Let’s Celebrate a ‘Simply’ Great Deepawali!
Dealing with the Darned Dragon-V: Time to Kowtow!?
Sino-Indian border talks have been roiling like a long-brewing ginger-tulsi kadha––becoming bitterer in taste with each passing moment. If only the potion seethes well, might India and China accrue long-term health benefits from it. The outcome of the sixth round of talks doesn’t indicate that; it is another case of the same old wine being served in a new bottle––still focussing on defusing tensions.
Talks, and more talks, are in the offing––uncertainty and unease on the border have been prolonged. Divining the prospect of peace by reading tea leaves might not be possible since, mutually piqued, Modi and Xi are less likely to meet over a cup of tea in the near future. Yet I have been overzealous about the future.
Would the Queen––whose representative caused this Sino-India border problem by using some bad broad nibs to draw the region’s map––help foresee the fate of the subcontinent? Out of curiosity I tossed a Victorian era silver coin hoping to get some answers––war or peace; withdrawal or long drawn standoff….? When judgement becomes difficult, I have started believing in the predictions guided by a coin with the British monarchy on its face for they (the Brits) are at the root of most of the world’s problems of today. And lo and behold, the coin I tossed, bounced off the road, missed a drain narrowly and ended up through a perforated concrete lid into a bottomless well meant for rainwater harvesting. Now sealed some fifty feet below the earth’s surface, is (the much sought knowledge of) the future of this great country.
Rankled, I had almost decided to take a break from this Sino-India affair for a while when I saw Champagne––the wretched stray I introduced to my worthy readers in an earlier post titled, “China’s Champagne Moment.” Those familiar with that dog’s demeanour will recall that, like China he had been claiming territory that was not rightfully his until one day, when other dogs got together and taught him a lesson. Through Champagne I had projected Beijing’s doom.
My forecast has not come true yet; it has not been proved entirely false either. Several countries, with the US in the forefront, have been striving to settle their scores with China. The anti-China sentiment is simmering with greater intensity now than ever before. And ever since I wrote that piece, Champagne has been behaving even more like China. Rather than fighting with the dogs in the neighbourhood, he has been trying to travel far and wide and woo the dogs he sees sitting on any kind of resources. The other day I saw him wooing a black dog at a construction site. It felt as if China were wooing Africa.
Then two strikingly strange and unusual things happened.
One, Lisa, another dog appeared on the scene. She became popular with all the dogs in the area. They aligned with her as much because of her friendly demeanour as for the reason that they wanted someone to stand for them against the aggressiveness of Champagne.
Two, around the time the last round of Sino-Indian border talks concluded, Champagne was seen practicing ‘kowtowing‘… yes, K-O-W-T-O-W-I-N-G.”
Reverting to China. Behind the façade, Beijing is succumbing to the pressures created by several countries going against it and this is evident in its slowly eroding belligerence. In the last few days, since the standoff at Pangong Tso, China has not reacted with use of force, instead it has spent time at the negotiating table with India. This doesn’t go with China’s past stance and responses to such issues. Reasons for its restraint are better known to Beijing; others can only hazard a guess.
Meanwhile, Indian leadership has not been resting on its oars. It is trying to find the best way to the dragon’s heart out of the so many routes available. One is direct––from Delhi to Beijing. The other is from Delhi to Beijing via one or more of––Washington, Ottawa, Paris, Berlin, Tehran, Tel Aviv, Canberra, Tokyo, Manila, the sea in the South of China (some people erroneously call it South China Sea), Malacca, Strait, Hong Kong, Taipei, Lhasa, Xinjiang, et al. Needless to say, in the present circumstances, Xi Jinping will be pleased to meet Modi’s emissary travelling direct from Delhi to Beijing rather than following a circuitous route.
In the present situation, either China has nothing to say (less likely), or it doesn’t have the words to say, what it wants to say. Therein lie the reasons for no tangible progress in the talks and no further escalation in hostilities. Therein also lies the reason why Xi Jinping, like Champagne, might as well go indoors and refresh his Kowtowing skill––one doesn’t know when he’d need to fall back on the benefits of the ancient Chinese practice.
India would do well to prepare the ESCAPE HATCH for the dragon’s graceful exit.
Related posts:
Dealing with the Darned Dragon: Preface
Dealing with the Darned Dragon-I: Border Infrastructure
Dealing with the Darned Dragon-II: Escape Hatch
Dealing with the Darned Dragon-III: A Lesson from Pearl Harbour
Dealing with the Darned Dragon-IV: Exercising (with) the Nuclear Option
Dealing with the Darned Dragon-IV: Exercising (with) the Nuclear Option
Four days from now, September the 26th will mark the 37th anniversary of an event that, beyond a sliver of doubt, averted a nuclear war. On that day in 1983, Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Petrov of the Soviet Air Defence Forces was the duty officer at Serpukhov-15, the secret command centre outside Moscow monitoring its early-warning satellites over the United States when alarms went off––computers warned that five Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles had been launched from an American base.
