army, is
unbelievable. An official US agency had charged Pakistan with misusing
American aid to fight the Taliban by spending the money to buy arms to
fight India. And now, to top it all former President Pervez Musharraf
has himself admitted that Pakistan has been freely using US aid to
strengthen its defences against India. In an interview he even went so
far as to say that he did not care whether the US would be angered by
his disclosure. Pakistan gets its arms practically free. India has to
spend billions to match Pakistan’s offensive capabilities. The US is
thus enforcing an arms race in South Asia to India’s detriment.
With the United States as ‘friend’, India does not need enemies. China
is trying to keep India in perpetual fear of war and has had the
impertinence to warn the Dalai Lama not to visit Arunachal Pradesh and
especially Tawang. It is here that Dalai Lama halted in 1959 when he
escaped from Lhasa. He has close links with a monastery there and he
has every right to visit it. China’s remarks must be treated with
total disdain. If once India gives in, China will misunderstand it as
weakness and seek to make more demands.
Already there is a general feeling that India is weak-minded and can
be easily threatened to submission. Delhi should not give the wrong
signals. At the same time, Pakistan’s provocative act of firing
rockets across the Wagah border calls for instant reaction. This also
is a deliberate attempt to see how far Pakistan can go before Delhi
reacts. The suggestion must have come from China. One sees more than a
similarity between Chinese incursions in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh
and Pakistani infiltration into Indian territory. The United States
can be of no help either way. It has been consistently unreliable in
the last four decades. The disgraced Pakistani nuclear scientist AQ
Khan has revealed that Pakistan was ready to test a nuclear bomb as
early as 1984 as the US was inclined to overlook its clandestine
atomic programme in the initial years, due to Islamabad’s involvement
in the US-led war against the Soviet presence in Afghanistan.
The US even looked the other way when Pakistan bought 200 anti-
aircraft missiles from North Korea during the Kargil War and the
dollars came from US aid. Even when North Korean engineers came to
visit the Kahuta nuclear plant in Pakistan quite openly, the US had
nothing to say. A Q Khan got away, as they say, with murder. He could
do anything illegal like supplying equipments to Iran or Libya and no
questions were asked. The current Pakistani attacks have not brought
out one single protest or warning from Washington. Obviously, as
Gordon Chang says, everybody is aware of America’s current problems
which prevents Washington from taking a strong stand.
Apart from ‘invading’ Indian territory, China is becoming a host to
terrorists. What arms, for instance, was a China-bound UAE Air force
plane carrying when it made an emergency landing in India? At first
the pilot lied about the cargo. When its real nature was discovered,
there were red faces. For whom were those arms meant for? Certainly
not for China? They are obviously intended for terrorists who have
been given shelter in China and who make occasional forays in North
East India. Shri Krishna may not want to show his hand but if he
really believes that the recent incidents are not a cause for concern,
India is going to be in real trouble soon. The time is ripe to tell
both Pakistan and China that there is a limit to India’s forbearance
and they had better beware. Barbarians do not understand politeness.
They understand power and the willingness to use it. Shri SM Krishna
must think again. India has paid dearly for pussyfooting in the past.
It would be foolish to repeat the performance all over again.
bademiyansubhanallah
BJP to raise Sino-India border issue in AP polls
STAFF WRITER 12:26 HRS IST
New Delhi, Sept 27 (PTI) The Sino-India border issue and reported
incursions by the Chinese Army are some of the issues which will be
raised by the BJP in the forthcoming assembly elections in Arunachal
Pradesh.
"The problems created by China on the Indian side of the Line of
Actual Control, the issue of right over Tawang district and the recent
increase in incursions by the Chinese army as well as other problems
faced by Arunachal Pradesh will be raised by the party in the election
campaign," party spokesperson Ravi Shankar Prasad said.
National security has always been a major election issue for the BJP.
It had criticised the UPA government on the issue during the Lok Sabha
polls.
bademiyansubhanallah
U.S. Eyes Bigger Slice Of Indian Defense Pie
New Delhi Boosting Military Budget in Modernization Mission
By Emily Wax
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, September 26, 2009
NEW DELHI -- In the ballroom of a five-star hotel here, executives
from Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin, the world's biggest arms
supplier, threw a candlelight reception one recent night to woo Indian
defense experts as their country embarks on a major military shopping
spree.
India plans to spend an estimated $100 billion on defense over the
next decade to modernize its Soviet-era arsenal. With its growing
military footprint, India is steering away from traditional ally
Russia, its main weapons supplier, and looking toward the United
States to help upgrade its weapons systems and troop gear.
As the world's largest democracy, India is seen as the most dependable
U.S. ally in a part of the world that also includes Afghanistan and
Pakistan, both of which are racked by Islamist insurgencies. But
India's expanding military ambitions, and the U.S. role in selling
this nuclear-armed nation more firepower, is starting to worry its
neighbors, especially perennial rival Pakistan. India also has ongoing
border disputes with another Asian giant, China, which defeated it in
a short 1962 war.
"This increase in India's military spending is seen with rising
anxiety here in Pakistan," said Hasan-Askari Rizvi, a leading defense
analyst in Pakistan, which receives substantial U.S. military
assistance in its fight against Taliban insurgents in the country's
northwest. "As long as India builds pressure on Pakistan militarily,
Pakistan won't move troops to fight the Taliban, period. In the
future, there could potentially be a situation like the 1965 war
between India and Pakistan, where both used American weapons against
each other."
India is pushing the Obama administration to ease the acquisition of
U.S. weapons and technology. Already this year, a high-level U.S.
government group cleared the way for Lockheed and Boeing to offer
India cutting-edge radar technology for fighter jets. At the U.S.
Embassy in New Delhi, defense contractors such as Northrop Grumman are
sponsoring little league baseball teams, the companies' names stitched
onto the uniforms.
About 70 percent of India's military equipment comes from Russia, said
Sitanshu Kar, a spokesman for the Indian Defense Ministry. But some
Indian military officials have complained about the quality and cost
of Russian equipment and have advocated a shift to U.S. suppliers.
"We've had a long-standing relationship with Russia. But that's
changing now," Kar said.
The country that spawned the Gandhian principles of nonviolence now
has a shopping list that includes 126 fighter jets, 155mm howitzers,
long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft, vast cargo planes used in
long-distance conflicts, high-tech helicopters and deep-water
submarines. Boeing is vying with Lockheed -- along with French,
Russian and Swedish companies and a European consortium -- for a
fighter jet deal worth about $10 billion.
India is holding flight tests for the fighter jets. Lockheed and
Boeing have conducted demonstration flights for Indian celebrities and
defense experts. Irrespective of who wins the deal, New Delhi is
requiring that at least 50 percent of the contract value be farmed out
to Indian companies for goods, labor and material.
After terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India's financial capital, in
November, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh vowed to overhaul the
country's intelligence service and weaponry. And he has since
reiterated the pledge.
"We will do all that is necessary to modernize the security and
intelligence services, and that's a commitment which is essential,"
Singh said after a budget announcement this summer.
Almost every weekend, there are cocktails and closed-door
presentations in the suites of New Delhi's five-star hotels, hosted by
retired admirals and generals from the U.S. armed forces who now work
for defense firms, such as Raytheon and Northrop Grumman.
"America's relationship to India is maturing and expanding. India is
an important global player now," said William S. Cohen, a defense
secretary during the Clinton administration who is a member of the
U.S.-India Business Council's board of directors.
The bond between New Delhi and Washington was strengthened last year
with a historic nuclear deal. The deal paves the way for India to grow
its civilian nuclear power industry, part of a $100 billion pie, of
which the United States is hoping for a large slice.
Defense experts say that India is lagging in the Asian arms race
against China. This year, Chinese defense spending reached $71
billion, second only to the United States'. China's military buildup
is a concern for both the United States and India, with the latter
seen by Washington as a counterbalance to China's growing dominance in
the region. India is spending about $29 billion on defense this year,
an increase of 25 percent over 2008 but still far below China's
budget. India spends about 2 percent of its gross domestic product on
defense, while China spent 4.3 percent last year and Pakistan spent
3.5 percent.
Much of India's 2,200-mile border with China is unsettled, said Ashok
K. Mehta, a retired Indian general and security expert. Tensions
between India and China escalated this month after media reports
indicated that Chinese soldiers had crossed into Indian territory and
had left Chinese calligraphy on some boulders. At the same time, China
has been cementing strategic ties with many of India's neighbors:
Pakistan, Burma, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.
"A lot of people think India's number one problem is Pakistan, but
it's China," said Mehta, adding that perceived threats from China, not
Pakistan, prodded India to build its nuclear arsenal. "The best way to
prevent a war is to reduce the gap in the military balance. The onus
is now on India to catch up to China."
The Mumbai attacks, in which more than 170 people were killed by 10
gunmen who had traveled from Pakistan by sea, exposed vast gaps in
India's security system. The three-day siege became a pivotal point in
the country's drive to beef up and modernize its armed forces and its
arsenal.
India wants its strategic reach to extend beyond the Indian Ocean and
the Arabian Sea, where Indian naval forces protect vital sea lanes
from pirates. Nearly 90 percent of India's oil imports arrive by sea.
"Everywhere India turns, it sees enemies. China is breathing down
India's neck. Afghanistan is a failed state. Pakistan is aflame. Sri
Lanka is still unstable. The list goes on and on," said Brahma
Chellaney, professor of strategic studies at the Center for Policy
Research. "It's really saying something when we see our most stable
neighbors as Bangladesh and Myanmar," he added, referring to Burma by
its other name.
Indian analysts say that U.S. priorities in India have shifted since a
decade ago, when Washington brought military sanctions against New
Delhi after its 1998 nuclear tests. Those sanctions have slowly been
phased out.
"India will look back -- generations down the road -- at this period
as a defining moment for its new, modern military," said Roger Rose,
chief executive of Lockheed Martin India, which is renting half a wing
of New Delhi's Taj Palace Hotel for a 12-person office. "I think we
can all see that there are a lot of threats shared between our two
democracies."
bademiyansubhanallah
Your Comments On...
U.S. Eyes Bigger Slice Of Indian Defense Pie
NEW DELHI -- In the ballroom of a five-star hotel here, executives
from Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin, the world's biggest arms
supplier, threw a candlelight reception one recent night to woo Indian
defense experts as their country embarks on a major military shopping
spree.
- By Emily Wax
Commentsainnbeen wrote:
Enormous spending on weapons of mass destruction against Humanity
while brutely ignoring the dead poverty, pale deserted faces of poor
children and undirectly starting a race of Millitary budget in the
region.
How painful it is that both the countries in 1965 killed each others
population with the same US. bullets and weapons. True Mr. Unemployed
Michigander that what Great India have learnt from the super powers
experince of Millitarism, in the case of Afghanistan, Iraq & previous
lesson of Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Wether Weapons matters in those
objectives of those wars or something diffrent is required? How
painful it is that India has spent billions of Dollar of hard earned
money of Taxpayers while there are world large number of beggers
hovering in streets, Bazars, roads and shopping Malls. While still it
is urged to spend 100 Billion US. Dollar in coming decade. Perhaps
there are greedy contractors, politicians other invisibles, but why
the modren citizens is awakening? why he/she support this decision?
Perhaps it is rosy view of India that is advocating in media with
enthusiasm that we are superpower in Asia, with speedy increasing
poverty.
9/27/2009 5:12:26 AM
Recommend (0)
ramakrishnahosur wrote:
India has to upgrade its armaments and it is good that they are
talking to the US.As the largest democracy Whic you cannot say about
Pakistan which is Taliban infested, in this part of the world it has
to defend itself from the perennial aggressors who have nothing but a
wish to see it collapse Unfortunately they can only dream on about it.
China which never went to war with India in its long history today is
different with communists ruling. Mao was right. Power grows out of
the barrel of gun and India needs this gun to talk to our friendly
neighbours.
9/27/2009 4:05:05 AM
Recommend (1)
bridson wrote:
India should look to the countries that are winning wars for their
weapons and their strategies. Reliance on sophisticated weaponry
rather than comprehensive social strategy is proving to be the bain of
the West's forces.
9/26/2009 11:31:49 PM
Recommend (2)
Roism007 wrote:
Wow Washington Post got idoits working in their graphic
department...Pakistan in a continues border across India's head to
China
Some one is playing with the colors...
9/26/2009 10:58:05 PM
Recommend (1)
Homunculus wrote:
This development is long over due. Out reach to the worlds largest
democracy has been a long time coming.
Helping India modernize will only help spread the burden we already
share for security in that part of the world.
9/26/2009 10:03:26 PM
Recommend (1)
UnemployedMichigander wrote:
I'm surprised that more people aren't commenting on the irony of
spending billions of dollars on weapons when millions of people cannot
afford health care and education.
This applies to the USA as much as India. Our government can
apparently spend money bailing out investment bankers while schools in
Detroit crumble. But who gives, right?
But after seeing how many wacked out Muslim jihadis have posted on
this thread, I'm starting to realize why we (and now, other countries)
spend so much on our military...
9/26/2009 9:21:57 PM
Recommend (2)
lukend wrote:
I am Indian.
India is a sick slumdog country.
They deserve to be nuked by china.
Indians stink like rats
Filthy nation.
hope them bomb themselves.
9/26/2009 8:23:18 PM
Recommend (4)
gibo wrote:
PS: who would help Australia if not America?
Our national attitude is always "She'll be right, mate".
Even down to national defence.
For some prophecies on the invader try http://propheciesaustraliainvader.blogspot.com/
9/26/2009 7:08:40 PM
Recommend (0)
gibo wrote:
US Defense industries would do well Down Under in Australia...if they
could get around a lukewarm, pro-China, Labor government.
Most of Australia is down to bolt action rifles...a bit like in
Patrick Swayze's "RED DAWN".
The defence gun cupboard is empty of guns to hand out to the citizens
for a citizens home guard defence force, if an invader comes (no
National Guard down here.
Just a few 'Weekend Warriors' in an Army Reserve).
There are likewise no plans for a citizens home guard defence
force...AND...China has been teaching her children, since the
mid-1980s, that one day the PLA is going to claim Australia as NEW
SOUTH CHINA.
