Delhi Timber is the Best Plywood Supplier in Delhi or all over India

Remember the varied necessities of our clients, we are involved in offeringawide series of Waterproof Plywood.

Delhi Timber the Foremost century ply suppliersin Delhi. We have worked out the greatest century ply value list and can deliver the best modest rates. As we are the number Waterproof Playwood dealers in Delhi.

We embracehuge expertise in providinganextensivevariety of Waterproof Plywood. Our plywood is mass-produced making usage of ultra-modern and supreme-grade wood methods at our sound construction unit by our skilful professionals. Because of its water proof natureand high strength, this 18mm Plywood is extremely appreciated and used in the adornment of interior and fashioning work. The delivered plywood is offered in numerous sizes and projects at areasonable price. 

Remember the ever-evolving requirements of our customers, we are keen towards providingabest quality collection of Waterproof Plywood.Owed to the exertions of our accomplishedexperts, Plywood Supplier have been continuallyinvolved in providing a qualitative variety of Waterproof Plywood.

Our valuedclients can avail from us abeautifulvariety of Waterproof Plywood within the specified frame of time. These goods are intended from high quality workings.

Owed to our expertise in this arena, we are providing our customersanextensive range of Meranti Wood. Our product variety is sourced from our dependable vendors, who provided special treatment with water solvable fix type preserving chemicals below vacuum pressure that offersinhibition against attack of micro-organism. These products are valued for their high resistance power and dimensional constancy even in thrilling wet and dry situations.

Supported by our rich business experience and our knowledge, we are providing Meranti Wood. Owed to its satisfactory finish, our presented range is extremely demanded amongst our precious customers. The delivered range is extensively used in numerous furniture making businesses. Furthermore to this, our products can be availed at marketplaceimportant price.

We have been calculatedamong the greatest trusted names in this domain, involved in providing Meranti Wood Plank.In the red to our improved industrial skills, we are committed to given that a wide variation of outstanding quality Meranti Wood.

Features:

Optimum strength, Moisture resistance, Resistant to termite.

Equallysimple to very simple. Interlocked particlesmight cause some tearing and a decrease cutting angle of 20 degree is suggested for planning.Cutting edge should be retained clear & sharp.

How radicalised is Pakistan Army

How radicalised is Pakistan Army today? was the question which formed the focal point of an intense discussion organised by Observer Research Foundation on September 20. Well-known academics, journalists, experts and military officers attended the discussion which was chaired by Mr Vikram Sood, Vice President (International Affairs), ORF and former chief of Research & Analysis Wing.

2007

Sep

20

How radicalised is Pakistan Army today? was the question which formed the focal point of an intense discussion organised by Observer Research Foundation on September 20. Well-known academics, journalists, experts and military officers attended the discussion which was chaired by Mr Vikram Sood, Vice President (International Affairs), ORF and former chief of Research & Analysis Wing.

Leading the discussions, Col RSN Singh, an author of an upcoming ORF book on Pakistan Army, said religious fundamentalism in Pakistan, as well as within Pakistan Army, was on the rise and would pose serious challenge not only to India but the world in general. He cited several instances to buttress his argument that the process of radicalisation in Pakistan was steeped in its origin.

Every ruler in Pakistan has contributed to the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan mostly for survival and political exigencies. He said: “Jinnah had little patience with Ulema. If most Ulema viewed Jinnah as irreligious, Jinnah considered them as corrupt, power hungry theocrats. About imposition of Sharia Law, Jinnah had said, “I certainly do not propose to handover the field to Ulema.”  After Jinnah’s death, the debate between modernists and radicals intensified. Some radicals even questioned the need for a constitution since the Quran and Sunnah covered all aspects of human life including political.

Referring to the abiding influence of religion in martial matters, Col Singh said the Pakistan Army first used religion to launch an assault in Kashmir immediately after 1947 and managed to occupy large tracts of land before being stopped by the Indian forces. The operation was carried out with the help of tribals from Pakistan’s tribal borderlands. Extremist bands of irregular soldiers were used for the second time in East Pakistan when the Army raised a ‘Razakaar’ (volunteer force), comprising non-Bengalis divided into two brigades i.e. Al-Badr and Al-Shams. These groups were trained for special operations and were employed for the protection of key areas and vital installations. Members of these groups also functioned as Pak Army’s death squads to eliminate dissidents and rebels who espoused the cause of Bangladesh.