Colonel Petrov was a very important link in the decision-making chain. His superiors reported to the general staff, who would consult the Soviet leader, Mr Yuri V Andropov on launching a retaliatory attack. Since there was no rule about how long the observers were allowed to think before they reported a strike, Petrov took his sweet time absorbing the deluge of incoming information and ‘felt’ that the launch reports were ‘probably’ a false alarm. He, therefore, reported ‘a system malfunction’. “I had a funny feeling in my gut,” he told a newspaper later. “I didn’t want to make a mistake. I made a decision, and that was it.”
Every second of delay on that day took away valuable time that the Soviet military and political leadership would have needed to absorb the inputs and react. Petrov told an interviewer, “… I couldn’t move. I felt like I was sitting on a hot frying pan.” It was at best a 50-50 guess, based on his distrust of the early-warning system and the relative paucity of missiles that were launched. He could afford the luxury of sleeping mulling over the inputs because 25 long minutes would elapse between launch and detonation. Petrov attributed his judgment to his training and his intuition. He had been told that a nuclear first strike by the Americans would come in the form of an overwhelming onslaught.
Training and Intuition… where does India stand?
A typical military exercise––conducted at many of the military training institutes/ colleges/ establishments––has a Blue Force (India) and a Red Force (the adversary––Pakistan or China, implied or explicit). The exercises are realistic with full freedom to the participating officers––with 3 to 30 years of commissioned service; sometimes, including bureaucrats, diplomats and scientists––to let go of their imagination to plan and execute military operations until… someone in the Red Force threatens to use the nukes.
The exercise is paused and the director of the exercise (or the umpire) steps in and enlightens the attendees. Put in different words and with varying intensity, depending on the personality of the guru, the gist of what is repeatedly sermonised and hammered into the craniums of the participants is: “Like India, China has a No-First-Use (NFU) policy––therefore, use of a nuclear weapon by China against India is not a likely proposition. As regards Pakistan, although their leadership talks and acts insanely, they are not mad. Nuclear sabre rattling by Pakistan is, but a hollow threat. Pakistan cannot dare to strike India with a nuclear-tipped missile because even with a ‘second strike’ option, India has the capability to turn the whole of Pakistan into rubble…. We can cause unacceptable damage to any adversary if we are struck with nukes….”
The punch line delivered (invariably) with theatrical emphasis and the air of a political leader seeking to hold a moral high ground at a peace conference at the UN General Assembly reads somewhat:
“Nuclear weapons are not meant for fighting; they are there (only) for deterrence.”
This has now been going on for decades since the legendary Mr K Subrahmanyam drew up the draft of India’s Nuclear Doctrine, which communicated, along with India’s NFU status, the spirit that:
“Nuclear weapons are the weapons of last resort; they’ll be used only in retaliation against a nuclear attack on Indian Territory or on Indian forces anywhere.”
As can be seen, there is a subtle difference between what the genius, Mr Subrahmanyam enunciated and what the later gurus interpreted, communicated and taught to the lesser mortals––the military personnel and the scientists––people who would be expected to ‘handle’ the nukes when ordained by the political leadership. Over the years, the people, who would some day play Colonel Petrov in India’s case; have been getting inoculated with a different vaccine than should have been ideally prescribed.
An ambiguity at a crucial moment––nuclear weapons being weapons of last resort or being meant only for deterrence––borne out of years of training, can cost India dear because it would take just about five to ten minutes from a launch (in Pakistan or China) to detonation (in India). In a situation like Petrov’s, Indians would not afford the luxury of time. It is therefore, imperative that people who would some day be in the decision making chain and those who would be executing a political big decision (particularly the men in uniform and the scientists) be educated and trained to act decisively without dithering like Colonel Petrov.
The need to unlearn and relearn the nuances of the Indian Nuclear Doctrine is also mandated by the recent behaviour of our neighbours. Let’s look at it this way. Pakistan knows that its nuclear sabre rattling does not perturb India, for India has called Pakistan’s nuclear bluff twice recently––one, by carrying out surgical strikes across the border after Uri terror attack; and two, by executing airstrikes against terror camps at Balakot in response to the Pulwama Terror Attack. In both those cases, Imran Khan first blabbered about the heightening tensions and the possibility of ‘inadvertent’ use of nukes, then ate a humble pie.
Humiliated at home and abroad on those counts, and coupled with a messed up economy and a battered national prestige (because of Pakistan’s terror links), the Khan is vulnerable to arm-twisting by three agencies––Pakistan Military; Pakistan-based terror outfits; and a Shylock-like China, whose debt makes Pakistan cringe. China is capable of using several levers to instigate its stooge, Pakistan to surprise India. Considering these mounting pressures, the cricketer turned puppet of a politician, might be forced to reconsider and carry out his nuclear bluff. The probability, although infinitely low, is not equal to zero. Therefore, it would be prudent on India’s part to cater for a ‘mistaken’ use of a nuke by Imran’s Pakistan.
To sum up, security, and nuclear security in particular, is a dynamic concept; its doctrines and understanding of the same by every link in the chain needs periodic review and refreshing. Exercising realistically with the nuclear option will convey a stronger ‘resolve’ to the adversaries and work as a more meaningful deterrence without changing anything on the ground.