The present generation of Chinese-born Australian citizens already
openly call Australia NEW SOUTH CHINA.
That invasion (been in the planning many years I should think) will
undoubtably include US secret bases on Australian soil as well.
YES...Australia could be a bonanza for companies like Colt is they can
get a foot in the door.
9/26/2009 7:03:02 PM
Recommend (0)
sd71 wrote:
'About 70 percent of India's military equipment comes from Russia,
said Sitanshu Kar, a spokesman for the Indian Defense Ministry. But
some Indian military officials have complained about the quality and
cost of Russian equipment and have advocated a shift to U.S.
suppliers.'
watch out india. now lockheed may sell you defective and costly
equipment. buying a plane is in some ways the same as buying a car.
you have to ignore the ads and get value for your money.
and, lockheed will sell india's enemy,the pakistanis he same weapon
systems.
the us has just tripled aid to pakistan. that us policy is doomed.no
amount if education and development will change muslims. muslims are
fanatic,violent and dangerous.the us aid money to pakistan will fall
into taliban and al-queda hands and get used against the usa.
9/26/2009 5:23:56 PM
Recommend (1)
UnemployedMichigander wrote:
The United States can feed its population, eh?
I invite you to visit my hometown of Detroit, Michigan. It will open
your eyes to the poverty in our own country.
India isn't the only country that blows precious taxpayer money on
weapons, when it has a vast impoverished population.
9/26/2009 5:22:11 PM
Recommend (3)
TheInsaneMoon wrote:
(I do agree with the other poster, that $100 billion is probably
better spent on education and health care than on weapons. But that's
another story...)
9/26/2009 5:14:53 PM
Recommend (3)
TheInsaneMoon wrote:
Hm, asifkh seems to think that Indians (or "infidel Hindus", if you
prefer), actually care what people from the Peripheral Nations
(Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.) think about it.
In my experience, the average Indian doesn't really care much about
any country besides India. In fact, I bet about 95% of Indians
couldn't name the capital of Pakistan if their lives depended on it.
Perhaps if Pakistan focused on development instead of obsessing about
India all the time, it wouldn't be a Taliban-infested basketcase.
9/26/2009 5:10:56 PM
Recommend (2)
tamanah1 wrote:
U.S. policy makers should watch You Tube for some information on Islam
and Mohamed and see if Pakis are really their allies. Wafa Sultan, a
liberal Muslim says that Mohamed ordered Muslims to kill kafirs.
And as for selling their wares in India, all the Yankees have to do is
bribe Indian bureaucrats. Ruskies will do it.
9/26/2009 4:34:01 PM
Recommend (2)
shadikatyal wrote:
It is indeed pathetic to read letters from Pakistani writers who show
nothing but hate.I presume after Jews, Hindus must be on their list of
hate? The most of the Pakistani forgets that it is that Hindu blood
which flows through their vain.
As for USA selling arms to India one forgets that USA has overlooked
the Nuclear Bazaar of Pakistan and also let them deal with N.Korea for
Missile as policy at foggy bottoms is till under fog.
Look at present situation, where arms are being shipped to Pakistan
which end up in hands of Taliban. USA has failed to recognize that
there are 2 types of enemies with same name "TALIBAN" One is with
Al.Quida and Mullah Umar and the other is ISI trained and protected
and given intellegence to attack US and NATO forces and than return
back to Pakistan.This is a proxy war being fought for Pakistan Army.
Pakistan fought 3 wars and lost and everyone knows that Gen,Mush was
ready to nuclear attack on India at Kargill time.
Yet all Pakistani know in their heart that they cannot win India. Now
Pakistan army is a laughing stock as unable to fight with Taliban of
al.Quida.
Gen. Mush admits that his game was to get arms against India and he
utilised such funds against India.
So much hate even after loosing Eastern part.Grow up and face the
truth. Pakistan has survived on the left over of Saudi and USA. Suadi
send Zikkat money and free oil. USA supplies food and oil and a nation
depending on others should not show such hate to his own ancesstors
9/26/2009 4:21:26 PM
Recommend (1)
tamanah1 wrote:
Hmm, U.S. keeps giving Porkistan next door some of the deadliest
weapons in the world, it also also very strong trade ties with
Commies, thus making the commies very rich to carry on their communist
agenda.
And then the U.S. sells weapons. Seems like nothing but immorality.
9/26/2009 4:05:04 PM
Recommend (1)
marine1027 wrote:
I notice Bud0 has stopped his foolish comments-barking dogs seldom
bite! Here's my comments from last night:
marine1027 wrote:
Bud0's ramblings need to be forcibly addressed with a ton of facts:
(1)"..rank hypocrisy of the supposedly anti-proliferation United
States shovelling uranium to India hand over fist". Correction: The
real hypocrisy is the Aussie Govt. selling uranium to a known
proliferator,China..while refusing to sell it to democratic India.
China has proliferated nukes to Pakistan and N. Korea-read AQ Khan's
recent memoirs in the Sunday Times. (2)"All this for a country that
spits on NPT, and by any objective measure, is a nuclear outlaw
state." Says who: your buddies in China! Look at the mirror and what
do you see, Mr. Chinese Military! You have stolen every piece of
advanced nuke and missile tech secrets from the U.S. Read the Cox
Report" http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house/hr105851-html/ch2bod.html#anchor4673448.
It states: " The PRC (China)stole classified information on every
currently deployed U.S. intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and
submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). The warheads for which
the PRC stole classified information include: the W-56 Minuteman II
ICBM; the W-62 Minuteman III ICBM; the W-70 Lance short-range
ballistic missile (SRBM); the W-76 Trident C-4 SLBM; the W-78
Minuteman III Mark 12A ICBM; the W-87 Peacekeeper ICBM; and the W-88
Trident D-5 SLBM. The W-88 warhead is the most sophisticated strategic
nuclear warhead in the U.S. arsenal. It is deployed on the Trident D-5
submarine-launched missile.
In addition, in the mid-1990s the PRC stole from a U.S. national
weapons laboratory classified U.S. thermonuclear weapons information
that cannot be identified in this unclassified Report."
India has not signed the NPT; India did not team up with Richard Nixon
as China did as a counter-weight to Russia-to draft NPT and CTBT to
discriminate against large democracies after Commies conducted 1000's
of tests and perfected and miniaturized their nuclear-missile
technology. Enough ranting! But for the Russians giving you advanced
weaponry, you would likely still be stealing from the the United
States! David Sanger said it best: every day, terrabytes of data is
swept from U.S. advanced labs and the Pentagon by Chinese hackers.
Enjoy your theft-but stop being a goddamned hypocrite! For every
common thief, all we need in the free world is home-grown
intelligence..something you have never understood in your hegemonic
dreams! The US wears its superpower status with modesty and is benign
when compared to the awesome power of the U.S. military- which has
never been fully unleashed since WW II. Something you should learn as
you are becoming powerful!See you as a great power in 2050-keep
dreaming!Man proposes.. God disposes! But then, you have never
believed in the Maker-in any power other than yourself. Full of
swagger and confident of your emerging military and economc power!You
believe that the world will just roll over and let you rape and
pillage our economies in the name of managed trade! Let's see how long
this game lasts-the 1st shots of protectionism are already being fired
in the tire wars! Americans, pleasewake up! We are being squeezed
economcally and militarily by China! Stop managed trade where we buy
$1.8 trillion in goods from China andcrush our manufacturing, sevices
and financial industries!Find a way to stop our leaks of strategic
high tech research and miltary secrets! Every American-man, woman and
child- should gear up to met this threat to our way of kife-or we
might as well give up without a shot being fired-just as Sun Tzu
wanted us to do!Remeber, reatking our manufacturing and services
industries is our birthright and priviledge-Pres. Obama, lead us to
this promised land!
9/26/2009 3:58:29 PM
Recommend (1)
Wildthing1 wrote:
Perhaps they need Tibet as a buffer more then they need lots of
weapons. An autonomous Tibetan province would be a bargain compared to
more provocative military armaments.
9/26/2009 3:24:21 PM
Recommend (2)
asifkh wrote:
Hindus think that modern weapons are going to save them from the
animosity of their neighbors : Pakistan, China, Nepal, Srilanka, Burma
and Bangladesh. The only nation that has friendly relations with India
is Bhutan. Only Pakistan and Bangladesh are Muslim. See a pattern
here ? Not one of its neighbor will give Hindus the satisfaction to
let them play out their fantasy of being the local top dog. Racist
Hindus are well-advised to take care of their starving millions are
filthy cities. No one is going to think any better about India if they
have a few more pieces of military hardware. It cannot decisively
tackle Pakistan, let alone China which will whip India into shape in
no time if India continues with its uppity posturing.
9/26/2009 3:23:15 PM
Recommend (3)
hocov wrote:
Creating “hot spots” in the world IS the business of the US military
industry special interest group. It is a pity there is no independent
thinkers nowadays among the Indian intellectuals, only “mob thinkers”.
These people are pedaling the lies and trying hard to be jackals.
Remember, China had no interest fighting India in 1962 and is not
interested in fighting India. Conflict between China and India serves
the strategic interests of neither country.
Who want to see the conflict? Arms dealers!
9/26/2009 2:16:32 PM
Recommend (4)
RG-Texas wrote:
Bud0 wrote:
"India spends about 2 percent of its gross domestic product on
defense, while China spent 4.3 percent last year and Pakistan spent
3.5. percent."
Rubbish. China spent far less than that.
96th place: China, 1.9% of GDP.
______________
Wiki as a stat source? What's next, quote gossip!
9/26/2009 11:54:19 AM
Recommend (1)
boblesch wrote:
ah - capitalism at work.
can't sell cars , trucks, tractors or computers because we charge too
much due to graft and health care costs. - so lets sell them arms.
that way they can blow each other up, while removing cheap labor and
competition.
then we can get rid of our grain excesses as a sign of good will and
go back to selling our overpriced stuff.
that's us - if you won't by our peacetime goods - we'll make the
entire planet feel totally unstable so you'll buy our arms.
ah capitalism - ya gotta love it!
9/26/2009 10:47:01 AM
Recommend (2)
curmudgeon1 wrote:
Like a few other posters here, I'd like to know where the Post got its
figures on defense expenditures by other countries. The CIA, the
Pentagon and US defense contractors share a strong interest in
overestimating the spending of countries we consider to be
adversaries; it helps enormously in boosting their own budgets. It's
an important enough point that the Post should not only have sourced
its own figures, but noted that other sources may disagree.
9/26/2009 10:45:55 AM
Recommend (3)
boblesch wrote:
oh great - let's export more arms.
why not just pin a bulls eye on our own backs?
we talk peace but supply everyone in the world with every possible
tool to anihilate each other.
now there's a peace policy to be proud of.
9/26/2009 10:35:05 AM
Recommend (3)
123Njord wrote:
PS..and considering history and how they attack....maybe everything
has been quite here since 9-11....because they are waiting until they
have enough nuclear devices smuggled into our country to do the job
right.
9/26/2009 9:52:45 AM
Recommend (0)
123Njord wrote:
A nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India is long over due. It
would not be a surprise at all if Pakistan has not provided nuclear
material or even a nuclear weapon to terrorists who they view as
patriots and fellow Muslims defending the faith.
9/26/2009 9:48:44 AM
Recommend (2)
paultaylor1 wrote:
There is an old saying, probably Chinese because of its obscurity,
that "mere political passion and power are two sides of a one-sided
coin."
9/26/2009 9:46:56 AM
Recommend (0)
kayvijkay1 wrote:
With its fiscal deficit already going through the roof, India's
envisaged huge defence spending will make it a highly indebted nation
since increasing taxes on the wealthy is anathema to the Manmohan
Singh government. But under the above-said conditions the government
eventually will have to either increase taxes or reduce spending on
poverty irradication programmes or both. These are measures which will
be electorally damaging to the government.
9/26/2009 9:40:54 AM
Recommend (0)
carlbatey wrote:
Long overdue. My enemy's enemy is my friend.
9/26/2009 9:38:52 AM
Recommend (1)
paultaylor1 wrote:
U.S. imports from India have boomed in recent years, making us a quite
valuable customer. India is also a second-language English-speaking
country--to her advantage in U.S. job outsourcing. And the U.S. has
considerable technology and field-tested experience in weaponry, due
to its apparent appetite for occasional wars.
India could do a whole lot worse than buy her military goods from us.
9/26/2009 9:32:54 AM
Recommend (1)
jj121341234123 wrote:
US is selling weapons to India and also giving (and selling weapons)
to pakistan. For very complex geo-political reasons in that area, it
does make some perverted sense. Hope US on policy side develops more
clarity of ground situation and make sales wisely over time.
9/26/2009 9:15:06 AM
Recommend (3)
edbyronadams wrote:
The idea that the Han will ship money to prop up an economic basket
case is laughable.
9/26/2009 8:19:44 AM
Recommend (1)
irfan_kh wrote:
The worst historic gamble what USA is doing on India under the
influential lies of lobbyst firms based in washington DC paid by
Indian and US military corrupt establishment and arms sellers. The
time is too short for USA not to make such mistakes as majority of
local public in south asia watching these devil ventures nervously
confirming a most unreliable ally status to USA. The whole region will
become natural ally of CHINA without a single bullet resulting
permanent exit from this most important region.
9/26/2009 8:08:50 AM
Recommend (2)
edbyronadams wrote:
Forget Pakistan. India is a much more natural ally. When do we get to
turn over the Indian Ocean to them? Why we have ships on the other
side of the globe is a mystery.
9/26/2009 8:03:40 AM
Recommend (4)
gjsamuels1 wrote:
Power comes before mere political passion.
9/26/2009 7:46:35 AM
Recommend (0)
vaman1 wrote:
As China exercises its bullying of India, it is important for India
not to keep buying defense equipment from Russia who happens to be a
strategic partner of China. In the event of was with China which is
very likely based on all kinds of army incursions inside India, India
would be better off starting to procure defense equipment from US, UK
and France, and Isreal. These countries have far superior products and
they tend to match Chinese equipment more than adequately. It is up to
India to rethink about their positions in defense. Cold war is over
and time to rethink their strategy.
