China’s brazen claim on Indian territories from Arunachal Pradesh to Ladakh and time & again pre-planned objections on visits of Indian dignitaries is not new. China’s propaganda Cell does this just to keep the matter alive. Recently, China has made objection to Vice President’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh and repeated its previous parrot-type crying comment treating the State as part of South Tibet. From time to time, China has also changed the names of places of Indian territories in its official maps. Although, the world never expects from countries like China & Pakistan to respect the territories of neighboring countries.
But even more surprising is the policy of Indian Government. If China has not recognized the existing & integral parts of the Indian territories and has openly claimed them; why has India recognized the illegally invaded Tibet regions? If China is incorporating Indian territories in its official maps, why is India lagging behind by not including Tibetan territories in its map as an independent nation or an associate State? Why India is not standardizing the names like Aksai Chin and other places of Indian and Tibetan areas?
Tibet was an independent nation having rich cultural & political relationship with India. It has never been a part of China main land. Tibetans are the descendants of Rupati, the Kaurav military general in Mahabharat era. As Tibet itself is not a part of China; then how does it claim the Indian territories, which exist across Tibet’s boundary? India had diplomatic mission in Lhasa, which downgraded into a consulate general in 1952 and eventually closed after 1962 war. Tibet’s independence from Chinese paunch is in the interest of Indian border security, territorial peace and saving of huge military expenditures. Before year 1950, Indian forces were deputed in Tibet to guard the trade routes. In 1950, newly established Chinese Communist regime invaded Tibet to make it permanent part of China, which allowed it to militarize the strategically important boundaries with Bharat.
It is a historical fact that one month before his death, Sardar Patel, in his letter from hospital bed on 7th November 1950, has cautioned Nehru & the nation regarding Chinese intervention in Tibet and the security of Indo-Tibet borders. His prophetic letter quotes “The Tibetan put faith in us; they chose to be guided by us; and we have been unable to get them out of the meshes of Chinese diplomacy and Chinese malevolence. In the north and north-east, Communist China has definite ambitions & aims, which does not seem friendly disposed towards us. Hence we have to build military policy regarding Chinese threat to India”. But, after his death, Nehru and his Comrades refused to see the writing on the wall for more than one decades until in 1962 Chinese invaders, famous as People’s Liberation Army (PLA), booted the sleepy India.
In 1950s, India was a strong advocate for entry of newly emerged Peoples Republic of China (PRC) led by Mao in United Nations & on Permanent Seat of Security Council, which was at that time occupied by Republic of China (Taiwan) led by Chiang Kai Shek. The United States & other western countries were instrumental in denying the UN seat to Mao’s PRC. Blinded by dark ideological lenses, the then Indian government refused to see the real face of Mao’s Communist China. At one hand PLA troops were busy in rampaging Tibet, on the other hand the Congress Government was supplying thousand tonnes of rice to Lhasa at the request of Chinese government, which was utilized by the invading troops.
Initially to set the foot of China in Tibet, the political leaderships of Congress and Communist were responsible. It is said that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. India’s recognition of Chinese sovereignty over Tibet was the biggest security blunder. A sizable section of Indian Communists was so mad to march on China’s ideology that after the Chinese betrayal attack on India in 1962, they did not even condemn their spiritual country and lateron formed pro-Chinese new political outfit CPI (Marxist) in 1964.
Today’s generation is unaware of the fact that there is an Indian territory “Minesar” near Kailash Parvat and surrounded by Tibetan territories, which has been a part of Ladakh. After accession of Tibet, this area has also been grabbed by China; but neither Central government nor any political & social organisation even raised the issue in the international forum. It is the duty of Indian Government to incorporate this historic territory in the official map.
China is a land grabbing country and has not invaded only India’s 38000 sqKM territories, but has either encroached or claimed parts of 18 neighbouring nations. Hence, there should be full-proof security preparation at every inch of border and Indian political & social leaders should have constant touch with its natives. Nothing is going to be happen with fruitless unending talks and China & Pakistan are not going to return back the invaded Indian territories in hospitality like a cup of tea. An effective policy for all Actual International Border regions is the need of the hour, which should include some essential military training to the natives as well as settling down of retired army men.
To counter Chinese day-to-day wrongdoings for Indian territories, India should adopt the tit-for-tat strategy and derecognize Tibet as Chinese part and treat it as buffer State with name “Chinese Occupied Tibet (COT)” on the tune of “Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK)”. It should rename those places of encroached territories that have names similar to Chinese one. Accordingly, the official Indian map should be modified aligning forgotten “Minesar” too.
The root of the problem is that countries like China and Pakistan act, but India only reacts. It is a historical fact that whenever Indian rulers adopted offensive policy, they ruled almost all the present-day neighbouring countries; but when they went on defensive, internal as well as external forces overpowered them. For sovereignty of the country, India will have to move forward with Patel’s Offensive strategy instead of Nehru’s Defensive approach prevailing.
(The Author is a technocrat and educationist)