Related Posts
Dealing with the Darned Dragon: Preface
Dealing with the Darned Dragon-I: Border Infrastructure
Dealing with the Darned Dragon-II: Escape Hatch
Dealing with the Darned Dragon-III: A Lesson from Pearl Harbour
Dealing with the Darned Dragon-III: A Lesson from Pearl Harbour
8:00 am. Sunday, December the 7th, 1941. Pearl Harbour happened––a surprise military strike by the Japanese devastated the US naval base in the Pacific. Major US losses included: four battleships sunk and another four damaged and three each cruisers and destroyers damaged. Worse was the destruction of 188 aircraft. Even greater setback was the loss of 2336 men (killed) and 1,143 wounded.
Although the US avenged Pearl Harbour by nuke bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima, it left indelible scars on the American psyche.
After the end of WW II, the Americans turned almost the whole of Pearl Harbour into a War Museum. The USS Arizona Memorial with the list of the dead warriors; the tattered Stars and Stripes and copies of the next day’s newspapers and much more––keep jolting Americans. “Never again,” is the message writ large upon everything American in Hawaii.
On my first visit to Hawaii, Brigadier General Meryll drew my attention to bullet marks on the wall of a building of the Headquarters of the US Pacific Air Forces. “We’ve deliberately not repaired those craters left by the Japanese bombers––they remind us that we were caught napping once. Pearl Harbour will never repeat,” he said.
A solemn resolve.
Time erodes memories. America was caught napping again––9/11 happened. The US pounded Afghanistan and killed Osama Bin Laden. Those follow-up actions certainly did not avenge or offset the 3,000 innocent American lives lost in the ghastly attack on the twin towers of the World Trade Centre.
As if that was not enough, America lowered its guard yet again. Covid-19 pandemic is no less than another Pearl Harbour––close to 1,97,000 innocent American lives lost, and still counting. America blames this one on China. Yet, simmering internal strife and the forthcoming Presidential election has blunted weakened Uncle Sam’s ability resolve to punish its perpetrator.
Countries have their Pearl Harbour moments––October 1962 was India’s, when China attacked and occupied Indian territory by surprise. In the nearly six decades gone by, China has occasionally reminded India of that one time when India had dozed off. Galwan Valley incident was a rude reminder of the dragon’s sliminess. In fact, it was a jolt that let India learn its lesson hard, and fast. The result was evident in the swiftness with which Indian Army grabbed tactical advantage in the Pangong Tso Area. PLA will now use every arrow in its quiver to neutralise the Indian advantage. In all probability, the present lull is a prelude to yet another adventure by the dragon.
For whatever reasons, in 1962, India did not employ its combat air power against the Chinese. Likewise, during Kargil, restriction was imposed on the Indian Air Force on crossing the LAC. In both those cases, India paid an avoidable cost for not exploiting the full potential of its combat air power.
In the present situation, when the Indian Army is sitting pretty on heights overlooking the Chinese positions, it would be advisable to give the Air Force a free hand to plan and execute its operations in support of the Indian Army.
The supreme sacrifice made by the Indian Jawans in Galwan Valley is too recent an occurrence to be forgotten; it is never to be forgotten. 1962, India’s Pearl Harbour, is too unpleasant to be allowed to repeat.
Related posts:
Dealing with the Darned Dragon: Preface
Dealing with the Darned Dragon-I: Border Infrastructure
Dealing with the Darned Dragon-II: Escape Hatch
Dealing with the Darned Dragon-IV: Exercising (with) the Nuclear Option
Dealing with the Darned Dragon-II: Escape Hatch
A day after the meeting between the External Affairs Ministers of India and China, the experts who went deep diving into the official statements of the two, to draw meaning, have not struck upon anything to write home about. Some are now trying to read the body languages of the two ministers during the ten-second photo-op with the Russian Foreign Minister. Until something significant trickles from their efforts, one might take a re-look at the antecedents of the Galwan Valley faceoff and the Pangong Tso standoff. On a dispassionate glance at the incidents in the rear-view mirror, one might just get inclined to draw a conclusion which, might be viewed with mixed emotions… and that inference is:
“Sino-Indian border issue is too serious an affair to be left to a single agency––political leadership, diplomatic corps or the military––to resolve.”
Beyond any doubt, the synergy of the trio has helped India hold the dragon at bay… until now.
The present situation can be summarised thus: India has a tactical military advantage in the Ladakh region––Indian Army will exploit that edge, if a need arises. While China is weighing and considering its options, India is consolidating its position––troops are getting more acclimatised and are stocking up to address the developing situation. China cannot possibly challenge Indian positions in the Ladakh region. If it opens another front elsewhere––say, Sikkim or Arunanchal, where its gains might be iffy––probably Indian troops would en-cash the advantage around Pangong Tso.