Col Singh explained how the process of radicalisation of the Pakistani society, and the military, has progressed through successive military and civilian governments with radical elements in the society gathering strength. He said there were clear signs of radicalisation gaining ground in the Army.

Intervening in the discussion, Prof Kalim Bahadur, a well-known expert on religious fundamentalism and Pakistan, said the concept of jihad could be traced way beyond 1857 to 18th century when a Delhi religious teacher, Shah Waliullah, led the campaign for reviving Islam and gave a call for a jihad to purify the religion. He said of the wars Pakistan has fought with India, only the 1947-48 operations, 1999 Kargil Operations and the proxy war were declared as jihad. Prof. Bahadur cautioned against making a generalised assessment of radicalisation in the armed forces by relying on conjectures rather than facts. He added that this was a difficult engagement as reliable materials remain inaccessible, especially to Indian scholars.

Other discussants referred to the radicalisation of the Army and the impact it has on the fighting capability of the force. Brigadier Gurmeet Kanwal, Deputy Director, Centre for Landwarfare Studies, Delhi, said radicalisation has certainly affected the fighting capability of the armed forces in Pakistan. But, he cautioned, it would be fallacious to confuse normal religious practices with fundamentalism. Major General Sheru Thapliyal, a former Divisional Commander in the Indian Army, pointed out that contrary to popular belief that General Ayub Khan, Pakistan’s first military dictator, was a liberal, westernised General, he too was given to seeking divine help in matters of military. In fact, General Thapliyal, specifically pointed out a meeting in which Ayub decided on a particular deployment of forces during the 1965 war after a ‘divine conversation’.

Some of the discussions referred to the present troubles afflicting the Pakistan Army, particularly in its operations in Waziristan and other areas in the tribal areas and North West Frontier Province. There were references to the surrender of more than 200 soldiers and officers to the Taliban in Waziristan and dissensions within the rank and file over the military operations targeted against Pushtun tribals.

• POLICY BRIEFS
• JUL 20 2006

Mumbai Blasts: Time to Act

• P. V. RAMANA
• WILSON JOHN

The Mumbai serial train blasts that killed over 200 persons on July 11, 2006 is the most serious attack on the Indian state and its people since the attack on Parliament in December 2001. To assure the people that they will be protected, the government should immediately formulate a National Counter-Terrorism Strategy, create a separate Ministry of Internal Security affairs.

The Mumbai serial train blasts that killed over 200 persons and left more than 700 injured within a span of 11 minutes on July 11, 2006 is the most serious attack on the Indian state and its people since the attack on Parliament on December 13, 2001. Like the Parliament attack, the Mumbai blasts should be treated as an act of war against the nation. These attacks were some of the high points in the continuing proxy-war that Pakistan has launched against India.

State response to such terrorist incidents has been grossly inadequate. On occasions, there has been a complete breakdown of the law and order machinery. Poor intelligence gathering and lack of will and resources to follow-up on information provided by Central and or State intelligence agencies have often allowed terrorist groups to carry out their operations without much difficulty. Police have often failed to deter terrorists. This malaise is caused by a growing lack of professionalism in intelligence agencies and police forces, phenomenal increase of political interference and government’s indifference to carry out reforms in the police.

The political response to terrorism has been equally dismal. At the initial stages and even much later, the State governments are reluctant to describe terrorist acts as ‘terrorist acts’ and prefer to deal with them as law and order problems until it is too late. Political parties have often neutralized anti-terrorism laws for narrow political interests. The leadership has repeatedly failed to face the challenge of terrorism squarely, capitulating in the face of crises like hijackings and hostage-taking incidents.

India is, therefore, increasingly being seen as a soft and indolent state which is bending over backwards for vote bank politics. This impression has to be corrected forthright. If this is not done, ordinary citizens, including minorities, will lose faith in the government and the terrorists will take advantage, as they seem to be doing.

