Asian politics

Banyan's notebook

China and Kashmir

Kashmir: the China connection

Aug 29th 2010, 11:58 by Banyan

AN ODD row has broken out over the failed attempt of an Indian general, B. S. Jaswal, who heads the army’s Northern Command, to visit China. General Jaswal was refused a visa, apparently because of his work in Kashmir.

This is not entirely surprising. China has been irritating India for about a year now with its unwillingness to issue normal visas to residents of the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K).

One interpretation of its rejection of General Jaswal is that it is engaged in simple tit-for-tat diplomacy, following India’s refusal to allow a Chinese diplomat to visit its troubled north-eastern state of Manipur to give a talk.

There is probably more to it than that, however. For B. Raman, a former head of the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), India's main spy agency, China’s policy is consistent with a change in its stance on Indian-held Kashmir: “it has diluted its past acceptance of  J&K as a de facto part of India.”

As Mr Raman notes, this must delight Pakistan, which will see it as tacit support for its claim to all of Kashmir. He points out it might also be seen as a way of bolstering China’s position in possible future negotiations over Indian-claimed territory it now occupies.

In the context of the long-running and largely suppressed strategic tension between the two giant neighbours, China’s hints of sympathy for Pakistan over Kashmir, and for secessionists in the territory itself, are extremely unwelcome for India.

It will also have noticed and been concerned by China’s increased activity in Pakistan's “Northern Areas” (which were recently renamed as Gilgit-Baltistan), the north-western part of the old J&K kingdom. Chinese soldiers there are working on road, railway and other infrastructure projects. This will provide a fast route into western China from the port it is building at Gwadar, on Pakistan's shore of the Arabian Sea.

According to Selig Harrison, an American analyst, writing in the New York Times, the Chinese influence is greater than had been known and Pakistan “is handing over de facto control” of Gilgit-Baltistan, which is suffering a simmering revolt against Pakistani rule. He says between 7,000 and 11,000 Chinese troops are there.

Curiously, Mr Harrison equates this “collusion” by Pakistan with China with the support of parts of its establishment for the Taliban, as evidence it is not an American ally. Surely, to be “with” America, a country doesn’t yet have to be “against” China?

You must be logged in to post a comment.
Please login or sign up for a free account.
1-20 of 41
K.V.S. wrote:
Aug 30th 2010 8:30 GMT

This is a living proof of how deceptive Pakistan and China can be, Transferring control of a disputed territory.

Now it all makes sense why does China support Pakistan's claim to kashmir they want to pave a highway to gulf region.

Aug 30th 2010 8:47 GMT

Actually, the US and China are united in their consistent (and consistently questionable) support for Pakistan. For the US, it's a matter of military strategy. For China, it's all about economics.

Aug 30th 2010 9:41 GMT

I found Selig Harrison's piece reactionary and shrill. Harrison bases his assertions on an ill fitting jig saw of third party accounts - its suprising that this passed the muster of the NYT editorial board.

A far more nuanced account can be found in the Foreign Relations Council journal. Robert Kaplan uses the language of Halford Mackinder to plausibily suugest that China is the 'pivot' of the new 'world island' and it naturally seeks to secure it future resource needs by forming strategic partnerships with (balkanised) Pakistan and (fractious) Myanmar.

The Indian Ocean will be the new strategic 'mediterranean' littoral which China and India will seek to dominate (India is building a blue water navy that will be the world's 3rd largest). Currently all hydrocarbon trade to 'Chindia' goes by sea via sea; China can bypass this by building gas/oil pipelines overland from Iran and Myanmar. Therefore it needs Pakistani (..and Afghanistan) to be stable to acquiese to the the pipeline transit.

China's pressence in Pakistan and Myanmar is rationale - its strategic goal in builiding the pipeline elevates the importance of Aksai Chin and Baltistan. This, I believe, is the reason why it seeks to undermine Indian influence in Kashmir.

Aksai Chin has gone from being a sleeply forgotten outpost of Chinese hegemon to being a Chinese 'core interest'. I expect bi-lateral relations being Pakistan and China to get closer as on the issue of Kashmir their interests are alligned.

; he openly admits that

nkab wrote:
Aug 30th 2010 12:28 GMT

This is what China and Pakistan should have done long time ago and India should have voiced its support for the connection in its own strategic interest.

A convenient connection between western China and Pakistani Gilgit-Baltistan to Gwadar port is far more significant than just the transportation of oil.

Such a transportation link straight across Pakistan will enhance commerce activities along the route, uplifting peoples’ lives there and solidifying tribal factions with Pak central government.

This kind of development is the best defense measure against encroachment of Pakistan by Islamic extremists, Taliban and terrorists, and preventing them from taking root in Pakistan.

A stabilized and stronger central Pak government would be very much in the strategic interest of India and better for Pak-India relations than if vast swath of areas in Pakistan was left underdeveloped and prone to be infiltrated with pockets of extremists and terrorists without the prosperity and economic growth due to such linkage.