A China that now considers itself a world power second only to the US is less likely to eat a humble pie by accepting ‘status quo ante’ (for whatever it means), or by unconditionally withdrawing. A ‘publicised’ setback in Ladakh will affect China’s reputation and stakes elsewhere––Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan and of course, in the sea on its south (some people call it South China Sea‘).
Imponderables are far too many to be summarised here. The time is running out. Suffice it to say that in due course winter will set in and it will become more difficult for Beijing to maintain its forces in the region than Delhi. Dragon is doomed if it accepts India’s terms for peace; it is doomed if it doesn’t. That perhaps is the reason for practically nothing coming out of the meeting between the ministers.
Can India help the dragon wriggle out of a situation it is responsible for creating?
Perhaps Sun Tzu’s Art of War can throw up an answer for India:
“When you surround an enemy [adversary], leave an outlet free…. The object is to make him believe that there is a road to safety, and thus prevent his fighting with the courage of despair. For you should not press a desperate foe too hard.”
~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Chapter VII, Manoeuvring
Although not physically surrounded, Beijing’s dilemma in Ladakh is damning––to fight or to find a face saving way out of the imbroglio. While, the Indian Army is holding the fort, can the dragon be nudged into a diplomatic escape hatch from which it can emerge with a smile?
Is Mr Jaishankar listening?
Related posts:
Dealing with the Darned Dragon: Preface
Dealing with the Darned Dragon-I: Border Infrastructure
Dealing with the Darned Dragon-III: A Lesson from Pearl Harbour
Dealing with the Darned Dragon-IV: Exercising (with) the Nuclear Option
Dealing with the Darned Dragon-I: Border Infrastructure
[This follows from an earlier post: “Dealing with the Darned Dragon: Preface”]
News from India-China border isn’t very encouraging. Last month end situation became volatile in eastern Ladakh after India thwarted a Chinese attempt to occupy Indian territory near Pangong Tso. As it stands, India has occupied a number of strategic heights on the southern bank of the lake and strengthened its presence in other areas in the region. India has also rushed in additional troops and military hardware to the region.
The diplomatic and military level talks to ease tensions have failed. Also, nothing worthwhile emerged from the interaction between the Defence Ministers on the sidelines of the SCO Defence Ministers Meeting in Moscow on September 4, 2020. The probability of the success of a similarly planned meeting between the External Affairs Ministers scheduled on September 10, 2020 hovers closer to zero than 1. The reasons are understandable. India, having occupied positions of tactical advantage in Ladakh will be approaching the dialogue with a little more bargaining power than it usually does. China might want this status to change before discussing contentious border issues. Besides, unlike the Indian representatives who are empowered to take decisions, the Chinese representatives at such meetings are not authorised to take decisions.
Meanwhile, following reports of Chinese troops firing warning shots in Ladakh, troops on either side are on the razor’s edge. There are ominous signs that after having made relentless vain attempts at negotiating peace, the political leadership on both sides might pass on the baton to the military to ‘handle’ the issue.
‘War-mongering’? May be. Or, is it ‘wisdom’? Wisdom wrung out of the experience of 1962, which points at the dire need of military preparedness of a high order and readiness to deal with a belligerent neighbour.
Among others, one dimension of military preparedness is existence of support infrastructure along the border. Several projects related to new construction (and development of old ones) of roads, runways, helipads, ammunition dumps, logistics nodes, transit camps and military hospitals etc are under way. These projects are unprecedented and are to Beijing’s chagrin. Once ready, they will bolster India’s war fighting ability considerably. This will force China to invent alternate ways to breach India’s defences. That, in turn, might give rise to the need for India of developing more new infrastructure.
The dire need to create infrastructure in times of crisis is a recurring issue. In 1947, service personnel and the refugees led by Lieutenant Colonel Pritam Singh built a 600-yard runway at Poonch in six days. In another case, tonnes of barbed wire were airdropped to barricade the advancing Chinese (Sino-India War 1962), even as troops were engaged in fighting. Whether it served the intended purpose, is doubtful. During the Berlin Airlift, building from a scratch 17,000 Berliners––men, women and children––worked in 8-hourly shifts to construct a runway at Tegel. Those (Poonch and Berlin) were cases of people rising to the occasion.
US Navy’s Construction Battalions (CBs) better known as Seabees have institutionalised speedy creation of infrastructure in times of crisis––a desideratum for fighting forces. Formed following the attack on Pearl Harbour when the task of turning imminent defeat into victory seemed almost insurmountable, the Seabees are very well equipped teams renowned for building bases, bulldozing and paving thousands of miles of roadway and airstrips, and accomplishing numerous other construction projects in different war zones since World War II. They constructed six 8500+ feet runways at the rate of one runway per 53 days; over 18 kms of taxiways; hard-standing to accommodate over 400 bombers, and accommodation for 50,000 personnel and office complexes, on the islands of Tinian and Saipan in a record time of less than a year during World War II. Seabees have been deployed around the globe supporting a variety of humanitarian missions and contingency operations. They were among the first forces in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks to upgrade and repair airfields.