9/26/2009 7:38:37 AM
Recommend (0)
hughes_168 wrote:
lukend...Your idiotic blog stinks like dead fish! Democracy and stable
governance has a price. It does not come cheap. Imagine, if India did
not spend on defence, instead took up the task of feeding "hungry
masses" as you put it for the next 10 years with $100 billion, the
country's poor might do better, however, it goes without saying there
would be influx from every country that is around that neighbourhood
from Pakistan to Sri Lanka. In fact, Bangladesh's illegals have
created enough burden on the country. A strong defence is not just a
prerogative of us Americans. Look around Buffalo or Detroit and see
how many might be going with out a meal. Fools in us will likely wake
up only when new problems crop up. It is open secret that Iran's
nuclear ambitions were provided ammo by Pakistan and their rogue
"scientist" AQ Khan...another failed state India has to contend with.
9/26/2009 7:24:40 AM
Recommend (2)
JoeMcD wrote:
A U.S.-India alliance is logical in the face of Islamic insurgency and
China's growing international footprint, if for no other reason then
the fact that we have hared antagonists. However, our economic
interests are also linked, and as India builds its own internal
economy to meet the demands of a burgeoning middle class, the U.S. is
a natural partner.
JM
9/26/2009 6:40:55 AM
Recommend (5)
pofinpa wrote:
now we are going to let the indians suck us in? supporting the crazy
muslims,then the racist hindus,whose population are poor,sick starving
people. all these a....... have nuclear weapons. we going to supply
them with better delivery systems?
9/26/2009 6:20:22 AM
Recommend (1)
hxy87195959 wrote:
clearspt
we nervous? lol...
if u know chinese, u could visit chinese biggest military forum
http://bbs.tiexue.net/bbs69-0-1.html
we dont mind india military ambition, our security strategy is defend
japanese and recover TAIWAN, further more, our final aim is chase
after america tech...
india? where is it, i cant see them
if u r stupid america, pls support yr gov to sell more and more
weapons, china had heavy and disgrace history due to import so many
foreign equipment. so we research them by ourself today. although it
is outdated.
9/26/2009 5:14:10 AM
Recommend (1)
petertherabbit01 wrote:
Be their back on both defense and attack.
9/26/2009 4:55:04 AM
Recommend (0)
dewanitum wrote:
Haha, I was sleepy when I wrote this but here is what I meant. How can
Pakistan concentrate on Taliban, when U.S is selling weapons to India
to heighten tension between India and Pakistan. Pakistan might need
Taliban to overthrow Indian backed Afghan government and fight India
in disputed Kashmir. That is why Pakistan has not waged full fledged
war with Taliban in South Wazirstan. Everybody knows U.S and NATO are
going to pull out of Afghanistan in near future, than Pakistan will
have enemies on both sides of their border, India on one side and
Afghanistan on other side. Pakistan is playing smart by not attacking
South Wazirastan.
9/26/2009 4:33:22 AM
Recommend (5)
clearspt wrote:
GREAT BOOK :
"The Arms of Krupp" - Wm. Manchester
About the mega-powerful German Arms maker who played both sides for
400 years.
9/26/2009 3:41:48 AM
Recommend (1)
clearspt wrote:
hxy87195959
This is very interesting.
We're arming India against Pakistan, but China is nervous.
9/26/2009 3:19:11 AM
Recommend (0)
kblgca wrote:
What's up lukend? Still using the Commodore 64 keyboard? Here is $10.
Buy yourself something nice.. like a keyboard which can type in mixed
case. LiKe ThIs.
9/26/2009 3:04:29 AM
Recommend (0)
lukend wrote:
ARE INDIANS SMART ENOUGH TO REALIZE THAT THE 100 BILLION COULD BE
BETTER SPEND ON EDUCATION, DEVELOPMENT, ETC.
CHINA AND THE USA CAN FEED THEIR PEOPLE
STOP BEING SO ARROGANT, INDIA.
INDIA IS ON ITS WAY TO A FAILED STATE, LIKE PAKISTAN, SRI LANKA,
BANDELISH, ETC
AND THEN IT WILL BEG THE WEST FOR FOOD, AS IT WAS DONE FOR THE PAST 60
YEARS.
9/26/2009 3:00:11 AM
Recommend (5)
lukend wrote:
FOR GODS' SAKE, INDIA, FEED YOUR STARVING PEOPLE FIRST.
IN INDIA, 50% OF CHILDREN ARE STARVING.
Feed these kids first and then focus on military.
Why would China invade?
To steal your slums?
India has a water crisis, an electricity crisis, and it is concerned
with buying missiles? For what? to bomb the clouds?
Pakistan is too small to attack. China too big.
I cannot believe that American people actually feel sorry for Indians
for being poor.
Americans gives millions to India every year! India cannot feed or
educate its people. And India is spending 100 BILLION on the
military?
IS THEIR SOMETHING WRONG HERE?
9/26/2009 2:55:10 AM
Recommend (7)
KRahim wrote:
Was it not President Eisenhower who said
that he feared the Military-Industrial marriage. Though this was the
Cold war in
its growing phase.Even in that era we had
short heated wars,only to fill the pockets
of Military-industrial personalities no
matter where they came from. Do you think
India will use US weapons to crush Nagas,
Mizos or Kashmiris? certainly not! They
have only one objective,and that you have
to woo Sonia Ghandhi to find out.
9/26/2009 2:26:08 AM
Recommend (1)
gibo wrote:
We dont mind in Australia.
A strong India means more time for Australia to prepare for the day
when China finally gets loose.
See the KINGS OF THE EAST http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n2066.cfm
Come south US defense industries. Australia has a vast open landscape
and hardly any defenses against the old red dragon.
9/26/2009 2:23:57 AM
Recommend (0)
marine1027 wrote:
Bud0's ramblings need to be forcibly addressed with a ton of facts:
(1)"..rank hypocrisy of the supposedly anti-proliferation United
States shovelling uranium to India hand over fist". Correction: The
real hypocrisy is the Aussie Govt. selling uranium to a known
proliferator,China..while refusing to sell it to democratic India.
China has proliferated nukes to Pakistan and N. Korea-read AQ Khan's
recent memoirs in the Sunday Times. (2)"All this for a country that
spits on NPT, and by any objective measure, is a nuclear outlaw
state." Says who: your buddies in China! Look at the mirror and what
do you see, Mr. Chinese Military! You have stolen every piece of
advanced nuke and missile tech secrets from the U.S. Read the Cox
Report" http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house/hr105851-html/ch2bod.html#anchor4673448.
It states: " The PRC (China)stole classified information on every
currently deployed U.S. intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and
submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). The warheads for which
the PRC stole classified information include: the W-56 Minuteman II
ICBM; the W-62 Minuteman III ICBM; the W-70 Lance short-range
ballistic missile (SRBM); the W-76 Trident C-4 SLBM; the W-78
Minuteman III Mark 12A ICBM; the W-87 Peacekeeper ICBM; and the W-88
Trident D-5 SLBM. The W-88 warhead is the most sophisticated strategic
nuclear warhead in the U.S. arsenal. It is deployed on the Trident D-5
submarine-launched missile.
In addition, in the mid-1990s the PRC stole from a U.S. national
weapons laboratory classified U.S. thermonuclear weapons information
that cannot be identified in this unclassified Report."
India has not signed the NPT; India did not team up with Richard Nixon
as China did as a counter-weight to Russia-to draft NPT and CTBT to
discriminate against large democracies after Commies conducted 1000's
of tests and perfected and miniaturized their nuclear-missile
technology. Enough ranting! But for the Russians giving you advanced
weaponry, you would likely still be stealing from the the United
States! David Sanger said it best: every day, terrabytes of data is
swept from U.S. advanced labs and the Pentagon by Chinese hackers.
Enjoy your theft-but stop being a goddamned hypocrite! For every
common thief, all we need in the free world is home-grown
intelligence..something you have never understood in your hegemonic
dreams! The US wears its superpower status with modesty and is benign
when compared to the awesome power of the U.S. military- which has
never been fully unleashed since WW II. Something you should learn as
you are becoming powerful!See you as a great power in 2050-keep
dreaming!Man proposes.. God disposes! But then, you have never
believed in the Maker-in any power other than yourself. Full of
swagger and confident of your emerging military and economc power!You
believe that the world will just roll over and let you rape and
pillage our economies in the name of managed trade! Let's see how long
this game lasts-the 1st shots of protectionism are already being fired
in the tire wars! Americans, wake up!
9/26/2009 2:14:16 AM
Recommend (2)
hxy87195959 wrote:
i am chinese, i dont know why india hostiled with us, we face many
problem, such as TAIWAN, japan, and ecnomic recession, i dont care
indians is live or death, because of they far from me, is american and
india are paranoia? u always worry about virtual enemy.
9/26/2009 1:26:58 AM
Recommend (3)
TheInsaneMoon wrote:
Hm...
I think engaging India was the ONLY thing that George W Bush did that
I agree with.
9/26/2009 12:53:14 AM
Recommend (3)
MSISLAM wrote:
someone has given the comments that Pakistan is broken and no more in
the position to buy the arms.
But here I just want to remind them that the Soveit Power and its
presence was much larger and greater in it's impact. It is also not
true to say that US forces has pushed them back far away from River
AMU. it was the force of Afghan Mujahedeen that worked and defeated
them. same forces are up against the US forces and it is the matter of
months that will have to take safe passage from Afghanistan and
Pakistan.
Pakistani people are much aware now and the forces against the US
hegemony is much louder and powerful and have created the sense among
the people that presence of US forces in the region is the real threat
and they have now all vocel against the US tyranny
9/26/2009 12:47:19 AM
Recommend (1)
dewanitum wrote:
Lockheed Martin is in business of making money not protecting
democracies. If there weren't sanctions against selling their products
to terrorist Lockheed Martin would be doing just that. Save that b.s
about protecting democracy. As someone said here before, arms dealer
will die the day there is true peace in the world. All the arms dealer
want wars, thats the only way they sell and make money.
9/26/2009 12:30:26 AM
Recommend (2)
alance wrote:
The most troubling paragraph in the story:
"Almost every weekend, there are cocktails and closed-door
presentations in the suites of New Delhi's five-star hotels, hosted by
retired admirals and generals from the U.S. armed forces who now work
for defense firms, such as Raytheon and Northrop Grumman."
We have a revolving door between the pentagon and defense contractors.
This is similar to the revolving door between the FDA and the
pharmaceutical companies and former members of congress and "K"
street.
We need legislation to prevent this type of corruption. We certainly
need to explore term limits for congress.
9/26/2009 12:27:05 AM
Recommend (4)
Roism007 wrote:
The irony of Indian American relationship is that it took George W
Bush to realize the full potential of having India as an ally in the
East. Its been dicking around with Japan,South Korea and Taiwan every
since world war II not realize the power of Democracy in a country
that is infusion of every race, religion and creed known to man today
and not to forget the birth place of religions known to man in its
recorded history....
India has been the victim of Terrorism every since USA left Afganistan
in 1979 and Pakistan started using the apparatus that the USA utilized
against USSR towards India.
America realized it in 2001 when 99% of all terroist involved came to
realize were trained and inspired in Pakistan using the same apparatus
they had left behind.....
Better late then never...a good a America today
9/26/2009 12:19:32 AM
Recommend (5)
dewanitum wrote:
""India will look back -- generations down the road -- at this period
as a defining moment for its new, modern military," said Roger Rose,
chief executive of Lockheed Martin India, which is renting half a wing
of New Delhi's Taj Palace Hotel for a 12-person office. "I think we
can all see that there are a lot of threats shared between our two
democracies." "
Lockheed Martin is in business of making not protecting democracies.
If there weren't sanctions against selling their products to terrorist
Lockheed Martin would be doing just that. Save that b.s about
protecting democracy.
9/26/2009 12:03:47 AM
Recommend (2)
CBennett6 wrote:
MSISLAM
which imaginary world are you living in. You say US is becoming
unpopular in India. On the contrary, US is getting more and more
popular. As is everywhere there are some confused people, but a large
majority strongly favor and support the USA.
As regards sales promotion to pakistan that is a big joke. pakistan is
broke. It has no money to buy arms. It can only beg from china and
borrow & steal from the US to survive.
9/25/2009 11:54:04 PM
Recommend (8)
MSISLAM wrote:
The sinking US economy has forced the Pentagon to expand the business
in the region and sell more and more arms. they have nothing to do
with the stabilisation in the region. Rather a de-stabilised situation
as far more conjunctive for the arme sale business.
the frequent visits of US top ranking army personnals to Pakistan is
the result of sales promotion techniques. For the reason they have
planted the Government most suited to them i.e. mean Zardari and
company. It was again US behind the assassination of Benazir Bhutto to
eliminate the element who can come in there way.
Now when mr.Singh had come with a clear majority in the Indian
election and the most unpopular President Zardari in power with the
backing of US and Pak. army, the situation had been moulded to get the
deal in a "SMOOTH" way.
But the growing Anti US sentiments in India and pakistan will not
allow to get it as smooth as they want. The forces against US hegemony
is getting power from the masses.
9/25/2009 11:47:56 PM
Recommend (2)
JenDray wrote:
'"I think we can all see that there are a lot of threats shared
between our two democracies," said Roger Rose, chief executive of
Lockheed Martin India.'
The only threat that scares Lockheed Martin is the threat of
international peace, understanding and goodwill among men.
9/25/2009 11:35:27 PM
Recommend (7)
coloradodog wrote:
A war profiteer and gun runner's dream, sell to both sides of a
conflict.
If it weren't for powerful AIPAC control of Israel's US colony,
Lockheed Martin would be selling arms to Hamass.