By the same reason, the connection would be a positive measure helpful to the US global strategic objective of fighting global terrorism. Perhaps that’s why tacit approval on the part of the US was reached according some unconfirmed reports.

MuslimMan wrote:
Aug 30th 2010 1:36 GMT

Good on China. Let us (Pakistan and China) gang up on India.

SilentChinese wrote:
Aug 30th 2010 1:50 GMT

As far as I can remember the map of Kashimir has always been with dashes and dotted lines, in almost every respected atlases outside of India.

so why the fuss now if china chooses

and the bit about "Chinese soldiers there are working on road"..

that's just pure stupidity on part of Selig Harrison.

SilentChinese wrote:
Aug 30th 2010 1:51 GMT

completing the post:

so why the fuss now if china chooses to stick to its official position?

SilentChinese wrote:
Aug 30th 2010 1:55 GMT

And one more thing about Taliban.

May be Chinese public was Ambivalent to Taliban control of Afghanistan, but after they blew up Buddhas of Bamyan, whatever sympathy was gone.

If china was so irrational to invest in afghanistan, including big copper mines in Northern Afghanistan AND support Taliban as some opinionators have suggested, then either China is stupid or these opinionators are stupid.

Clearly one would expect the later to be case.

Aug 30th 2010 2:16 GMT

Banyan

For a more subtle view on the geopolitics of 'Chindia' I suggest you read Robert Kaplan's "Center Stage for the 21st Century" [link: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64832/robert-d-kaplan/center-stage-for-the-21st-century].

Much better than Harrison's hatchet job.

Dr Jake C wrote:
Aug 30th 2010 5:46 GMT

@silent chinese
It would be similar to India building a base in the republic of China...I wonder what the chinese netzien resposne to that would be

SilentChinese wrote:
Aug 30th 2010 6:06 GMT

Dr Jake C wrote: Aug 30th 2010 5:46 GMT @silent chinese
It would be similar to India building a base in the republic of China...I wonder what the chinese netzien resposne to that would be
===

No this is not similar at all.
here is why.

Kashimir is not at war with India. It does not have a unified government that rules over kashimir as a whole and 1) demand to represent whole of india and as that has failed 2) demand to be wholely independent. Its people are largely

a more appropriate anology would be...
It was as if India is militarily occupying a chunk of historicly chinese territory, and basing troops there.
But wait... that's already the case in Southern Tibet/AP.

...
back to more pertinent reality:
The Chinese, for 30 years now, up until recently, have always advocated a trade of Aksai Chin with majority of AP. which essentially is a confirmation of status quo.
This arrangement is enourmously beneficial to india. as it would legitmize an enourmous swath of essentially illegal gains.

But no... india refuse to the trade.

kokatay wrote:
Aug 30th 2010 7:37 GMT

Let's review the basic character of China and Pakistan. They are both opportunistic and power hungry and this is evidenced by their aggressiveness in foriegn policy - Pakistan's close relationship and support of Taliban in Afghanistan prior to 9/11/2001 and China's inability to let go of claims to Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh (Indian province).

They have no known allegiance to any moral, spiritual or ethical codes or beliefs and both tend to be autocratic and subversive to any type of Human rights, especially the ones endowed by their creator - Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Case in point Pakistan is 99% Islamic after having hectored, threatened, and pushed out minorities such as Hindus, Sikhs, Christians etc over the past six decades. and Chinese are of-course well known for their tolerence of Christain Churches, Falun Gong, Tibetians and Uighurs, not to mention the Tiananmain Square massacre.

Both these countries are unreliable partners to Western powers, US should reassess it reliance on Pakistan to help wipe out Al Qaida and Taliban - the best result they can hope for is that Pakistan will play both sides and worst is Pakistan just plainly undercuts the US. China in the same vien offers interference for the likes of Iran, North Korea, Sudan etc. from the punishment of the world community for their unacceptable behavior on the global stage.

This is thus truly is an unholy alliance in the literal and figurative sense. May God give us the insight to recognize this fundamental truth and the strength to confront such evil as these two countries.

Konark wrote:
Aug 30th 2010 8:58 GMT

@ silentchinese, being a regular blogger you are expected to have the knowledge that Arunachal pradesh(S.T>) is being claimed by China just to pester India and to have equal leverage while dealing with aksai Chin. I have met people from there, they would die rather than be a part of China. they like to be Indians and only complaint that the Indian Govt should focus on developmt. in the region. Such unanimity and a clear picture may be absent in Kashmir Valley, but one thing is sure, they would definitely not want to be part of Pak or China.