To sum up, it is humanly impossible to make the long borders physically secure. While creation of border infrastructure does go a long way in securing the borders, it is also an endless process. There’s a case for creating teams of experts that can undertake rapid construction work of any type, anywhere, anytime: during wartime or during humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations. Lockdown due to Covid-19 pandemic has rendered a large number of ‘experts’ jobless. It should be possible to enrol volunteers to be employed and paid to serve ‘when the need arises’.
The need could be round the corner.
Other posts in the series:
Dealing with the Darned Dragon-II: Escape Hatch
Dealing with the Darned Dragon-III: A Lesson from Pearl Harbour
Dealing with the Darned Dragon-IV: Exercising (with) the Nuclear Option
Dealing with the Darned Dragon: Preface
Chinese incursion into the Galwan Valley earlier this year was but a-matter-of-routine. Nothing new, that’s something China had been doing for decades––entering Indian territory; sometimes withdrawing, but occasionally occupying pockets, and presenting them as ‘disputed areas’ at subsequent talks.
Salami slicing!
India’s response to that provocation surprised the world to no end. Among other options, a tough stance was the least expected, because until then people had judged India on the basis of its meek response to similar incidents in the past. The response dazed even the Indian public who had been in some kind of unspoken or grudgingly spoken awe of the dragon ever since the 1962 debacle.
India’s reaction was a Black Swan Event––unprecedented in its nature, spectacular in its impact. Now, military pundits and strategists are scratching their heads analysing, explaining and justifying the behaviour. The outcomes and the spinoffs of the transaction have been meaningful, and many. Importantly, it has raised the bar on the quality of India’s retaliation to Chinese military adventurism. That India will be even more assertive in such situations in the future is the new ‘expected’ norm. China will do well to take this change into account in its future calculations.
The talks at the diplomatic and the military levels to de-escalate tensions and to restore peace in the region have not made much headway. There is a definite dearth of points of convergence and trust has been conspicuously absent from the scene. A word about the complexity of the Sino-Indian border issue would be in order. Decades of diplomatic foot-dragging have complicated the already complex matter. Now, to resolve the issue appears to be as difficult as untangling a plateful of spaghetti or unscrambling an egg. Both, China and India have taken rigid stances and are unwilling to relent. It is anybody’s guess that the prevailing uneasy calm will end either in peace or will escalate into greater hostility. There’s however, an ominous tilt towards the possibility of the latter. Presently, both sides are trying hard to be in a situation wherein they can negotiate from a position of greater strength.
Meanwhile, General Bipin Rawat, the Chief of Defence Staff of India has declared that India is prepared for a military option, if the talks fail. In making such a provocative statement, the General might have only carried out the orders of the political leadership, because ‘good’ Indian generals do not normally air provocative views against a neighbour unless we are already at war. So, let the General roar and let the countrymen rest assured that Prime Minister Narendra Modi will give a clarion call through his ‘Man ki Baat‘ when the time is ripe. Period.
In a recently recorded video message, Mr Pravin Sawhney, Editor, Force Magazine dissects General Rawat’s words and iterates that unless backed by military power, warnings mean little; he’s so right on that count. He goes on to project India’s extreme vulnerabilities and concludes that it would take at least six months to prove the General’s claim of preparedness. After eulogising China for its varied capabilities––conventional warfare, cyber warfare, anti satellite (ASAT) capabilities, artificial intelligence capability, the capability to disrupt communication networks of India, its nexus with Pakistan et al.––he concludes that a war between China and India, if it were to take place, would be like the First Gulf War between the US and Iraq respectively, implying that India would be routed technologically even before the troops engage in land battle. At the end of a 20 plus-minute video in which he paints a dismal picture of India’s war preparedness and petrifies Indian viewers, he urges that the clip be circulated. For me, a replay of the video led to the distillation of the man’s suggestion, which to my mind conditioned by years of rigorous military life sounded somewhat like this:
“SURRENDER TO CHINA WITHOUT FIRING A BULLET!”
Echo of that implied suggestion so ‘F-O-R-C-E-fully’ made by Mr Pravin Sawhney rings menacingly in the mind until long after one turns off the video. Another look exposes the sense of insecurity of the presenter and the shallowness of his arguments. The naysayer and the pessimist in him, finds India’s faults and deficiencies well nigh infinite. If only he could realise, China is not the US; India, not Iraq. Unwarranted anxieties of the timid will only prove to be countervailing factors in India’s efforts to deal with that country. That said, there is good reason to listen carefully to the meaningful signals, if any, in the cacophony of deafening alarm bells that the paranoid Mr Sawhney rings.
Introspection!
Today, when India and China are at daggers drawn, the chunks of information on military capabilities of the two countries that are available in the open domain, rather ‘fed’ to the public, could be quite inaccurate. Under the circumstances, a SWOT analysis could go awry; it could be an exercise in futility. Therefore, more prudent and fruitful approach to deal with the darned dragon at this moment would be to focus on exploiting all available means and resources to bolster the existing military capacity and capabilities. Therein is the genesis of this five-part blog post––this part being the Preface. The posts that follow will discuss issues related to boosting military manpower, bolstering border infrastructure and military capability, refining military thinking on the use of nuclear weapons and the idea of mustering external influence to bear on the adversary and more.