9/25/2009 11:32:07 PM
Recommend (5)
dewanitum wrote:
How can Pakistan concentrate on Taliban, when U.S is selling weapons
to India to heighten tension India and Pakistan. Pakistan might need
Taliban to overthrow Indian backed Afghan government and fight India
in disputed Kashmir. Thats why Pakistan has waged full fledged war
with Taliban in South Wazirstan. Everybody knows U.S and NATO is going
to pull out of Afghanistan in near future, than Pakistan will have
enemy on both sides of their border, India on one side and Afghanistan
on other side. Pakistan is playing smart by not attacking South
Wazirastan
9/25/2009 11:29:58 PM
Recommend (2) Report Abuse Discussion Policy
CBennett6 wrote:
Can somebody suggest Bud0 a good medicine for its stomach problem. Too
much of noodles and pig organ soup seems to have caused a bad case of
diorrhea.
9/25/2009 11:24:21 PM
Recommend (2) Report Abuse Discussion Policy
Bud0 wrote:
whatdyousay, I'm sure you spent the entire 1960s-1980s believing
Washington's estimates of Soviet Union military spending, and scoffing
when the Russians denied it was that high.
Then the Soviet Union fell, the archives were opened up, and whaddya
know? It was Washington that was lying all along.
Don't forget, you, not I, are the one with a long track record of
being successfully lied to about these things.
Remember how certain you were that if you didn't invade Iraq, there'd
be a mushroom cloud over a US city? Sure you do.
Let's count some weapons:
Active ballistic missile subs:
US Ohio class - 18 boats
China type 92 - 1 boat
Silo-based ICBMs
US Minuteman III - 450 missiles
China DF-5 between 20 and 35 missiles
Long-range bombers
US B52 - 66 planes
US B1 - 66 planes
US B2 - 22 planes
China - Zero
Of course the Americans lie about these things. Their military
spending is 8 times higher than China's, 15 times higher than
Russia's. There is no credible threat to justify what is really a vast
military-industrial welfare and congressional pork program. Therefore
they must make up threats. Remember Iraq? Remember the "missile gap"?
Remember Tonkin Gulf? Remember the Maine?
Your country is notorious for lying about these things.
9/25/2009 11:16:21 PM
Recommend (7) Report Abuse Discussion Policy
Bud0 wrote:
What's more you're underestimating Indian military spending.
And of course there's no mention of the rank hypocrisy of the
supposedly anti-proliferation United States shovelling uranium to
India hand over fist.
Bush's military agreement with India even specified that if India
tested a nuke, forcing the US Congress to cut off nuclear exports
there, he would find them an alternative supply of uranium, and would
build them a "nuclear fuel repository" so they'd be insulated from any
kind of nuclear sanctions.
All this for a country that spits on NPT, and by any objective
measure, is a nuclear outlaw state.
9/25/2009 10:53:55 PM
Recommend (8) Report Abuse Discussion Policy
whatdyousay wrote:
rubbish budO? you think the chineese are actually telling the truth?
with all these numbers, i guess we won't be seeing peace in this
lifetime
9/25/2009 10:52:39 PM
Recommend (1) Report Abuse Discussion Policy
Bud0 wrote:
"India spends about 2 percent of its gross domestic product on
defense, while China spent 4.3 percent last year and Pakistan spent
3.5. percent."
Rubbish. China spent far less than that.
96th place: China, 1.9% of GDP.
Where are you getting your information, Washington Post? From your
sugar daddies at Lockheed Martin? Your number one advertisers?
Don't you know they're liars? It was a Lockheed Martin executive,
Bruce Jackson, who introduced Ahmed Chalabi to Washington. I seem to
remember the Post fell hook, line and sinker for that one, too.
Looking for a country that really does spend more than 4% of GDP on
its military? Try the US.
9/25/2009 10:40:36 PM
Recommend (7)
evergreen2so wrote:
US EMBASSY PLANS IN PASKISTAN IS TO FIND NUKES LOCATIONS AND TO
DESTABILISE PAKISTAN.
U.S. intelligence HAS LIED, MISLED the UN ABOUT WMD IN IRAQ WITH FAKE
EVIDENCE IN COLLABORATION WITH ISRAEL. AS OF NOW, NO WMD HAS EVER BEEN
FOUND. THEY WILL DO IT AGAIN WITH IRAN.
U.S. says Pakistan, Iran helping Taliban
All Arabian leaders SUCH AS SYRIA, EGYPT, IRAN, AFGHANISTAN, PAKISTAN,
SAUDI ARABIA AND LIBYA must sit, talk together on the security
situation within their territories, not simply pointing fingers on
their Arabian neighbours. The root of the cause for the chaos in the
ME is the presence of Zionism in the ME. The bombing occurred were to
put the blame to Arabian neighbours so that the Arabian will be
fighting with each other instead of fighting with Israel which is
their common enemies. US had been known as the major funder to Israel
to expand its territories, to KILL PALESTINIANS, BY MAKING MIDEAST
NATIONS TO BECOME IN DEVASTATING POWERLESS SITUATION BY PROLONGING THE
DECEPTIVE ANTI-ISLAM WAR AGAINST TERRORIST.
The Arabian must address this issue seriously, otherwise the Arabian
will
be in great lost. Slanders, lies and misleading with intent to TRICK,
have been the norm of US AND Israel leaders that had lead to the
devastating POWERLESS situation in the Arabian region today.
9/25/2009 10:00:24 PM
Recommend (2)
chhotemianinshallah
Many Chinese still see India as main enemy: Report
STAFF WRITER 17:9 HRS IST
London, Sep 27 (PTI) Nearly 47 years after the two countries fought a
war, many Chinese still perceive India as their main enemy, a British
newspaper has claimed.
In an article ahead of the 60th anniversary of the People's Republic,
'The Sunday Times' said: "Not everyone in Beijing speaks in the silky
language of the foreign ministry.
Curiously, the enemy most often spoken of is India."
Interestingly, the censors in China permit alarmingly frank discussion
on the Internet of the merits of another war against India to secure
the Tibetan plateau, the report said.
However, a retired Chinese officer has claimed that those serving in
the People's Liberation Army have no "devotion" to their country.
"Compared with our last war against India in 1962, our equipment is
much better but the devotion to country and people of our officers and
men is much worse," the paper quoted an unnamed officer as saying.
Sid Harth
India's moon mission quite economical: M Annadurai
PTI 27 September 2009, 08:47pm IST
MUMBAI: India's moon mission has proved to be quite economical and
cost much less compared to what other countries have spent on their
projects, mission director M Annadurai said.
Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) would continue to check
costs in the Chandrayan-II mission as well, he said.
India's moon mission cost only about one sixth to one tenth of the
cost of similar missions undertaken by European Space Agency (SMART)
or NASA's LRO or SELENE of Japan or ChangE of China.
Chandrayaan-I was also unique in carrying 11 scientific instruments
and 60 detectors, Annadurai said at a seminar organised by National
Council of Science Museums yesterday.
The total cost of Chandrayaan-I project including the ground
facilities and launch vehicle was only USD 75 million (USD 30 million
for the payload ) while cost of only payloads for missions like
Japan's SELENE was USD 480 million, China's ChangE at USD 187 million
or NASA's LRO at USD 491 million.
ISRO scientists adopted different technique in the construction of the
payloads to reduce cost. Mechanical interface and electrical
simulations were done in a particular way before going for actual
construction of the flight model.
This enabled scientists and engineers not only to reduce cost but also
to deliver the project in the stipulated timeframe of four and a half
year, he said.
Students lodge FIR against University officials for fraud
Jaipur, Sep 27 (PTI) Students of an autonomous university here have
lodged an FIR against 11 persons, including its Chancellor and Vice-
Chancellor, for alleged cheating and fraud, police said today.
According to the FIR, lodged by two students of Suresh Gyan Vihar
University, the University gave admissions to over 25 students in M.Ed
in 2008-09 batch without obtaining permission from NCTE to run the
course.
"The matter anyhow came to light some six months ago, but the
university administration giving false assurance said it was going to
obtain permission soon," Digambar Singh, one of the students, said in
the FIR.
"After completing the course we approached various institutions for
job, but they rejected our degree saying it was invalid.
On enquiring, NCTE officials told us that the university had got
temporary permission for running the course for session 2009-10, but
did not give any satisfactory information regarding our batch of
2008-09," he said.
When contacted, Chancellor of the University Sunil Sharma told PTI
that the university could confer degrees on its own.
"We are capable to confer degree on our own according to the act under
which the university came into existence, and being a statutory body,
we need not to take permission to run such course from another
statutory body," he said.
Sid Harth
http://www.idsa.in/publications/stratcomments/AvinashGodbole230909.htm
Sixty Years of The People’s Republic of China
Avinash Godbole
September 23, 2009
The Peoples Republic of China will celebrate the 60th Anniversary of
its Liberation on October 1. The celebrations, confined to Beijing,
have already begun and China is showing the world its achievements
through the use of the state- controlled media. A visit to the website
of the China Daily shows the theme that the Chinese state wishes to
project. The banner on the website announcing the anniversary shows a
high speed train and white pigeons flying around areas of green. The
backdrop to this canvas of course remains red. The message is loud and
clear and yet very simple; the People’s Republic wants to be known as
a peacefully developing nation state under the guidance of the Chinese
Communist Party. This banner also showcases the present leadership’s
idea of the ‘Scientific Development Concept’, with stress on
innovation, sustainability and inclusiveness as its core focus.
China has come a long way since Chairman Mao proudly declared that
“the Chinese people have stood up” to throw out imperialism and
colonialism. A liberated China promised her people equality, freedom,
development, and self respect, among other things. And one can see
that through a mix of ideology and endeavour, innovation and trade,
foreign support and domestic activity, China has transformed itself
from a country with an extensive baggage of feudal history into the
economic powerhouse of the world. Today one can love or hate China but
cannot ignore it anymore.
It is certainly true that the path to today’s China has not been
smooth and the picture is less rosy than the leadership would have
liked. The PRC has seen many upheavals ever since its inception. Some
were natural, some man made and some that occurred because of the
miscalculations of the leadership. First was the Korean War which
changed the worldview of Mao. It was followed by floods and droughts
of 1950, the anti-rightist campaign, the “Great Leap Forward”, the
rural peoples’ communes, the great famine, and the Cultural Revolution
which not only set back China’s development but also provided the
impulse for the subsequent reforms and drove home the importance of
peaceful transition. Then came the Tiananmen Square incidents in May
and June 1989, which taught the Chinese leadership the importance of
considering the adoption over the long run of reforms outside the
economic sphere and of accommodating dissent.
However, through all these periods of uncertainty, domestically China
has been able to achieve much more than many other nations that won
their independence/liberation about the same time. China’s social
transformation achieved under the Communist Party is nothing less than
miraculous. China made remarkable progress on social indicators during
the Maoist era, simply because of its welfare policies. Maoist
ideology was able to wipe out feudalism from most of China and
implement egalitarian measures that were inclusive in nature. The
Chinese people followed Mao’s ideas en masse, not because of blind
faith but because in a short period of time the State was able to
create many stakeholders in the nation’s growth. This social uplift
helped China when economic reforms were implemented as the workforce
needed to implement the reforms was readily available. This resulted
in a substantial increase in the country’s GDP and subsequently in its
per capita income. Today China’s GDP is the second largest in the
world in PPP terms.
China’s relations with the outside world have reflected its domestic
issues. Once an exporter of Chinese style Communism, isolated
internationally and surrounded by hostile powers, today’s China is the
mainstay of the capitalist world exporting a large quantity of what
the world imports. China played an important role in the recovery
following the crisis in the Asian tigers in 1997. Its domestic
development helped its role in regional issues. In recent times,
China’s importance is also exemplified by US Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton’s visit to China and her urging China to play a
leading role in solving the global financial crisis. This simple
statement reflects the fact that the axis of the world order is
changing and China is slowly but surely assuming the centre stage.
In India, much of the understanding of China percolates from the
memories of the 1962 war. There is more mistrust and misconception
about China’s intent amongst the masses, sometimes fanned by a
nationalist and occasionally sensationalist media. The occasion of the
60th anniversary of Chinese Liberation should be used to understand
China in a proper light. China will remain India’s competitor in many
spheres of activity for a long time, though that it will not
necessarily be a threat to India’s integrity and identity. India’s
best response would be, while retaining its democratic polity and
maintaining defence preparedness, to make economic growth the central
task.
Avinash Godbole is Research Assistant at the Institute for Defence
Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.
Sid Harth
Pakistan’s Travails and China’s Aggressiveness
P.K. Upadhyay
September 23, 2009
The aggressive posture that the Chinese have adopted along the
otherwise relatively tranquil Line of Actual Control (LOAC) has come
under a lot of analytical examination by Indian Sinologists. They have
advanced a number of explanations for the Chinese actions, all of
which have a ring of truth about them.
Chinese activities on the LOAC this year can be broadly categorized
into two types. The first are the ‘Perceived Intrusions’ by the
Chinese, which have been taking place from the 1960s regularly every
year. These intrusions, no doubt of Indian territory as per our claim,
are the result of differing Chinese and Indian perceptions of the
status of the border as existed before the 1962 India-China war and
the unmarked LOAC that came into existence following the withdrawal of
Chinese troops from most of the Indian territory at the end of the
war. Chinese patrols repeatedly enter every year the Demilitarized
Zone between the LOAC and the pre-1962 India-China border, or the
border as per Chinese claims. These incursions are more of pinpricks
and represent Chinese attempts to continue to assert their control
over Indian territory that they temporarily occupied during the 1962
war and later on vacated, without abandoning their claims over it.
In the second category are such Chinese actions that have occurred
this year and which are different from the usual ritualistic
‘Perceived Intrusions’ and are more aggressive in content. In this
category would come Chinese intrusions in such areas as had not been
under any dispute so far, like the Chumar sector on the tri-junction
of Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir and Tibet; or the violation of
the Indian airspace by Chinese helicopters (in Ladakh sector) and
reported violations by Chinese Sukhoi jets in the Eastern Sector; the
entry of Chinese mounted patrols in the central sector at Barahoti
(where almost all intrusions so far had been by foot-patrols); and
reported firing on Indo-Tibet Border Police (ITBP) jawans in the
Sikkim sector (since officially denied by the ITBP and the concerned
Ministries).