The future of Kashmir would be best with India. China doesn't care about people in its Tibet and Xinjiang provinces and Pakistan is another name for bloody mess. What senseful choice is left? Independence is not the one !!1

BobLee1974 wrote:
Aug 30th 2010 10:41 GMT

Occum's Pen Knife wrote:
"I found Selig Harrison's piece reactionary and shrill. Harrison bases his assertions on an ill fitting jig saw of third party accounts - its suprising that this passed the muster of the NYT editorial board."

New York Times has been an armpit of neocons for a long time. It has played a very shameful role in formenting the Iraq war. Just google "A. M. Rosenthal" and "Judith Miller".

Dr Jake C wrote:
Aug 31st 2010 2:20 GMT

@silent chinese
I agree with your analogy...but what is now AP was conquered by the british empire and annexed legally...if u deny the right to annex territory the entire chinese conquest of tibet would be illegal
Akasi Chin is a cold desert with sparse population an exchange of territory which includes a large population of our own citizens is completely unethical

Aug 31st 2010 3:17 GMT

Whatever?!

It is quite probably rather true anyway and anyhow, so perhaps there is no point in any further denial thereof or thereto.

But so what?! And so what and what, WHAT, if the Troops of and the Garrisons of Soldiers of the Chinese PpLA the Chinese Red Army are inside "certain places" (putting as in this way so as not to wish to and for not wishing to go into the Debate over the Sovereignty of course)?!

Unless India the Hindustan the Indo-Hindustan-Indian Union, and the Indo-Hindustan-Indians, are really and are actually prepared to fight it out like the Korean War, what is the point of and the bloody point of theirs of them keeping the moaning on and the screaming on like in some "certain" "Parental-Guidance" motion-picture movies films?!

Either drop an Atomic Nuclear Bomb or ICBM-Missile at and upon Hong Kong, and start the fight, or shut the you-know-what and the they-know-what up!

nkab wrote:
Aug 31st 2010 3:36 GMT

@ “Dr Jake C” wrote: Aug 30th 2010 5:46 GMT

“@silent chinese
It would be similar to India building a base in the republic of China...I wonder what the chinese netzien resposne to that would be”
-----------------------------------

You are either out of your mind, or out of breath laughing.

Chinese Taipei (Taiwan, ROC or by any other name) per capita GDP (market exchange rate) is about $17,000. And India’s is about $1,100., a world of difference there.

It’s more “sensible” to be the other way around to have Chinese Taipei to build a base in India.

Aug 31st 2010 4:01 GMT

Most of the Indo-Hindustan-Indians were, WERE, once English and Anglo-British legal Subjects too, 'mind you;

Still, what is all these got to and have to do with the Territory of the NEFA anyway and anyhow?! It is as if the Chinese really, REALLY, seriously, SERIOUSLY, gives a serious, SERIOUS, damn about that?!

This is a rather serious topic and issue indeed; and not a joke (unless some of them are okay and all-right with that, of which they seems to be are and be so)!

(Anyway and anyhow, the one-only problem with the "Arunachal" name is that the Area is and has never, NEVER, ever, EVER, either been linguistically an Hindi-speaking, nor even an Aryan North Indo-Hindustan-Indian-speaking (Sanskrit-speaking and/or Prakrit-speaking), area; and it is more or less equivalent to calling and to referring to either the so-called "Tamil Eelam", or to the State of the Tamil Nadu, as, for example, the "Tamil Pradesh";

(A more appropriate appropriately-named name perhaps would be a more locally-sounding-sounded name of "Arunachalyul", or, for even better, of "Arunyul".)

Aug 31st 2010 4:22 GMT

Yes, and yes that I and one do agree with the "Bases-upon-Taiwan" point indeed.

Rather Colonialistic and racist that it may or might sound, and it may or might be, at least from according to my and to one's personal experiences outside out-with of Medicine, at least,

Many, if not most, of the Indo-Hindustan-Indians do tend to care to act in and to behave in a certain way that seems rather Child-like indeed, to say the very least, especially whenever either or both the terms of the word "China" and/or of the words "The Chinese" is and/or are mentioned;

So perhaps the word of the term "Taiwan", and/or the pseudonym thereof of "The RoC", idiotic that they may or might otherwise be in this context, is or are perhaps not to be too un-expected.

Aug 31st 2010 4:30 GMT

By the way, upon further research digitally on-line, it is further discovered by myself and by oneself, that the Territory of the NEFA may or might be in fact named after a certain Tamil person with the name of "Arunachalam".

1-20 of 41

About Banyan's notebook

In this blog, our Banyan columnist surveys Asia's political and cultural landscape as he travels across the continent.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Latest blog posts - All times are GMT

A chill in the blogosphere
From Asia view - January 19th, 6:50
Big bad media, poor little internet
From Newsbook - January 19th, 0:51
Ricky Gervais and the British way
From Blighty - January 18th, 23:35
Link exchange
From Free exchange - January 18th, 21:50
More from our blogs »
Products & events
Stay informed today and every day

Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.


Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter


See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.

Advertisement