Following posts in this series are now available:
Dealing with the Darned Dragon-I: Border Infrastructure
Dealing with the Darned Dragon-II: Escape Hatch
Dealing with the Darned Dragon-III: A Lesson from Pearl Harbour
Dealing with the Darned Dragon-IV: Exercising (with) the Nuclear Option
Loss of More Than 140,000 Innocent American Lives: The US is Paying for its Inaction in 1945
Corona Virus!
Conspiracy theories abound. Many people think believe that it was developed by scientists in a laboratory. And, even if one disregards that bizarre pronouncement for want of credible evidence, one thing that can be said with certainty is that the virus originated ‘somewhere‘ in China. That the pandemic could have been controlled well had China shared the relevant information about it with the rest of the world in time is a bone of contention. President Donald Trump blames China squarely for being instrumental in causing devastation of untold dimension. While the experts in the World Health Organisation (WHO) spent more than ten days to christen the pandemic: “Covid-19,” an irate, Donald Trump took no time to declare it a ‘very bad gift’ from China. He went on to call it by more different names: “Kung Flu” on one occasion, and the “Chinese Virus” on another.
Rhetoric apart, today the Sino-US relations are actually at their lowest ebb. The two major world powers (mind the deliberate strikethrough) countries have been trading blows on many fronts––unbecoming behaviour amid extreme crisis. Washington on Wednesday, July 22, 2020 ordered the closure of the Chinese Consulate in Houston; a move it said was aimed “to protect American intellectual property and private information.” It was another way of accusing Beijing of cyber espionage.
Covid-19 Pandemic is but an excuse; lined up behind it are numerous other issues––disputes over trade; Taiwan; violation of human rights in Tibet, Tiananmen Square, Xinjiang and Hong Kong; Chinese assertiveness in the sea they call “South China Sea” and of course, the “not so Peaceful Rise of China….” There isn’t just one issue––there are loads of them. That China is at the root of the problems facing the world today is evident in the actions initiated by Canada, the UK, Japan, Australia, and several other countries.
Actions, counteractions and the blame game will go on till cows come home. At this point when the pandemic is a stark reality and the world is desperately looking for a drug and a vaccine to contain the spread of the virus, some questions beg answers: “Could this pandemic have been avoided? If the answer is “Yes,” then, “How could it have been avoided?”
‘The Butterfly Effect’* might explain how the world has reached this state of being and how it could have been avoided altogether.
Read on….
But before proceeding, please bear the repetition of a fact for the sake of emphasis, and better understanding of the current and the would-be crises of this nature. Openly or in subdued voice, willingly or grudgingly, all the world’s countries, including Chinese stooges like Pakistan and North Korea, are unanimous on two counts: one, that the pandemic originated in China, and two, Beijing could have done much more to avert the catastrophe. China’s predominant role in the spread of the pandemic is undeniable; it is indefensible too. When not under the watchful eyes of Xi, the screams of millions of Chinese––the ilk of Dr Li Wenliang––will also chorus in agreement.
And now, about the distant flutter (Butterfly Effect) that led to the present world crisis. On September 2, 1945, at the time when the formal Japanese surrender ceremony was taking place aboard the battleship Missouri, civil war was brewing in China. With difficulty in communicating an idea from one part of the country to another, let alone transporting a bag of rice, the Chinese were living in extreme poverty and hunger. They were falling easy prey to the Communist ideology. In a showdown between Chiang Kai-shek and the Communists, the Communists had a good chance of winning out. One way to strengthen the generalissimo was to provide him mobility––the ability to spread his influence in the far reaches of China where the Communists were operating freely.
At that time, the Americans were busy winding up; airlifting men and equipment to India/ the US. The Orient Project was under way. They had the capability and the capacity to provide the vital support Chiang Kai-shek needed to thwart the opposing forces. And, although the war-weary American generals strongly supported the idea, there was little political will. The congressmen who visited the region were under pressure from the womenfolk (mothers, wives and sweethearts of the men in uniform) back in the US to bring their menfolk home. It gave every politician a chance to curry favour with the voters by joining in the cry: “Bring the troops home!”
Thus, the Chinese who had supported the Allied war effort in the Indo-Pacific by tethering a two lakh strong Japanese Army in the region, were dealt a raw deal––they got ‘nothing’ for pulling the proverbial chestnuts out of the fire for the Americans. Had the Americans stood by Chiang Kai-shek for some time after the WW II, the geopolitics of the region would have taken a different turn––China would not have gone ‘RED.’ Today’s China would have been ‘different.’
If that was not enough, the US let go of another opportunity to stymie the rise of a belligerent China when, despite the ‘Tiananmen Square Carnage’, it continued to maintain trade relations with Beijing, albeit after a pause.
The monster that the US let take birth and grow is now turning on it. The US is paying for its follies with innocent American lives. As on date (July 20, 2020), Covid-19 infection cases have crossed a 4-million mark in the US. There have been 11,46,516 deaths (and counting)––the number has already exceeded the sum total of American lives lost in all the major wars the country has fought since the War of American Independence.