There is a general lack of public awareness or a reluctance to help or volunteer information lest it rebound on the informer. There is a lack of public confidence in the law and order machinery and also a genuine lack of general awareness about what to look for and what to do. There is, at the same time, an over dependence on the state with an unwillingness to help in the normal course.

To assure the people that they will be protected the government should undertake the following measures:

(i) Policy & Mechanism – Formulate a National Counter-Terrorism Strategy; and Create separate Ministry of Internal Security affairs and institute a Counter Terrorism Centre;

(ii) Armed & Punitive Action -Direct overt and covert actions against terrorists and terrorist groups; Completely root-out the underworld in Mumbai. Silence fugitive underworld leaders and operatives; Hunt down groups like SIMI. Punish political leaders linked to such groups; and Stop terrorist funding through punitive legislation.

(iii) Legislation – Introduce a comprehensive, permanent anti-terror law and take firm action to prevent the abuse of such a law; Make a provision to declare a person as terrorist; and Take action to secure extradition of fugitive terrorists.

(iv) Intelligence & Security – Re-invigorate intelligence and police forces in all States; Strengthen Joint Taskforce on Intelligence, Multi Agency Centre and Joint Intelligence Committee; and Create Counter-Terrorism Fund.

(v) Prevention, Preparedness and Response – Formulate a comprehensive action plan to prevent attacks on mass transit systems; and Prepare to face recurring, more lethal terror attacks

(vi) Pakistan – Make terrorism an integral part of Composite Dialogue.

● Force Pakistan to shut down LeT, JeM and all other terrorist organizations targeting India.

● Launch global diplomatic and media campaign to pressurize Pakistan to act against terrorist groups

Kashmir again becoming a victim of big power game

• SANJAY KAPOOR

Nawaz Sharif may have made friendly noises towards India, but two years of relative tranquility that the two countries have enjoyed along with Kashmir is threatening to become a casualty of the big power game. Some interested powers have begun to show inordinate interest in the Kashmir dispute all over again.

It’s May and still cold in Srinagar. “The cool weather is just to help the flowers bloom (phool wali sardi),” I am informed cheerfully by my driver as he shifts the gear of his Innova SUV on the road leading to Srinagar’s famed Nishat Garden. Indeed, the old Mughal garden is resplendent with the colours of the most beautiful flowers. Across the road, at the Dal Lake, a shikara lazily moves over its still, but blue waters. It’s a perfect picture postcard of peace, but is it for real?

“No! Don’t go by what you see or what you are told by the central or the state government. Peace has not returned to Kashmir,” I am informed by a local journalist. Syed Ali Shah Geelani, hardline separatist leader of the All Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC) under house arrest for months, is a little embarrassed when told about how peaceful his valley is. “It’s all superficial. If people return to work to earn their livelihood then it should not be seen as if Kashmir has become peaceful again,” says the ailing fire-breathing leader.

“Kashmiri youth have become radicalized and the movement for azadi has become more indigenous and deeper,” stresses the young and articulate Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, another APHC leader, though a moderate. Contrary to the narrative of peace built by the central and state agencies that tourism has helped the state recover from violence and terror, many Kashmiris seem to be preparing for the worst as April 2014, the much anticipated date of withdrawal of US troops in Afghanistan, comes closer. A piece of graffiti — ‘Welcome to Taliban’ — scrawled near a bus stop adjacent to Srinagar’s famed Hazratbal shrine evidenced dark forebodings for the future. Based in Pakistan, extremist leader Hafiz Sayeed’s threat to focus more on India in 2014 deepens these anxieties. Sayeed, protected by certain sections in the Pakistani establishment, has been accused by India of masterminding the 26/11 Mumbai carnage.

Although Pakistan’s assembly elections were disappointingly silent — for separatists — on the Kashmir issue, there were expectations that the radicalization of Pakistani society and the influence the Tehrik-e-Taliban might exercise on the next government would not really leave Kashmir unscathed. Young Kashmiris may have wanted cricketer Imran Khan to win the Pakistan assembly polls, but they are not unhappy with Nawaz Sharif. He, too, is seen to be close to all those who have helped Kashmiri separatists in the past. Sharif may have made friendly noises towards India, but two years of relative tranquility that the two countries have enjoyed along with Kashmir is threatening to become a casualty of the big power game. Some interested powers have begun to show inordinate interest in the Kashmir dispute all over again.