It is undisputed that such closely choreographed Chinese actions are
the result of some long-term assessment of the evolving situation and
formulation of a suitable strategy by the Chinese leadership to deal
with that situation. Recent articles on India in officially controlled
Chinese research journals, their activities on the borders with India,
along with their attempts to ring India with military bases or
presence from Myanmar to Pakistan and build up Pakistan’s military,
nuclear and missile capabilities have all been viewed, with much
merit, as “signals meant to assert China’s growing political and
military stature as well as means to test India’s resolve”. Therefore,
it has been contended that given India’s “gradual emergence as a
powerful military and economic power in Asia, China is unlikely to be
keen on settling the border issue till such time India slumps into a
period of weakness”. In conclusion, it is opined that “for the
foreseeable future, the India-China border is likely to be
characterised by tensions, incursions and skirmishes, interspersed
with endless border negotiations.” (What do Chinese intrusions across
the Line of Actual Control Tell India?, IDSA Strategic Comment,
September 10, 2009).
This is a fair assessment of Chinese long-term intentions towards
India. However, border incidents this year seem to suggest an intent
to raise temperatures with India in a calibrated manner over a short-
term period. This can be caused either by a direct or indirect major
assault on Chinese interests by India, or a fast evolving regional or
international situation that could directly or indirectly impact
adversely on Chinese interests, if allowed to drift on its own. The
recent bursting into the open of the simmering ethno-religious
tensions in China’s Xinjiang province through clashes between local
Muslim Uighurs and the Chinese Han settlers could fall under the first
scenario. However, India does not seem to have any relevance in that
context, since it is neither contiguous to Xinjiang nor has had any
links with Uighur nationalists. The answer to Chinese actions,
therefore, has to be located in the evolving regional situation.
Afghanistan might be raising some concerns for the Chinese. However,
they seem to be waiting for the outcome of current US-led efforts to
pacify Afghanistan with the hope that their client Pakistan may have a
major role to play in the post-conflict period. There is nothing to
suggest that because of some developments connected with Afghanistan,
the Chinese have decided to up the ante with India. Then can the
developing situation in Pakistan be behind the present Chinese
aggressiveness towards India?
Pakistan’s deeply etched ethno-sectarian fault-lines, papered over
since the inception of the country, had been deepening for the last
few years and now seem to have become a yawning chasm almost
impossible to bridge. These tensions may not lead to a break-up or
‘Balkanization’ of Pakistan, but its ‘Lebanonization’ under pressure
from Islamic radicals of Wahabi/Deobandi variety, looks to be a
distinct possibility. The Chinese, who have a significant and major
presence in Pakistan from Khunjerab Pass to Gwadar Port, may have
picked up these signals and decided to initiate measures to guard
their direct and indirect interests against the backdrop of the
evolving situation in Pakistan.
A Pakistan, whose major portion is going to be either controlled or
closely influenced by Wahabi/Deobandi Taliban and their cohorts, like
the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba for instance, would have a direct bearing on
Xinjiang’s Uighur Islamists. The Chinese could be expected to try and
prevent this from happening. They have a substantial presence in
Gilgit for the maintenance of the Karakoram Highway and undertaking
various hydroelectric projects. Most of these Chinese workers are
stated to be from the construction units of the People’s Liberation
Army (PLA). Should Taliban threaten to take over the NWFP, including
Chitral and its adjoining areas, then the Chinese could be expected to
tighten their hold on Gilgit region, with or without the consent of
the Pakistan Government.
But how does the tension on the India-China border figure in all this?
They are aimed at forestalling an Indian intervention in Gilgit area
in the wake of any possible Chinese entry into this region. Another
possible explanation for Chinese actions towards India could be to
prevent the latter from interfering in Pakistan in the event of a
severe erosion in the Pakistan establishment’s capability to control
things within. By increasing tension along the borders with India,
China might be trying to keep the Indian military tied down thus
making it impossible for it to either alter the LOC with Pakistan, or
‘settle’ issues like Sir Creek. China may also be hoping to prevent
India from emerging as a major factor in the new developing/developed
situation in Pakistan.
However, in the most immediate scenario, Chinese actions could also be
a result of a Pakistani request to heighten military tensions with
India so that it is not able to take advantage of any significant
planned redeployment of Pakistani troops from the Indo-Pak border to
FATA and other areas of NWFP where Taliban and their allies seem set
to upset Pakistani territorial integrity and the Chinese (Xinjiang
situation) applecart. It may be noted that the Pakistanis have
deployed nearly 100,000 troops in FATA by pulling out available
reserves and without depleting their strength on the Indo-Pak border.
However, the expanding Taliban activities would now appear to be
necessitating a larger withdrawal from the Indo-Pak border. In such a
situation they might have sought Chinese military assurance vis-a-vis
India. A confirmation of this scenario might come shortly, if there
are reports of changes in the usual Chinese deployments in Tibet,
particularly close to the India-China border.
What should India be doing in this situation? Apart from reacting with
controlled response to Chinese actions, India should try and engage
China in a discussion on the developing situation in Pakistan to try
and build some commonalities in their mutual objectives (like keeping
the Islamic radicals at bay and strengthening non-sectarian forces in
Pakistan) and, may be, evolve common strategies.
P.K. Upadhyay is a Consultant with IDSA for its Pakistan Project.
These are his personal views.
Sid Harth
Pakistan’s latest adventure across the International Border
Ramesh Phadke
September 14, 2009
Pakistan has yet again shown its proclivity to raise tensions with
India. This time, the Pakistan Army or its proxies have fired three
rockets across the International Border (IB) near Wagha in Punjab.
Although no injuries were reported, such attacks pose a major danger
to the people living in areas adjacent to the border, and some 150
farmers of the area indeed protested. This is the second time that
rockets have been fired from Pakistan in the recent past.
The significant aspect of the latest attack is that it was staged
across the normally peaceful international border. Second, it was
staged using 107 mm rockets that are usually the armament of the
regular army and not some faceless terrorists. While flag meetings and
diplomatic protests will follow their own course, this incident cannot
be brushed away as yet another attempt by Pakistan to keep India on
tenterhooks.
While terrorist elements from Pakistan have in the past made attempts
to infiltrate through the IB and each time the infiltrators were
provided covering fire by the Pakistani Rangers, the use of 107mm
rockets with a range of 8 kilometres adds a new dimension. Needless to
add that the firing of Katyusha rockets by the Hezbolla and Hamas from
Lebanon and Palestine (Gaza) respectively drove Israel to mount two
major conventional military operations that resulted in much loss of
life and property and further raised tensions in West Asia.
Rocket attacks have the potential to undermine peace because they can
cause many civilian casualties in relatively far away areas from the
IB. It is indeed difficult to mount an effective and credible defence
against these attacks as there is little or no warning. The
essentially mobile nature of the launch vehicle, most if not all of
the 107 mm rockets are either towed or self-propelled, and a very
short time of flight make their detection exceedingly difficult.
Casualties to innocent civilians engaged in routine activities in
close proximity to the border would naturally raise tempers and
demands for befitting retaliation by the Indian Army/government
authorities, further exacerbating the already fragile peace with the
troublesome neighbour.
Pakistan cannot deny the active involvement of its Army as this weapon
system is not available to the local terrorists without the Army
giving it to them on location. There is also the possibility that the
Pakistan Army itself launched the rocket attack across the border
without using any of its numerous proxies. Since the attack came in
the hours of darkness it would be impossible to pinpoint the exact
location of its origin.
Before the current ceasefire came into force some years ago, artillery
and mortar firing across the Line of Control in Jammu & Kashmir was
routine activity though the context was completely different. Firing
of rockets across the IB must be seen as far more serious. This was a
deliberate act to destabilise the situation. Is the Pakistan Army
trying to provoke India into beefing up its forces along the IB so
that Pakistan can once again raise the bogie of the India threat and
curtail its operations in the West? The crafty decision makers in
Islamabad know full well that the US needs their help and would be
forced to tell India to exercise utmost restraint. Is it another
attempt to bring India to the negotiating table without taking any
concrete action against the 26/11 masterminds?
What with the Chinese incursions along the Sino-Indian border
increasing in the recent past, India might come under greater pressure
to take firm action. That border is not exactly tranquil and peaceful,
though India would not like to raise the ante. There are already some
newspaper reports urging that the Indian army be allowed to mount more
aggressive patrols along the sensitive areas in Laddakh, Sikkim and
Arunachal Pradesh. It might suit forces inimical to India if the
armies of the two Asian giants come into eyeball-to-eyeball
confrontation on a daily basis. Pakistan must desist from causing
these pin-pricks and its backers must realise the grave danger such
Pakistani actions pose to the tenuous peace in the region and
immediately advise it to stop. Can the world expect India to continue
exercising restraint in the face of such daily provocations?
Air Cmde (Retd) Ramesh Phadke is Advisor, Research at Institute for
Defence Studies and Anaysis, New Delhi.
Sid Harth
What do Chinese intrusions across the Line of Actual Control Tell
India?
Pushpita Das
September 10, 2009
A number of Chinese border intrusions across the Line of Actual
Control have been reported in recent months. One such event near Mount
Gya in the Chumar sector of Ladakh saw Chinese troops intruding 1.5
kilometres inside Indian territory and writing “China” on the rocks
with red paint. The intrusion was first noticed by an Indian patrol
team on July 31, 2009. An earlier incident of Chinese intrusion in
this area reportedly took place on June 21st, when two Chinese M1
helicopters violated the Indian airspace and air dropped canned food
at Chumar. While admitting that such an intrusion has indeed taken
place, Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor played down the episode saying
that the intrusion might have taken place because of navigational
error. He also went on to state that such intrusions are not new and
have been taking place for years. Minister of External Affairs, S. M.
Krishna, also said that the border between India and China in the
Ladakh sector is ‘most peaceful’ and such cases of intrusion would be
sorted out through the ‘inbuilt mechanism’.
This ‘inbuilt mechanism’ is the Border Personnel Meetings/Flag
Meetings, which take place at regular intervals. The establishment of
this mechanism for resolving such border transgressions can be traced
to the Agreement on the Maintenance of Peace and Tranquillity along
the Line of Actual Control in the China-India Border Areas of 1993. As
far as the recent case of intrusion is concerned, it is reported that
the regiment posted in the area under 14 Corps had taken up the matter
with their Chinese counterparts during such a border meeting in August
and had also lodged a formal protest. The Chinese side, however,
denied the charges and maintained that border patrols by Chinese
troops were ‘strictly conducted according to the law’ and they had
never violated India’s land or air space. Despite Chinese denials, the
fact remains that China has been intruding inside the Indian territory
all along the LAC. The Indian Army has reportedly recorded 270 border
violations and nearly 2,300 cases of “aggressive border patrolling” by
Chinese soldiers last year. The point to note is that earlier such
intrusions were frequently reported from Arunachal Pradesh, while
lately incidences of Chinese border transgression are increasingly
being reported from Sikkim and Ladakh, hitherto considered as peaceful
sectors of the LAC.
The reason behind the heightened Chinese incursions has been falsely
attributed by many to the on-going strengthening of Indian military
capability along the LAC – the deployment of Sukhoi-30 MKI fighter
jets in Tezpur, raising of two additional mountain divisions for the
defence of Arunachal Pradesh, the landing of AN-32 transport plane at
Daulat Begh Oldhi, the proposed deployment of an AWACS (airborne
warning and control systems) plane as ‘force multiplier’ in the Ladakh
sector, and the construction of 27 strategic roads along the India-
China border. It is being argued that Chinese border intrusions are a
reaction to these developments. The reality is, however, quite
different. China does not need any of these excuses to transgress the
LAC. It has been doing so in the past and will continue to do so in
future. The unsettled border and these incursions are nothing but a
manifestation of the uneasy relationship which the two countries
share. The slow and steady emergence of India as a strong power in
Asia is not looked upon favourably by China. And this sentiment also
adversely impacts on the attempts to resolve the border dispute
amicably.
China has had serious border disputes with many of its neighbours, and
it chose to resolve those disputes only when it felt that the
concerned neighbour was weak or when the latter acknowledged China’s
superior status. In the early 1960s, in a bid to demonstrate to the
world that it was a responsible country and a good neighbour, China
concluded border agreements with Burma, Nepal, Afghanistan and
Pakistan. These countries were militarily weak neighbours and did not
have any serious ideological or political differences with China.
Notably, many of those border agreements were preceded by Chinese
propaganda and border incursions by Chinese troops. At this time,
however, China did not settle its borders with India, Bhutan, Soviet
Union, Vietnam and Laos. It even engaged in wars with India in 1962,
Soviet Union in 1969 and Vietnam in 1979.
As is often said, the best indication of strained relation between two
countries is tensions across their shared borders. In the case of
India, China felt threatened by India’s standing in the international
forums and especially by its leadership role among the third world
countries. This feeling of unease was compounded by the Khampa
rebellion in Tibet and the subsequent flight of the Dalai Lama to
India in 1959. The strained relations between the two countries were
manifested by Chinese territorial claims and increased skirmishes
along the border, which culminated in the border war of 1962. As
regards the Soviet Union, the ideological split and China’s attempt to
supplant the USSR as the leader of the communist movement led to
deteriorating relations, heightened border tensions and border clashes
in 1969. Vietnam’s closer affinity for the Soviet Union gradually led
to the souring of relations with China, which eventually culminated in
the 1979 border war. China could not settle its borders with Bhutan
and Laos, which chose to be guided by India and Vietnam, respectively,
on the border issue.
The second phase of Chinese border settlements with its neighbours
started with the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991. Negotiations to
settle the border with Moscow began in 1987, and China and Russia
concluded the border agreement in 1991. China also negotiated separate
border agreements with Tajikistan, Kyrgystan and Kazakhstan. Border
negotiations with Vietnam had resumed almost immediately after the
1979 border war, and a final agreement on their land border was signed
on December 30, 1999. Incidentally, the text of the Land Border Treaty
is not available in the public domain. China also signed a border
agreement with Laos in 1992. The point to note is that all these
border settlements resulted only in minor territorial changes, despite
China’s extravagant territorial claims.