As can be seen, had US prevented the birth of a “Communist” China in 1945––which it was capable of doing then––the world would not be facing the Covid crisis today. Thus, to an extent, the US is responsible (because of its inaction) for the crisis facing the world. That conclusion begs yet another question: How can the US atone innocent deaths all over the world? The simple answer is: By standing up and taking charge. There’s no room for another error of judgement. There will be a huge cost attached to relinquishing leadership under the present circumstances.
*The Butterfly Effect: It is the idea that small things can have non-linear impacts on a complex system. The concept is imagined with a butterfly flapping its wings and causing a typhoon. Of course, a single act like the butterfly flapping its wings cannot cause a typhoon. Small events can, however, serve as catalysts that act on starting conditions.
Oh, Those Chinese!
Believe it, or not! But, it is a recorded fact of military history and is true as true can be. The soldiers for the Chinese Federal Army that supported the Allied war effort in the Asia-Pacific region during the Second World War were recruited in a peculiar fashion.
Men, considered expert at recruiting, would suddenly descend upon a neighbourhood and cordon off a few blocks. Then they would work into the centre like beaters on a wild animal hunt. Once the unsuspecting boys were rounded up, they’d be given a physical examination to determine if they were eligible for service. This examination consisted solely of their dropping their pants. If they were old enough to have pubic hair, they were in the Chinese army.
God knows for how long after the WW II, that system of recruitment continued.
Needless to say, those youth were anything, but volunteers. The unwilling little dragons were potential hazards to military operations. For one, they were extremely fearful of flying. In one case, an aircraft crashed because several panicking recruits jumped out as their plane picked up speed on the take off run. The rest dashed to the rear of the plane to follow suite. That led to over-weighting the tail, causing the aircraft to stall into the ground.
They had a horrendous sense of humour. When they did get used to flying as passengers, they considered it a big joke to open up the cargo door of an aircraft in flight, point to something interesting below and entice a buddy to peep out, and then push him out. An occasional troop-carrying plane would arrive at its destination with one or two men short.
This one is even more bizarre! The recruits believed that an evil dragon was following them at all times and constantly sought to evade it. They endeavoured to stay just a step ahead. The aircraft provided a means of getting rid of the dragon. All that a recruit had to do was to run in front of a taxying aircraft. The closer he came to the whirling propellers, the surer he was that the dragon following him would be chopped to pieces by the propeller blades. Quite often, a dragon-fleeing Chinese would run into the propeller blades himself. It would make an ungodly mess, with pieces of ‘Chinese’ flying everywhere. The spectators would roar with laughter at the ghastly sight. Oh, those Chinese!
Of what relevance is the above information today to the Indian Jawan standing vigil at the Line of Actual Control (LAC) between India and China?
Well! Well!
The country we call People’s Republic of China, came into being on October 1, 1949. Going by simple logic, there is a chance that quite a few senior members of the present day People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of China might have been recruited and might have led life as described above. And for sure, all of them must have been trained and groomed by people who would have gone through the queer recruitment procedure and lived the fear of the dragon.
Again, as brought out, PLA is not a volunteer army, not a very seasoned one either (as compared to the Indian Army). It has not fought many wars. In its war against Korea, it suffered huge losses (nearly 2,09,000 dead/ wounded). In its war against India (1962), its losses were 700 (nearly half as many as India’s nearly 1400).
Psychological warfare through social media has been ‘ON’ for a long while. Chinese propaganda machinery has projected the PLA to be a ‘professional’ army. But their recent actions at the LOC suggest otherwise. They are cruel, not brave; they are unscrupulous and (we hear) they have no respect even for the dead. They have a swarm mentality.
In the words of Air Marshal Vinod Patney (the IAF veteran of Kargil fame), “The Chinese are not six feet tall.”
So?
Dear Jawan, know your adversary and know yourself. Although today’s Chinese soldier might be well trained and might wield a state-of-the-art weapon, he is not a willing and motivated being. He lacks experience too. But don’t get carried away––he is slimy, untrustworthy.
You have inherited war fighting from the best in the business. You are a professional army seasoned over many years of war fighting: in WW I, WW II and in the wars with Pakistan and China itself. Besides, thanks to Pakistan sponsored infiltration attempts, your war fighting skills have remained honed and tested.
We hear that in the recent encounter in Galwan Valley, some rules of engagement had deferred your response to the back stabbing by the Chinese. It led not only to the martyrdom of our brave hearts but mutilation of the bodies of some of them.
Next time, if ever it comes to fighting with primitive weapons make the best use of them. But pray don’t stoop to pay back the adversary in their coin. The time one spends in mutilating a dead warrior could be utilised better to slit another (enemy) throat or chop another (enemy) head.