Despite quiet assurance displayed by security officials in Srinagar and New Delhi (“there are just 70-odd militants left in Kashmir and we are keeping a close watch on them”), violence showed its head in the last week of June. First, two policemen were killed and then a military convoy on the way to Baramulla was ambushed near heavily policed Hyderpura on the outskirts of Srinagar. Eight soldiers were killed in this professionally executed brazen attack. Worse, the attackers escaped unhurt.

Besides, the incident took place three days before the visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress chief Sonia Gandhi, who were visiting Srinagar to inaugurate a project loaded with immense symbolism — the Banihal-Qazigund tunnel that connects the valley with the rest of the country. This 11-km link will provide a major section of all-weather rail routes between Jammu and Kashmir. The rail route is also meant to convey another message to the people of the valley and to the separatists — that Kashmir is non-negotiable and the government has the resolve and muscle to defend its projects and interests here.

If the prime minister had come a week earlier, maybe much of what he had said about peace returning to the valley would have sounded credible; but after the Hyderpura ambush, everything looked different. Also, this is the first time in many years that Indian army soldiers had died in the city of Srinagar and not at the border. In that sense, it is a serious setback.

If these two incidents of terrorism reignited the dying embers of separatism as well as the allegations of cross-border terrorism against Pakistan, then it would begin to lend meaning to the reworked narrative that has been going around in diplomatic circles. This theory, that has been made fashionable by the new Brookings paper titled, ‘A deadly triangle:

‘Afghanistan, Pakistan and India’, by Delhi-based historian William Dalrymple, claims that Afghanistan’s problem cannot be solved till relations between India and Pakistan are sorted out. In his reckoning, India and Pakistan are fighting a proxy war in Afghanistan. Dalrymple, who lives in Delhi, is conscious of Indian sensitivities, but he has a flawed view of history that is bound to outrage the Afghans and Pakistanis and leave Indians wondering what he is trying to imply since he completely bails out the West and its misadventures in Afghanistan.

Courtesy : Hardnews, July

• ISSUE BRIEFS AND SPECIAL REPORTS
• JAN 10 2017

Countering insurgency in Kashmir: The cyber dimension

• VINAY KAURA

• CVE
• CYBER DIMENSION
• INSURGENCY
• KASHMIR

Countering the militancy in Kashmir has become a highly challenging task due to the exploitation of new information and communication technology by insurgent groups. The battlefield is now a multidimensional one, encompassing both physical territory and cyberspace. The overall capabilities of insurgents have been enhanced by tools in cyberspace that are inexpensive, ever more sophisticated, rapidly proliferating, and easy to use. Militants are systematically exploiting the Internet to generate moral support, recruit personnel, and transmit propaganda, leading to the further militarisation of the Kashmiri youth. This paper examines the potentially disastrous consequences of the use of cyberspace by an already strong insurgency in Kashmir. The objective is to understand the most effective means to counter the cyber dimension of the Kashmir insurgency.

INTRODUCTION

Individuals, civil society organisations, and governments are investing tremendous energy and money in cyberspace, transforming innumerable aspects of peoples’ daily lives. Cyberspace has also had a transformative impact on the evolution of all sorts of conflicts. Just as the French Revolution (1789-1799) saw a “democratisation of communications, an increase in public access, a sharp reduction in cost, a growth in frequency, and an exploitation of images to construct a mobilizing narrative”[1], today’s internet-driven technological revolution has led to a phenomenal growth in connectivity while giving individuals and small groups disproportionate power. Audrey Kurth Cronin argues that “blogs are today’s revolutionary pamphlets, websites are the new dailies, and list serves are today’s broadsides”.[2]