Now, India and Bhutan are the only two countries with which China is
yet to settle its border. In the case of Bhutan, news reports hinted
that during the border talks in July 2005, Bhutan might have relented
to Chinese pressure tactics and accepted a package deal. In 1996,
Beijing had proposed the exchange of the 495 square kilometre area of
Pasamlung and Jakarlung valleys in the northern borders of central
Bhutan (which China claims) for Sinchulumpa, Dramana and Shakhtoe with
an area of 269 sq km in north-west Bhutan. China has also been
applying pressure tactics like large scale intrusions by Tibetan
herdsmen and also by the PLA to keep Bhutanese border guards in
tenterhooks and has also resorted to construction of roads inside
Bhutanese territory. It appears that Bhutan is under pressure both
from China and its own people to arrive at a final solution to the
festering border problem, but till now there is no indication that it
has been successful at arriving at an acceptable solution.
Intrusions by Chinese troops into Indian territory are signals meant
to assert China’s growing political and military stature as well as
means to test India’s resolve. Given India’s gradual emergence as a
powerful military and economic power in Asia, China is unlikely to be
keen on settling the border issue till such time India slumps into a
period of weakness. Thus, for the foreseeable future, the India-China
border is likely to be characterised by tensions, incursions and
skirmishes, interspersed with endless border negotiations. Given this,
India needs to be prepared for any eventuality and calibrate its
responses to Chinese intrusions.
Dr. Pushpita Das is Associate Fellow at the Institute for Defence
Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.
...and I am Sid Harth
Sid Harth
Re-visioning the Nuclear Command Authority
Ali Ahmed
September 09, 2009
In a new book Nuclear Strategy: India’s March Towards a Credible
Deterrent, Dr. Manpreet Sethi has recommended a restructuring of
India’s Nuclear Command Authority. Since India’s nuclear doctrine is
premised on ‘Assured Retaliation’, nuclear retaliatory attacks can
only be authorised by the civilian political leadership through the
Nuclear Command Authority. Presently, the Nuclear Command Authority,
as approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security on 04 January 2003,
stipulates:
‘3. The Nuclear Command Authority comprises a Political Council and an
Executive Council. The Political Council is chaired by the Prime
Minister. It is the sole body which can authorize the use of nuclear
weapons.
4. The Executive Council is chaired by the National Security Advisor.
It provides inputs for decision making by the Nuclear Command
Authority and executes the directives given to it by the Political
Council.’
The recommendation is that the Service Chiefs be included as members
in the Political Council also. This is an important suggestion
deserving of attention. The recommended improvement is persuasively
argued. Firstly, it wishes to take the present system that is
seemingly an institutionalisation of pre-existing informal networks, a
step further. Inclusion of the Service Chiefs in the Political Council
would enable provision of informed advice to the political decision
maker directly by the end-users. This is all the more imperative given
the linkage in the Southern Asian setting between conventional and
nuclear deterrence. Secondly, Dr. Sethi believes that the fear of
militarisation is overblown since military leaders are demonstrably
sensitive to the issue of political control of the military in a
parliamentary democracy. Lastly, the argument has it that the presence
of military members would enhance credibility of deterrence and would
sensitise both civil and military leaderships to each others’
compulsions and preoccupation. The expectation is that this would
result in ‘synergy of thought, planning and effort.’
The major point made is that military input would be made available in
the Political Council better. This begs the question as to whether the
present system adequately caters for this. In so far as the nuclear
advisory role of the Service Chiefs is concerned it is through their
membership in the Executive Council, as explicated in Para 4: ‘It (the
Executive Council) provides inputs for decision making by the Nuclear
Command Authority.’ This mandates the Chiefs, as members of the
Executive Council, to proffer input as required. The Chiefs are also
readily available for direct interaction with the Political Council on
invitation. Further, the Defence Minister, who is a member of the
Political Council, is privy to their advice. Thus their position can
be expected to be taken into account in any nuclear related decision.
What are the implications of having the Service Chiefs as members of
both Councils? In such a case not only would they be providing inputs
as part of the Executive Council but also sitting in judgment over
their own input and that of other members of the Executive Council as
part of the Political Council. The key to the argument for change is
whether such an arrangement is better. There are some negatives that
need to be considered.
Firstly, nuclear weapons in the Indian schema are political
instruments for deterrence. Attacks, which in India’s case can only be
retaliatory attacks, can only be authorised by the civilian political
leadership. The Political Council is to serve as the forum for
deliberations on this score with nuclear decision making being the
preserve of the Prime Minister as the head. Therefore, having military
members may impact the complexion of India’s approach to nuclear
weapons altogether. The argument that the Chiefs be members, alongside
civilian ministers, in this Council would be to privilege them beyond
the limits of the Indian system of military subordination to civilian
control. However, if at all the Political Council is to profit from
their institutionalised presence to the degree recommended, then this
cannot be with them as co-equals as members, but as a separate nuclear
advisory panel subsumed in the Political Council. The recommendation
then would require modification along these lines. On such a panel
must also figure the National Security Advisor, who it can be expected
would be in a position to integrate and present the civilian dimension
of input.
Secondly, recourse to organisation theory may help, in particular the
Bureaucratic Politics model. The succinct proposition here is ‘where
you stand depends on where you sit.’ The corollary is that apex
organizational leadership tends to believe ‘what is good for General
Motors is good for America.’ Personalities also play a role,
especially the ability of the organizational head ‘to stand the heat
in the kitchen.’ Thus, advice and solutions do not emerge from a
detached consideration of problems in the logic argument-reflection-
choice, but by the ‘push and shove’ of agencies, represented by their
parochial leadership. Pre-existing action-channels, bargaining games,
and power play as the mechanism of choice characterize this model.
Decision-makers can thus be viewed realistically as ‘following’ rather
than ‘leading’ in an environment of constraints. Further, the
organizational head has the brief to protect organizational interests.
Key to success is enterprise in getting other agencies committed to
the coalition, in order to gain confidence of the primary decision-
maker. The personal chemistry between the organizational head and the
political decision-maker is also a factor in the effectiveness of the
former. In light of this and given the larger Indian cultural milieu,
more narrowly its strategic culture and the historical record of
policy and decision making, it would be difficult to concede this
recommendation without a pause. While granting that the well spring of
the recommendation is to avoid this very clutter, it is neglectful of
the human dimension of decision making dynamics packaged by
organizational theory.
Thirdly, the recommendation is for inclusion of all there Service
Chiefs, perhaps in deference to the extant reality of absence of an
integrating military authority in the form of a Chief of Defence
Staff. Though the Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee translates and
transmits the requirements of the Political Council to the Strategic
Forces Command, instead of naming him alone to the Political Council,
the recommendation interestingly requires representation of the three
Chiefs. Following from the discussion of organizational theory,
divergence in the view of the three could lead to considerable strain
in deliberations in the Political Council, which in the time-critical
and psychologically intense conditions of ongoing conflict is entirely
avoidable. Perhaps, a modification to the proposal could be
representation only of the Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee, or
better still, the long pending creation of a Chief of Defence Staff to
fulfill the principal military advisory role. The proposal serves as a
powerful argument to bring about the necessary conclusion to higher
defence organization reforms pursuant to the Arun Singh Task Force
recommendations. For this to happen, the services require to be on the
same page, an unlikely proposition as things currently stand in this
matter.
Lastly, the assumption that the Chiefs would be able to comprehend the
full extent of the security predicament in a war gone nuclear due to
nuclear ‘first use’ by the opposite side requires examination.
Clearly, it is easy to concede that national security is largely
vested collectively in their offices and their higher level training
and service experience enables them to comprehend national security in
a multidimensional manner. However, in the Indian scheme, they are
also the operational heads of the three services. In a conflict,
military pressures are likely to supersede political considerations.
This is a problem with the office of the Chairman Chiefs of Staff
Committee too, who has at best a first-among-equals position. If
Huntington is to be heeded, the military has a characteristic of
privileging military compulsions over the political once conflict is
underway; even if it is also most reluctant to venture into a conflict
in the first place. This characteristic will be heightened were a von
Molkean interpretation of Clausewitz as the ‘Mahdi of Mass’ were to be
subscribed to. Therefore, the inclusion of military chiefs could
affect the manner in which nuclear use is actually viewed during a
conflict, with the military view gaining ascendance over the civilian-
political view. Thus, even if this is only a possibility, it detracts
from the suggested institutional innovation.
In conclusion, stasis is the enemy of perfection. The nation demands
nothing less than the closest approximation to perfection humanly
possible in its nuclear related decision making. The recommendation
imbued with this spirit is therefore a welcome development. Here, the
debate initiated has been joined equally earnestly.
Ali Ahmed is Research Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and
Analyses, New Delhi
bademiyansubhanallah
Manmohan Singh To Inaugurate Atomic Energy International Conference
Last Updated: 2009-09-28T12:11:28+05:30
The three-day international conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic
Energy, which is slated to kick off in New Delhi on Tuesday, will be
inaugurated by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The conference will be
holding discussions on topics related to the development of the growth
of nuclear energy and its peaceful applications.
The convention is being conducted as a part of the birth centenary
celebrations of Homi Jehangir Bhabha, the Indian atomic energy
founder.
"It is being organised by the Department of Atomic Energy in
association with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the
Indian Nuclear Society (INS)," said a government statement.
"The scope of the conference will cover both power and non-power
applications of nuclear energy. Several policy makers and eminent
nuclear scientists and technologists have agreed to participate in the
conference."
Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, INS president P. Rama Rao and IAEA
Director General Mohammed El Baradei will be addressing the inaugural
event.
chhotemianinshallah
petition overview | letter
Stop nuclear tests in BaluchistanTarget:U.S. State department,
European Union.Sponsored by: American Friends of
Baluchistan.WASHINGTON DC: Whereas, Pakistan tested its deadly Atomic
Bomb in occupied Baluchistan on May 28, 1998.
Whereas Pakistan's omnipotent army still calls the political shots in
the artificial state created by the British in 1947 and the army
generals are directly responsible for the Baluch genocide.
Whereas Baluchistan was annexed by Pakistan in March 1948 and a move
is afoot to knock the doors of the International Court of Justice.
Whereas several thousand people have been killed since the start of a
bloody insurgency in 2005, which the Baluch call the Fifth War of
Liberation against Pakistani occupation of their homeland since March
1948.
Whereas the Baluch have risen in arms against the occupation of their
country by Pakistan in 1948, 1958 and 1962 and 1973-77. The latest
uprising started in 2005 and the dead include former governor and
chief minister of Baluchistan, Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, and member of
the provincial assembly Mir Bala'ach Marri.
Whereas all nuclear weapons are equally condemnable, but Pakistan's
weapons of mass destruction is even more dangerous as it is religion-
specific. As part of its state ideology, Pakistan considers people
from other religions as its enemies and has made clear it will not
desist from being the first to use nuclear weapons.
Whereas Pakistan has rapaciously used Baluch resources for the
last 60 years and in stead of giving Baluchistan its due share, killed
and maimed tens of thousands of Baluch tribesmen and left their lands
contaminated by nuclear radiation in the 1998 nuclear tests. No
independent study has been conducted to see the disastrous
consequences of Pakistan's use of Baluch territories to test its so-
called Islamic bomb.
Whereas Islamic fundamentalists took to the streets of Pakistan
when the nuclear weapons were tested in Chagai 10 years ago. They had
missile replicas mounted on trucks with "U.S., Israel and India"
inscribed on them
Whereas pakistan and its nuclear weapons pose the single most dangeous
threat to the world,
We hereby ask you to use your influence to stop all military supplies
to Pakistan until such time it winds up its nuclear weapons program in
Baluchistan and grants the Baluch people their right to self-
determination.
chhotemianinshallah
The Narasimha Rao legacy lives on
It would not have made much news if PM Manmohan Singh was actually the
one who took all the decisions, either by himself or through (the much
abused phrase) ‘cabinet meetings’. But the truth is, there is Sonia
Gandhi’s haath, Manmohan ke saath (or is it oopar?); and hence the
surprise at the complete non-action of the government on almost every
recent issue of national and Congress’ interest.
The state that sends the most number of MPs and had also sent most
Congress Prime Ministers, UP, is now fast becoming a mirage for the
party. It is now a distant fourth in the state. And with the recent
defections like that of Akhil Das (son of a former Congress CM) – and
the expected exodus behind him, the future looks even grim for the
party – Rai Barelli and Amethi withstanding.
In West Bengal, the state that is vital for the present government to
survive in the event of any no-confidence motion, when the CPM ‘cadre’
uses sickle for the purpose of cutting a few lives short in Nandigram,
Congress chooses to sit back and look towards the ghastly events with
inexplicable coldness. For good or worse, for West Bengal, the
Congress stand allowed Mamta Bannerji’s Trinamul Congress to sweep the
panchayat polls in the area. Though it is still difficult to believe
that Mamta would be able to replicate teh success, as yet, in other
parts of the state, there are reasons to believe that in the next big
fight in the state, Congress might end up a very poor third. But then,
one can always ‘invite’ elected members of other parties to your party
at a good time, right?
Karunanidhi has long treated Tamil Nadu as a possesion that he needs
to nurture for the good of his extended family, while saving it from
the Jayalalitha assualt. But while newer players like actor Vijakanth
has managed to make a very impressive debut in state politics and
leaders like Vaiko continue to retain the nuisance value, Congress has
long been reduced to the stature of a B-team of either of the two
Dravidian parties. Readers, use the comment box below and write to us
names of 3 Congress leaders from Tamil Nadu. You won’t be able to.
And then there are families of Maharashtra – Pawar and Thackeray.
While Pawar has long stopped having any problem with Sonia Gandhi’s
foreign origin (much to the chagrin of P A Sangma), he is making sure
that by ‘guiding’ his daughter to the Parliament and his nephew (Ajit
Pawar) to the power corridors of Maharashtra, he is writing the death
note of Congress, an ally of his own party, NCP.
Raj Thackeray is treating the business capital of India as a
laboratory of his political ambitions and Uddhav is finally joining
the mockery of India’s constitution by joining the chorus of ’son of
the soil’ tirade of his more belligerant colleague. Of course, the
grand old man of Maharashtra’s muscle politics, Bal Thackeray, still
throws a few (verbal) stones himself.