Just remember, you are there, not to lay down your life for the country but to kill the enemy to protect India’s territorial integrity. Jai Hind! (Author’s Note: The Chinese history discussed in this post has been sourced from “Over the Hump,” a book authored by Lieutenant General William H Tunner)
Modi’s Rabin Predicament and a Belligerent China
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s short speech this afternoon (June 17, 2020) to the nation on the border skirmish with China can be summed in just one word: “R-E-S-O-L-V-E”. “Our Jawans died fighting; their sacrifices will not go in vain,” he had said. One was reminded of a similar resolve when he had displayed exactly the same emotion after the Pulwama Terror strike and…
And Balakot happened.
Modi’s speech catapulted me back in time to a historical event. In July 1976, another Prime Minister in another country was faced with a crisis of similar intensity but a different dimension. A hundred and four Israelis were held hostage by terrorists at Entebbe Airport in Uganda. They were demanding release of a number of Palestinians held in Israeli jails on charges of terrorism. The deadline was fast approaching at the end of which, they had threatened to kill the innocent civilians.
The rescue operation 3000 odd kms away from Israel entailed flying through hostile Arab territories. An error of judgement could cost lives: lives of the hostages, lives of the rescue team. So he––supported by his Cabinet, and the opposition led by Menachem Begin––decided to capitulate to the terrorists.
For Rabin, 104 Israeli lives were precious. He also knew that his decision (to capitulate to the terrorists) would mean the collapse of Israel’s policy of not surrendering to terror––a policy it had taken years to build, at a formidable cost in innocent blood (Note: Israel has swapped terrorists for hostages in extremely rare cases). Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was caught between the devil and the deep sea.
While the preparations were still on to negotiate the release of the hostages, Rabin ordered his men in uniform: “Bring me something we can implement.” Circumstances pushed the terrorists’ deadline back by a few days and the military came up with a daringly dangerous, but workable plan. There could be up to 20 casualties (hostages) under normal circumstances. But, if the terrorists had even a minute’s notice, everyone could be killed, including all the commandos.
While giving a go ahead to the military, Rabin kept the Israeli parliament informed. Without doubt, it was one of the toughest decisions ever taken by any Israeli government. Rabin made it clear that if the raid (Operation Thunderbolt, later rechristened, Operation Netanyahu) failed, the government would have to resign. But when the final vote was called––kudos to a very sensible and well-meaning opposition––all hands were raised in favour of the Prime Minister’s decision. None doubted his intentions; none asked him to pledge his head.
Rest is history.
Returning to the India-China standoff in the Galwan Valley. China has orchestrated the standoff at a time when the world, including India, is busy fighting the Covid-19 pandemic. China thought that it would be able to get away with ‘murder’. It was a miscalculation, for if, one were to go by unconfirmed media reports, China too has suffered substantial losses.
The Chinese Foreign Minister is now talking of de-escalation. Going by the antecedents, any such Chinese suggestion needs to be taken with extreme caution. In fact, looking at China’s most recent belligerence, it would be prudent to carry a gun in one hand when the other one holds out an olive branch. It has become imperative to prepare militarily for a long haul. While at it, the diplomatic corps could get into overdrive and help China arrive at its Champagne Moment (read post titled “China’s Champagne Moment”). Now is the time!
Think of it… today Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s situation is not much different from Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s. In this moment of crisis, he (Modi) has displayed great resolve. We, the people need to stand by him. While the military and the diplomatic corps go for the dragon’s jugular, the least that the rest of us can do is: “TO-BE-OUR-BEST-SELVES.”
Need that be elaborated?
Again, like the Israeli parliamentarians in 1976, the elected representatives of the people of India will have an opportunity to prove their worth when they meet on Friday, June 19, 2020 to discuss the standoff at the behest of the Prime Minister. History will judge them (and Prime Minister Modi) by their actions on that day.
Postscript
After reading this post, one of my dear friends concluded that I was suggesting that the opposition parties must support Modi and that they would be judged in the future on that basis. He did not agree with the suggestion for the opposition parties to prove themselves. In his opinion, Modi must first win the trust of the people. He added that lately he has taken the people for granted. He has the penchant for being in the limelight at the expense of everything and wants people to believe that he can do no wrong. He needs to learn to be humble, promise less and do more. He can’t keep experimenting with lives of the people without being accountable.
Is Mr Modi listening? People aren’t just looking up to you; they are ‘watching’ you.
To my concerned friend: When I said ‘Modi’, I meant ‘the Prime Minister’. I would have made the same suggestion (to support the man in that office/ chair) had the PM been Mr Rahul Gandhi, Mrs Sonia Gandhi, Mr Kejriwal, Mr Surjewala, Ms Mayawati, Ms Rabri Devi, or anyone else for that matter. I feel that it does no good questioning the leadership in the midst of a grave national crisis (two in this case: Covid-19 pandemic and the standoff with the Chinese). If people feel let down today or in the future, they’ll have an opportunity to replace him in the next general election. Let’s not forget, when time came, the docile Indian democracy showed the door to the likes of Mrs Indira Gandhi. My suggestion to the parliamentarians is to stand by Modi, the PM (not Modi, the man) when it comes to make a difficult choice in national interest. Remember, Winston Churchill was shown the door by the British people despite England’s victory in WW II.
Road Much Travelled 