Describing the characteristics of a fast evolving ‘network society’, Manuel Castells, a renowned thinker on communication and information society, argues that “conflicts of our time are fought by networked social actors aiming to reach their constituencies and target audiences through the decisive switch to multimedia communication networks”.[3] John Mackinlay has contended that changes in mass communications have deeply affected the nature of insurgencies in which physical space has been rendered less important. With the rise of a “deterritorialised” state, insurgents are capable of using propaganda crafted and disseminated from distant locations. Mackinlay writes that “the techniques of an insurgency evolve with the societies from which it arises…if the communications revolution has given birth to global communities and global movements, so too can it herald a form of insurgent energy that is de-territorialised and globally connected.”[4] It is clear that insurgencies are being shaped by cyberspace, shifting the centre of gravity from the physical world to the ‘virtual’ domain or cyberspace. Noted security expert, Bill Gertz, has similarly argued in his latest book, iWar: War and Peace in the Information Age, that “warfare in the twenty-first century will be dominated by information operations: nonkinetic conflict waged in the digital realm”.[5]

Concern over ‘communications strategies’, ‘network society’, ‘information operations’ and other variations on propaganda reflects Castells’ point. According to political scientist, Joseph Nye, “In an information age, communications strategies become more important, and outcomes are shaped not merely by whose army wins but also by whose story wins. In the fight against terrorism, for example, it is essential to have a narrative that appeals to the mainstream and prevents its recruitment by radicals. In the battle against insurgencies, kinetic military force must be accompanied by soft power instruments that help to win over the hearts and minds (shape the preferences) of the majority of the population”.[6]  Echoing Nye’s words, Britain’s former Chief of Defence Staff, General David Richards had contended that “Conflict today, especially because so much of it is effectively fought through the medium of the communications revolution, is principally about and for people – hearts and minds on a mass scale.”[7] As triggering a conflict through cyberspace can be low-cost and potentially devastating in impact, insurgents and terrorists throughout the world have come to rely heavily on cyber mobilisation, which is designed to conduct psychological warfare, to propagandise the success of insurgents and counter the claims of governmental agencies, to recruit, finance, and train more fighters to the cause.[8] These factors are compelling counterinsurgents to turn their attention to the cyber environment. There is still, however, a great deal of debate about how insurgency can be waged in the cyberspace. Counterinsurgency experts would ask whether it is simply an ‘old wine’ in a ‘new bottle’ or an arena for a completely new dimension that has not existed before.

Jammu & Kashmir: Another Wake-Up Call

• B. RAMAN

In an article of November 22, 2004, on India-Pakistan relations (http://www.saag.org/papers12/paper1169.html), I had written as follows:

In an article of November 22, 2004, on India-Pakistan relations (http://www.saag.org/papers12/paper1169.html), I had written as follows:

“The positive factors noticed since the beginning of the year should not be interpreted as indicating the beginning of the end of Pakistani-sponsored terrorism. Musharraf has retained his capability to step on the terrorism accelerator once again, if needed. The terrorist infrastructure in Pakistani territory in the form of training camps and sanctuaries remains intact and he has not taken any action to arrest the over 20 Indian and Pakistani terrorists, including Dawood Ibrahim, wanted for trial in India and hand them over to the Indian authorities.”

“While the US has definitely pressurised him to reduce, if not stop, the infiltrations, its pressure, if there has been any, on him to put an end to the terrorist infrastructure and arrest the Indian terrorists in Pakistani territory and hand them over to India has not produced results.”

“Musharraf’s calculation is that so long as he keeps the jihadi terrorism confined to J&K and concentrated on the security forces without indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians, the international community in general and the US in particular would remain inclined to agree with his projection of the happenings in J&K as a freedom struggle and not terrorism and would not exercise undue pressure on Pakistan to stop even this. One should not be surprised if his calculation proves right.”

Two subsequent developments should be of great concern to India. The first relates to Gen.Pervez Musharraf’s meeting with President George Bush in Washington DC on December 4, 2004, and the second to the casualties suffered by the Indian security forces in J&K in two terrorist strikes coinciding with his visit. The first took place just before his arrival in the US and the second on the day of his talks with Bush.

His visit to the US was preceded by a notification sent by the Bush Administration to the Congress of its intention to give to Pakistan another military package amounting to US $ 1.3 billion. The earlier post-9/11 military lollipops to Musharraf were projected by the Bush Administration to India as counter-terrorism equipment meant for use against the Taliban and Al Qaeda dregs near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The explanation sounded plausible.