And what does the Congress do amidst this all? Nothing. What can it
do? Nothing. Because it can’t go regional in one state and claim to be
national in other states. And because it has done precious little good
to be able to talk anyway.
In neighbouring Gujarat, the entire ‘marketing machinary’ of ALL
political parties, ‘intelligencia’ and media have failed to help the
party dislodge the BJP. But has Sonia Gandhi come up with a single big
plan for the state, which, is clearly the foundation of BJP’s pride
and success?
Karnataka is the latest big ticket casualty (mind you, West Bengal and
Tamil Nadu had long ceased to be the states where Congress presence of
any significance, but they at least had space for Congress voice) that
Congress is having to come to terms with. Yes, the party actually
increased its vote share. But it doesn’t always buys that argument
when it wins, right? And the truth is, once a party comes to power, it
goes all out to spread to all corners of the state – generally at the
expense of other parties. There is no reason to believe that BJP would
not try to do that.
And with leaders fighting amongst themselves, how much hope can
supporters of the party have of its revival anytime soon?
The issue, however, is not of individual states; but of the approach
of the party itself. The issue is about having an approach that tries
to be acceptable to all by doing equal nothing for everyone! It worked
well for Narasimha Rao once. Who knows, it might work again for the
party. At least that’s what the present leadership style seems to
suggest.
Sid Harth
No need for concern about new weapons, says China
STAFF WRITER 17:52 HRS IST
Wasfia Jalali
Beijing, Sept 28 (PTI) As it prepared to unveil a new range of weapon
systems, China today said its neighbours, including India, should not
have "any concerns" as the arms were meant for defence of the vast
country.
China's Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs Hu Zhengyue said here
that China and India have increased "political mutual trust" and the
issues "left over by history" should be resolved through friendly and
cooperative discussions between the two sides.
"We have a population of 1.3 billion and 9.6 millon square km of land,
it is understandable that we maintain a certain amount of weapons for
our defence. We have a very open and transparent national defence
policy," he told a group of visiting foreign journalists.
China will showcase up to 52 types of new weapon systems at the
October 1 military parade on the ocassion of the 60th Founding Day.
Sid Harth
UK seeks to boost defence ties with India
STAFF WRITER 17:47 HRS IST
H S Rao
London, Sep 28 (PTI) India and the UK are set to boost defence ties
with British Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth planning to undertake a
key visit to New Delhi soon.
Britain has said there is tremendous scope for strengthening defence
cooperation between India and the UK.
"India is growing in importance economically and politically. There is
a partnership growing between Britain and India and there is a very,
very significant opportunity out there to forge defence cooperation,"
Ainsworth said.
Speaking at the 'Labour Friends of India' reception, which was also
attended by the British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, Ainsworth
said he planned to visit India soon.
Indian High Commissioner Nalin Surie underlined the growing "strategic
partnership" between the two countries.
Sid Harth
Seek peaceful solution to Kashmir issue: China
STAFF WRITER 17:16 HRS IST
Wasfia Jalali
Beijing, Sept 28 (PTI) China today asked India and Pakistan to seek a
solution to the Kashmir issue through peaceful and friendly
consultations and offered to play a "constructive role" in resolving
the "bilateral issue".
As a friendly country, China would also be happy to see progress in
the peace process between India and Pakistan, said Hu Zhengyue,
Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs, in charge of the Asian region.
"Kashmir is an issue that has been longstanding left from history.
This issue touches the bilateral relations between the relevant
countries," he told a group of visiting foreign journalists here.
As China is a friendly neighbour of both countries, it hopes to see
that the two sides "will seek a solution through peaceful and friendly
consultations", Hu said when asked by a Pakistani journalist if China
was prepared to play some role in the resolution of the issue.
bademiyansubhanallah
Comment: Same Old Gambit
29 September 2009, 12:00am IST
The nuclear move-counter move that took place in New York was not
unexpected. Given that disarmament has been US president Barack
Obama's pet foreign policy initiative, a face-off of sorts was always
on the cards. It has fallen out largely as expected, although UN
Security Council Resolution 1887 calling on all non-signatories to the
Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) to sign on was a surprise. But
the rebuttal by Indian external affairs minister S M Krishna was
inevitable, as was Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's stance. And at the
end of the day, nothing has truly changed on the ground when it comes
to genuine disarmament initiatives.
Both resolution 1887 and the NPT are self-defeating in their
vagueness. The former does not authorise any concrete disarmament
measures; it is, in effect, merely a promise to keep talking. And the
latter is a fundamentally flawed document in both intent and
execution. It lacks the teeth to compel disarmament on the part of the
five de jure nuclear powers. In effect, it locks the non-nuclear
signatories into a false bargain wherein they have gambled away a
strategic option for a promise that was never delivered upon. For
India to accede to such a treaty, rolling back its nuclear programme
in the process, is simply not feasible.
That said, genuine global disarmament is a worthy goal, however
distant, that New Delhi must continue to work towards. Rajiv Gandhi's
1988 action plan provides a template, entailing verifiable, time-bound
waypoints towards disarmament for the existing nuclear powers. And
controversial though it is bound to be domestically, New Delhi should
not completely rule out signing on to the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty (CTBT) and the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT). Neither
is completely inconsistent with India's declared nuclear doctrine of
credible deterrence. If, for instance, the government is confident of
the existing arsenals and technology's effectiveness and of the
capability to conduct computer-simulated tests it would lose little by
acceding to CTBT. In the process, it may even be able to win
concessions from the US such as data and technology to aid with
simulations. Using the same logic, once a minimum credible deterrent
has been achieved in terms of size of the arsenal, the FMCT becomes a
possibility. But these remain hypothetical scenarios for now, given
that the US itself has not ratified either treaty.
It is a fine line that New Delhi must walk, safeguarding India's
strategic interests in a difficult neighbourhood while not being seen
to be obstructionist when it comes to genuine disarmament efforts. As
A Q Khan's clandestine network has shown the world, proliferation
intrinsically linked to disarmament continues to be a serious threat.
And India has more to lose than most.
bademiyansubhanallah
Comment: Over The Moon With The Mission
26 September 2009, 12:00am IST
India's first moon mission has achieved a historic first by
discovering water on the lunar surface. This is being hailed not only
as a landmark breakthrough in space science but also as a vindication
of the mission itself, since the two-year project got terminated after
just 10 months. The water divining was done by a probe sent by the US
National Aeronautical Space Agency (NASA) as part of the many payloads
carried by Chandrayaan-I. The probe's Moon Mineralogy Mapper or M3
collected data on the presence of water on the moon. Carle Pieters, a
planetary geologist with Brown University who is leading the probe's
study team in the US, gives all credit to the Indian Space Research
Organisation for making such a discovery possible.
Scientists confirming the presence of water on the moon are doing so
on the basis of scientific findings that have been arrived at after a
rigorous process of deduction and analysis and not by actually finding
lakes, pools or puddles of water that we're familiar with on earth.
And the probe has barely skimmed the lunar surface to find evidence of
water molecules and hydroxyl that interact with molecules of rock and
dust. It had access to only the top few millimetres of lunar soil, on
the bright side of the moon. The water so discerned might be the
equivalent of one litre, say researchers, enough to fuel hopes of
finding more water as ice in the darker, unexplored parts of the
moon.
Unsurprisingly, popular reaction to the NASA probe finding that there
are signs of water on the lunar surface is that, one day, human
colonies might be established on the moon and, indeed, on other
heavenly bodies which also might turn out to have a combination of
hydrogen and oxygen molecules. We see the cosmos or those parts of the
cosmos that promise water as an extension of the earth's real estate,
for us to do with it as we think fit. In other words, discoveries that
open up windows of knowledge and reveal new truths are often reduced
to how useful they are in catering to human needs.
True, it is the search for survival options that propels humankind to
strive for more sophisticated technology, effective medicine and state-
of-the-art rocket science as well as to explore space for water and
earth-like planets. However, we ought to remind ourselves that there's
more to the discovery than the science of it. The mysteries of the
cosmos are far more profound than to be revealed merely to fulfil
human needs. To circumscribe the scope of scientific inquiry to realms
that focus only on survival of the human species would amount to
limiting our own horizons of knowledge.
bademiyansubhanallah
Comment: G-20's Hour
28 September 2009, 12:00am IST
Move over, G-8. From now on, G-20 is the ''premier forum'' for global
economic cooperation. That's the message from the Pittsburgh summit of
developed and major developing nations. Cynics mock the too-many-cooks
approach to economic firefighting and decision-making that they claim
will result.
But others hail the change, including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
many of whose policy prescriptions appeared in the final communique.
Indeed, the worst downturn since the Great Depression is reason enough
to go beyond the symbolism of G-20's elevation. Status quoists forget
that the world has been executing an economic bailout demanding all
hands on deck. That's why managing a crisis triggered by Wall Street's
meltdown has seen China and India push growth vigorously, doing their
bit to keep the world economy from tanking.
Thanks to their growing clout, China, India and Brazil need a
prominent place in any international decision-making architecture.
Given emerging economies account for around half the world's output,
only pretension can drive G-8's claim to calling the shots.
It's good that a levelling framework will allow G-20 countries to work
together to ensure their policies promote sustainable, balanced
growth. G-20 also did well to agree to shift a higher percentage of
IMF's quota share to developing countries. Since IMF will keep tabs on
global economic stability, it can't remain associated with a few rich
nations.
G-20 rightly backs a rebalancing of US-China economic ties. For years
now, the US has seen inflated import bills while China has ridden on
trade surpluses. America pledging to reduce debt-fuelled spending and
China committing to boost domestic demand isn't just a G-2 affair. The
action the two sides take will be critical for future global
stability.
There was consensus as well on an issue strongly pushed by India:
stimulus measures will stay for now. While G-20 can pat its back for
preventing a recession from turning into a depression, it's too early
to end rescue operations. Exit strategies may be globally coordinated
but, for now, countries need more than green shoots to sign on.
Multilateral consensus-building is always work in progress. Broad
guidelines were adopted to raise regulatory standards for financial
institutions, with the Financial Stability Board assigned to mark
progress. But there was some discord on bankers' pay and banks'
capital requirements. It's, however, debatable whether there can be
rigid global prescriptions in such matters.
There was also talk about resisting protectionism, but many nations
haven't walked this talk. Overall, the summit formally initiated the
move away from an economic governance structure straddled by an elite
club of rich industrialised nations. Economic diplomacy has to reflect
21st century realities, and that's where Pittsburgh scores
bademiyansubhanallah
Counterview: Look who's talking
26 September 2009, 12:00am IST
Urban India is a chaotic space, no doubt. People have a propensity to
break traffic rules, ignore civic laws and, in general, behave badly
as the home minister said. But can the government solve the problem
with a crash course on good urban behaviour for citizens? Is it
possible to enforce a strict behavioural code for citizens across
cities?
Look around. Why do ordinary citizens violate civic laws? Not because
law breaking is codified in their DNA, but because the high and mighty
do so with impunity. People walk on the road because civic authorities
do not build enough footpaths or maintain the existing ones. Beggars
are around not because they love begging but because we lack social
security measures. If crime is rampant that's because the social and
economic climate encourages criminals. An insensitive and iniquitous
society is unlikely to be peaceful and its inhabitants can hardly be
expected to behave "well".
A city is a living organism and each city is distinct in its own way.
There are many variables social, cultural, economic and political that
shape the life of a city. These are not static, but constantly
evolving on account of the free flow of people and ideas. Migration,
inward and outward, is a major factor that shapes the character of
cities. People on the move prevent cities from ossifying into dead
geographies. Yes, people with diverse interests and social, cultural,
linguistic, religious and ethnic identities fighting for scarce
resources are the cause of urban conflicts. Most often, these are
resolved when collective interests are at stake. In the Indian
context, that mostly happens despite the state and its agencies.
The state is responsible for building the necessary urban
infrastructure and addressing problems of political economy. The
record of our governments on these counts, to put it mildly, is
pathetic. It doesn't even give the impression that the state is
sensitive to the concerns of the public. State officials, instead of
delivering sermons, must concentrate on creating urban spaces and
facilities and economic opportunities that will incentivise good
public behaviour. Even China first tackled problems of urban blight
before embarking on a mass public education campaign and enforcement
measures ahead of the Beijing Olympics.
chhotemianinshallah
IAF denies 'espionage' incident
Agencies
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 at 1242 hrs IST
New Delhi The Indian Air Force on Monday said none of its senior
officers was made to part with sensitive information by a foreign
embassy official posing as a Defence Ministry joint secretary.
"The IAF strongly denies the media report written on the basis of
hearsay. The report is full of untruth. At that senior level, no
sensitive information is discussed over phone," IAF spokesperson Wing
Commander T K Singha said in New Delhi.
However, he said, the report of a circular on information security
from the Defence Ministry's chief security officer routinely alerted
officials, both in the Ministry and the Services headquarters, and
warned them about the risks of discussing security matters over
phone.
A top IAF officer, who was posed a question in this regard during a
media interaction at the Air headquarters last month, had vehemently
denied that a "foreign embassy official" had obtained information from
an IAF officer.
He had said the Ministry and the Services had "the wherewithal and the
technology" to trace any call received and to identify if it was from
a friend or foe.
"So the question of given away sensitive information to unauthorised
persons does not arise," the officer had said.
A Defence Ministry official, when contacted, said a report had first
appeared in a Defence magazine in June, which was based on hearsay and
was untrue.
He said whenever sensitive information was requisitioned by Ministry
officials, it had to be done in a written format and a written
response was provided "with the requisite classification of
security."
chhotemianinshallah
India designs new atomic reactor for thorium utilisation
Agencies
Posted: Sep 16, 2009 at 1948 hrs IST
Mumbai India announced on Wednesday that it has designed a new version
of Advanced Heavy Water atomic reactor which will use lesser low
enriched uranium along with thorium as fuel and having next generation
safety requirements.
"A new version of AHWR named Advanced Heavy Water Reactor-Low Enriched
Uranium (AHWR-LEU) that uses low enriched uranium along with thorium
as fuel has been designed recently," chairman of Atomic Energy
Commission Anil Kakodkar said at the International Atomic Energy
Agency's(IAEA)'s General Conference.