The latest package has no counter-terrorism value. It consists of items such as Orion naval surveillance aircraft, which could be used by Pakistan only against India and not against Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Musharraf has managed to get from the US all that he wanted except the F-16 aircraft. According to him, the F-16 request was discussed by him with Bush, but there was no announcement on this. It is only a question of time before he gets even this. Our concerns are going to be of no avail in Washington DC, so long as it continues to look upon him as one of the main guarantors of homeland security in the US by keeping the Al Qaeda in disarray through his military operations, ostensibly directed against Al Qaeda dregs in Pakistani territory.

As I had pointed out in a recent paper on terrorism in Afghanistan and Central Asia, Musharraf has once again demonstrated his usefulness to the Bush Administration not only by preventing the Taliban from disrupting the Presidential elections in Afghanistan in October, 2004, but also by ensuring the victory of Hamid Karzai in the first round itself, by mobilising the Pashtun votes in Karzai’s favour on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Without the absentee ballots in his favour from Pakistan, Karzai was very unlikely to have won in the first round itself.

The US has refused to recognise the fairness of the elections in Ukraine, inter alia, on the ground that Moscow manipulated the absentee ballots of the Ukrainians living in Russia to ensure the defeat of a pro-US candidate. But, it had hastened to proclaim the fairness of the elections in Afghanistan despite a similar manipulation of the absentee Pashtun votes by Musharraf’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to ensure the victory of Karzai, who enjoys the US benediction.

With Musharraf’s continuing usefulness for ensuring homeland security in the US and the US strategic interests in Afghanistan thus proved, there ought to be no surprise that the question of the continuing anti-India terrorist infrastructure in Pakistani territory received no mention, either before, during or after Musharraf’s pow-wow with Bush.

The Washington meeting was preceded by a raid by terrorists into a special operations group’s camp in Sopore in J&K in which five para-military personnel were reportedly killed. Coinciding with the Washington meeting, the Hizbul Mujahideen (HM), whose leader Syed Salahuddin continues to operate from his sanctuary in Pakistan, blew up with a remote-controlled landmine a military vehicle at village Nain Batapora in south Kashmir’s Pulwama district, killing nine military personnel and two civilians.

What do these terrorist strikes indicate?

First, they underline once again his confidence that he has nothing to fear from the US so long as he keeps the jihadi terrorist strikes confined to Kashmiri territory and directed against the Indian security forces. 

Second, they are meant to convey a message to public opinion in Pakistan that his close relations with the US and his co-operation with it in the so-called war against Al Qaeda would not come in the way of Pakistan’s continuing proxy war against India in J&K. 

India finds itself a prisoner of its own unwise and unwarranted over-anxiety for a thaw in Indo-Pakistan relations. This over-anxiety has made us mute spectators of continued use of jihadi terrorism by Pakistan against India lest any public articulation of our concerns come in the way of this chimera of a thaw and be viewed by the international community negatively.

Under normal circumstances, India would have been and should have been in the forefront of those drawing the attention of the international community to the over 200 references to Pakistan and terrorism in the report of the US National Commission on 9/11, to the role of Dr.A.Q.Khan, Pakistan’s nuclear scientist, with the consent of Gen.Mirza Aslam Beg, Gen. Jehangir Karamat and Gen.Musharraf, in assisting Iran and North Korea in acquiring a military nuclear capability and to the continuing Pakistani sponsorship of jihadi terrorism directed against India and to its repeated violation of the provisions of the UN Security Council Resolution No.1373 relating to sanctuaries to terrorists.

But, since the meeting between Shri A.B.Vajpayee, former Prime Minister, and Musharraf in Islamabad in January 2004, we have been observing a strange silence on all these issues . Have our silence and inaction benefited us? No. It has only benefited Pakistan by encouraging it to continue on its present path and by helping it to rehabilitate itself in the eyes of the international community. By our silence, we are unwittingly letting ourselves become the objective allies of Musharraf in his efforts to keep us bleeding. 

[The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai, and Distinguished Fellow and Convenor, Observer Research Foundation (ORF), Chennai Chapter. e-mail: corde@vsnl.com]

* Views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Observer Research Foundation.

Significance of Vajpayee’s China Visit

• M RASGOTRA

China¿s decision in the 1980's to supply to Pakistan nuclear weapons technology and missiles capable of delivering nukes over long distances was intended to bind India down in a south Asian strategic impasse and constrict India's larger role in Asia and the world. China achieved only partial success in that objective.

China’s decision in the 1980’s to supply to Pakistan nuclear weapons technology and missiles capable of delivering nukes over long distances was intended to bind India down in a south Asian strategic impasse and constrict India’s larger role in Asia and the world. China achieved only partial success in that objective. China’s military – political support for Pakistan only steeled India’s political will to face their combined hostility and strengthen its defense capability. India’s international stature has actually been growing, especially after the unshackling of its economy in the 1990s and its conduct as a responsible nuclear weapon power. If China had ever contemplated a peace-role in South Asia, it has lost it; and its Pakistan policy has placed a ceiling beyond which it’s political and security relationship with India cannot rise.

Within these constraints, however, scope exists – and efforts are needed from both sides – for an expanded and more cooperative relationship in economic, commercial, social and cultural fields. India must also engage China in a sustained political dialogue for the simple reason that in diplomacy in a globalizing world there is no room for nursing old grievances in sullen resentment. Besides, such a dialogue is necessary for reaching a settlement of the boundary problem. Viewed in this light, Prime Minister Vajpayee’s June visit to China assumes special significance. A good part of the credit for the success of this visit goes to the new Chinese leadership, which also seems to have opted for a tangibly improved relationship with India of which the concession on Sikkim’s status as a part of India is valuable evidence.

In the MOU signed in Beijing on Trade there is fairly explicit recognition of Nathu La as a pass on the India-China border, not Sikkim’s border with Tibet or China. The designation of Chhangu in Sikkim as the trading venue is equally significant. China’s proposal for opening of the Nathu La trade route had been on the table for 10 years: China had been insisting that Kalimpong – i.e. a venue in India, but outside Sikkim – be designated as the “Venue for border trade market”, which demand the Indian side had firmly rejected. The change in China’s position in this regard is a notable development.

Clearly, this has nothing much to do with India’s reiteration of its oft-stated position on Tibet. On four or five occasions since 1954, we have used slightly varying formulations to say the same thing; namely, that Tibet is an autonomous region of China and, that Tibet, indeed, is a part of China. The June Declaration says no more, no less. But if the Chinese take same satisfaction in this reiteration of the same reality in a varying juxtaposition of words now and then, so be it. Tibet never was India’s to hold or to give away. Only a sophist would see some kind of a surrender here on Vajpayee’s part.

The agreement to give political push to border talks is another positive step. Wrangling between officials of the two sides has never in the past led to the least progress on the border issue. Defining the LoAC at any rate is an exercise in futility. In all sectors of the border, the two armies are firmly entrenched in the areas under their occupation, and both recognize that further encroachment by either side is out of the question. Therefore, a boundary settlement can now come only out of a political decision acknowledging and accepting the reality on the ground. The credit for proposing the appointment of political level special representatives to “explore the framework of a boundary settlement” goes to the Indian Prime Minister, who did it, characteristically, on the spur of the moment, without prior internal discussion or intimation to the Chinese side. That the Chinese responded positively, after a short interval of quick reflection, is indicative of the new regime’s pragmatic and constructive approach to relations with India.

Legal niceties apart, China needs Aksai Chin as a vital link with Tibet; and India cannot give up Arunachal Pradesh. The question Brajesh Mishra should pose to his counterpart is: does China really need all the area it has occupied in Aksai Chin beyond its claimed traditional and customary line? And that, if India guarantees the security of Chinese roads in that region, will it return some part of that territory to placate public opinion in India in favour of “a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable” settlement.

The agreement on 6 – month, multiple-entry business visas, which has received little attention in our media is likely in my view to prove of critical importance to the expansion of trade, investments and industrial collaborations between the two countries. Complementarities exist between the two economies which need to be exploited to increase exchanges for mutual benefit. The proposed appointment of a Joint Study Group of officials and economists, and enhanced direct air and shipping links etc. will help achieve that objective only if there is a positive attitudinal change in our bureaucracy’s outlook on this issue and a policy review actually encourages Indian Business and Industry to actively explore avenues of heightened economic and trade activity.