The reactor has a significantly lower requirement of mined uranium per
unit energy produced as compared to most of the current generation
thermal reactors, Kakodkar said.
India, which has large thorium reserves, has chalked out a nuclear
power programme based on its domestic resource position of uranium and
thorium.
"This version can also meet the requirement of medium sized reactors
in countries with small grids while meeting the requirements of next
generation systems," Kakodkar said indicating that India was ready for
export of such reactors in the near future.
"While we strongly advocate recycle option, AHWR-LEU would also
compete very favourably even in once through mode of fuel cycle (where
spent fuel is stored without reprocessing)," he said adding that the
Department of Atomic energy has circulated a brochure of AHWR-LEU at
the Conference for the benefit of potential customers.
bademiyansubhanallah
Page last updated at 12:02 GMT, Tuesday, 29 September 2009 13:02 UK
India expands nuclear ambitions
India's nuclear sector is set to expand in a big way
A major increase in nuclear power generation over the next 40 years
will help India reduce its impact on global warming, Indian PM
Manmohan Singh says.
Speaking in Delhi, he said the nuclear industry would have huge
opportunities in India after the civilian nuclear deal signed last
year with the US.
Mr Singh also regretted that the global non-proliferation regime had
failed to prevent nuclear proliferation.
India has refused to sign the UN's Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT).
'Safer energy'
Mr Singh told the international atomic conference in Delhi that the
civilian nuclear supply agreement with the US had opened up an era of
safer and cleaner energy production.
He suggested that by 2050 nearly 500,000 MW of energy could come from
Indian nuclear power stations.
"There will be huge opportunities for the global nuclear industry to
participate in the expansion of India's nuclear energy programme. This
will sharply reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and will be a major
contribution to global efforts to combat climate change," he said.
The BBC's Chris Morris in Delhi says this is only a long-term vision.
Over the next decade the contribution of nuclear energy is expected to
rise from just 3% to 6% of the country's total needs.
Coal still accounts for more than 50% of India's energy use - which is
why Mr Singh urged India to think big about nuclear energy, our
correspondent says.
India urgently needs a huge increase in power production, as hundreds
of millions of its people are not even connected to the national
grid.
The country is one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas
emissions and has been under pressure from developed countries to cap
carbon emissions.
'Universal disarmament'
Mr Singh said India was proud of its non-proliferation record and was
committed to global efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction.
"Global non-proliferation, to be successful, should be universal,
comprehensive and non-discriminatory and linked to the goal of
complete nuclear disarmament," he told the conference.
India recently resisted renewed efforts to persuade non-signatory
states to sign the NPT.
bademiyansubhanallah
'India attaches highest priority to nuclear disarmament'
PM inaugurates int'l meet on peaceful uses of nuclear energy
A three-day international conference to discuss future roadmap for the
growth of nuclear energy was inaugurated by the Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh in New Delhi today. Top atomic scientists from across
the world are attending the conference.
United Nations, September 27, 2009
First Published: 09:28 IST(27/9/2009)
Last Updated: 09:30 IST(27/9/2009)
Welcoming the renewed global debate on achieving a world free of
nuclear weapons, India says it attaches "the highest priority" to
nuclear disarmament and stands committed to safeguarding international
peace and security.
"India attaches the highest priority to the goal of nuclear
disarmament and has an impeccable non-proliferation record," Indian
External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna said participating in the
annual debate of the UN General Assembly here Saturday.
"We welcome the renewed global debate on achieving a world free of
nuclear weapons," he said noting, "This corresponds with India's
longstanding and consistent advocacy of nuclear disarmament as one of
the highest priority of the international community."
India had put forward a number of proposals on nuclear disarmament in
the UN, including a Working Paper in 2006, proposing elements to
fashion a new consensus on disarmament and non-proliferation, he
recalled.
Krishna also appealed for assistance to developing countries in
combating the impact of climate change.
"Developing countries must be supported financially, technologically
and with capacity building resources so that they can cope with the
immense challenges of adaptation," he said.
Turning to peacekeeping in conflict zones, Krishna said India stands
committed to the safeguarding of international peace and security over
the past five decades. New Delhi had contributed more than 100,000
peacekeepers and had suffered the highest number of casualties in
these decades, he noted.
"Strengthening the normative basis for peacekeeping operations and
giving major Troop Contributing Countries (TCCs) a greater say, will
serve to make peacekeeping more effective," he said.
chhotemianinshallah
India is 'leading advocate' of nuclear disarmament: IAEA chief
Posted On: 29-Sep-2009 03:34:42 News Source: MyNews Network
New Delhi: India is the leading advocate in the world for nuclear
disarmament as the country is supporting elimination of the nuclear
arms from 1948. The voice of india should be heard by the different
countries and it can't be ignored,International Atomic Energy Agency
chief Mohammad ElBaradei said while addressing the International
Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy in New Delhi.
The IAEA Director General said if hopes of a nuclear weapons-free
world have to be turned into reality, "we have to start laying the
groundwork for a global security system that does not depend on
nuclear weapons". It has to be a system built on human solidarity and
equity; a system based on cooperation and not confrontation; on
inclusion and not exclusion, El Baradei said. Lauding India's role in
peaceful uses of nuclear energy, he said the country continues to set
the agenda for research and development in the field of sodium-cooled
fast breeder reactors. In the field of nuclear applications, he said
"India is making radiation and nuclear medicine increasingly available
in rural areas."
Expressing concern over the increase in the number of nations
possessing nuclear weapons, ElBaradei said he was "gratified" that
nuclear disarmament has now moved back to the top of the international
agenda. "Russia and the US are negotiating significant cuts in their
nuclear arsenals. There is increasing global recognition that nuclear
weapons are a threat to us all and growing momentum for their complete
abolition," he said.
The IAEA chief asserted that every country had the right to develop
nuclear power but said such nations have to ensure that nuclear
material is not diverted from peaceful to military purposes. "Every
country has the right to add nuclear power to its energy mix, as well
as a duty to do it responsibly. "That means adhering to the highest
safety and security standards and ensuring that nuclear material is
not diverted from peaceful to military purposes," he said. ElBaradei
noted that most of the 30 countries already using nuclear energy had
plans to expand their output and many countries mostly in the
developing world have informed the IAEA about their interest in
harnessing atomic power.
"Growth targets have been raised significantly here in India, as well
as in China and in the Russian Federation. Asia remains the focus of
growth in nuclear power because of this region's robust economic
growth," he said. India's remarkable economic dynamism in the past two
decades has made it a role model for many developing countries,
ElBaradei said, adding it was ideally placed to share its
technological expertise and economic know-how with less advanced
countries.
"It is vital that countries planning to build nuclear power reactors
understand the need to ensure the highest safety standards and avoid
problems faced by some countries which already have nuclear power," he
said. The IAEA chief listed ageing reactors, poorly managed or under-
funded operators and weak regulators as problems faced by some
countries active in the nuclear sector.
"A strong focus on safety and security should be seen as enablers for
the further development of nuclear energy rather than as hindrances,"
ElBaradei said. He hailed Homi Bhabha, the architect of India's
nuclear programme as an "influential figure" in the birth of the IAEA
and recalled that the visionary scientist had cast his vote in favour
of making Vienna the headquarters of the global nuclear watchdog.
Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee released commemorative coins on
Bhabha. Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar said India was
poised to play an important role in growth of the nuclear sector after
its re-entry in global nuclear trade.
bademiyansubhanallah
Spectre of nuclear terrorism a formidable challenge: PM
Agencies
Posted: Sep 29, 2009 at 1411 hrs IST
New Delhi Maintaining that the spectre of nuclear terrorism is a
formidable challenge, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh supported
strengthening of global efforts in improving nuclear security and
welcomed President Barack Obama's initiative to hold a summit on
nuclear security next year.
India, he said, has an updated, effective and comprehensive export
controls system and is "committed to not transferring sensitive
technologies and equipment to other countries that do not possess
them."
Holding that India has been sponsoring a resolution at the UN General
Assembly calling for measures to address the nuclear terrorism threat,
he said, "We support strengthening the international efforts in
improving nuclear security and in this context, welcome President
Obama's timely initiative to hold a global Summit on Nuclear Security
in 2010."
Inaugurating the International Conference on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear
Energy, he said, "India is proud of non- proliferation record and is
committed to global efforts for preventing the proliferation of all
weapons of mass destruction.
"We are committed to a voluntary, unilateral moratorium on nuclear
testing. As a nuclear weapon state and a responsible member of the
international community, we will participate constructively in the
negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) in the
Conference on Disarmament," he said.
The Prime Minister said global non-proliferation regime has not
succeeded in preventing nuclear proliferation and its deficiencies
have had an adverse impact on India's security.
"Global non-proliferation, to be successful, should be universal,
comprehensive and non-discriminatory and linked to the global of
complete nuclear disarmament," the Prime Minister said, pointing out
that there was growing international acceptance for this viewpoint.
Singh said, "It is a matter of regret that the global non-
proliferation regime has not succeeded in preventing nuclear
proliferation. Its deficiencies, in fact, have had an adverse impact
on our security."
"We are committed to a voluntary, universal, unilateral moratorium on
nuclear testing," he told the top scientists from across the world
attending the conference.
IAEA Director General Mohammad El Baradei, National Security Adviser M
K Narayanan and Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao were among the other
participants at the Conference which has been organised as part of the
year-long programme to mark the birth centenary of Homi Jehangir
Bhabha, founder of India's nuclear programme.
Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee released a commemorative coin on the
occasion.
bademiyansubhanallah
India Poised for Major Expansion of Nuclear Power
By Anjana Pasricha
New Delhi
29 September 2009
India will see a large increase in nuclear-power generation in the
coming years, helping the country bridge its huge energy deficit and
combat climate change. India says global efforts to prevent the spread
of nuclear weapons have failed.
Indian PM Manmohan Singh gestures during an international conference
on peaceful uses of atomic energy, in New Delhi, India, 29 Sep 2009
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh says the global nuclear industry
will have huge opportunities in India, as the country could have a
hundred-fold increase in nuclear energy generation, in the next four
decades.
Addressing an international conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic
Energy in New Delhi, Tuesday, Mr. Singh said that India's nuclear
energy industry is poised for major expansion.
"If we can manage our program well, our three-stage strategy could
yield potentially 470,000 megawatts of power, by the year 2050," he
said. "This will sharply reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and
will be a major contribution to global efforts to combat climate
change."
Many companies from countries like United States and France have been
eyeing the opportunity to build nuclear power plants in India since an
international ban on civil nuclear trade with the country was lifted
last year.
India hopes a massive increase in cleaner nuclear power will help it
to check greenhouse gas emissions and cut its dependence on oil, most
of which it imports.
The conference in New Delhi also focused on the issue of nuclear
disarmament. International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed El-
Baradei, who attended the conference, says nuclear disarmament has
moved to the top of the international agenda after a couple of what he
calls "wasted decades." He says plans by the United States and Russia
to resume talks on reducing their nuclear arsenals could contribute to
efforts to rid the world of such weapons.
Prime Minister Singh criticized the existing global non-proliferation
program, saying it has failed to prevent the spread of nuclear
weapons. The cornerstone of this is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, which considers only five countries as nuclear-weapons
powers.
Mr. Singh's comments come in the wake of a United Nations Security
Council resolution calling on all countries to sign the treaty. The
American-backed resolution, passed last week, has raised concerns that
India will come under pressure to join the treaty, to which it is not
a signatory.
"Its deficiencies, in fact, have had an adverse impact on our
security," said Singh. "Global non proliferation, to be successful,
should be universal, comprehensive and non-discriminatory and linked
to the goal of complete nuclear disarmament."
India has said there is no question of its joining the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty as a nuclear weapon state, saying nuclear weapons
are an integral part of its national security.
bademiyansubhanallah
India Hails Role Played by its Space Mission in Gathering Evidence of
Water on Moon
By Anjana Pasricha
New Delhi
25 September 2009
An image from India's Chandrayan 1 spacecraft shows the distribution
of water-rich minerals around a small crater on the surface of the
Moon, 24 Sep 2009
India is triumphant at the role played by its inaugural moon mission
in helping gather evidence that there is water on the moon. Indian
scientists hope the latest discovery will bring international
recognition to its space program.
The announcement that there is evidence of water on the moon has been
made by the U.S. space agency, NASA, after data from their instruments
on board an Indian satellite and two other satellites was analyzed.
The unmanned Indian spacecraft, Chandrayan, was launched to orbit the
moon last October by the Indian space agency, but the mission was
terminated last month after scientists lost communication with the
satellite.
However, data gathered before the Chandrayan mission was aborted has
shown that very fine films of water particles coat the particles that
make up the lunar surface. Scientists say it is not enough moisture
for homegrown life on the moon but if it were to be processed in mass
quantities it might provide drinking water for future moon-dwellers.
G. Madhavan Nair looks on during a press conference at ISRO
headquarters in Bangalore, 25 Sep 2009
The head of India's space agency, G. Madhavan Nair, called it a "path
breaking find" and said that Indians should be proud of the fact that
Chandrayan played a role in the discovery.
"I am proud to announce that our Chandrayan I has confirmed presence
of water molecules on the surface of the moon," he said. "One of the
main objectives of Chandrayan was to look for water on the lunar
surface. The instruments, especially the mineral mapping instrument of
NASA has caught the signature very clearly. "
Nair said the Indian satellite had helped point the NASA-made
instrument to the right location and the right spot.
Indian scientists say the latest discovery shows that the country's
inaugural moon mission was a huge success and not a failure even
though it was prematurely terminated.
Indian newspapers also greeted India's role in the find. The leading
daily Times of India called it a "One Big Step for India, Giant Leap
for Mankind."
Finding evidence of water on the moon is seen by scientists as a key
step in enabling mankind to set up bases on the moon for further
probes. Until now they had advanced the theory that the moon is dry.
Scientists say further studies will be needed to establish the
quantity and quality of water on the moon.
India has been scaling up its space program in recent years, wanting
to join other major space faring nations like USA, Russia and China.
And the role it has played in establishing the presence of water on
the moon is seen as a significant advance for its space program.