India makes china shy, see how?

Chinese Vice Premier Wang Yang will be visiting Nepal on August 14, barely nine days before Nepali Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba embarks on an official visit to India, his first after assuming the chief executive’s post for the fourth time two months ago. In between, India’s External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj will be in Kathmandu for the BIMSTEC meet.

Certain political trends at home and China’s pro-active approach to Kathmandu indicate that silence may seem a prudent response, but not perhaps the desirable reaction at this moment for Nepal. Prime Minister Deuba has been advised by some senior diplomats that the joint agreement China and India signed in May 2015 to develop Lipulekh along the Kalapani tri-junction between China, Nepal and India as a trade post should be reviewed. Former Foreign Affairs Minister Mahendra Bahadur Pande claims China has already assured Nepal that it is ready for a review. “With Doklam dispute escalating, the Lipulekh issue must be settled now so that it does not turn into a flash point in the future,” says a senior Nepali bureaucrat. He added that Prime Minister Deuba has been advised suitably.

The Chinese vice premier is expected to encourage Nepal to decide on projects and their execution under the Belt and Road initiative. Leader of the main opposition group and former prime minister, K.P. Oli, who is perceived by India as pro-China, was recently invited to Lhasa and apparently briefed about the Chinese position on Doklam and given the message that China respected the “sovereignty” of both Nepal and Bhutan. Leaders close to Oli believe that China wants to engage Bhutan in a bilateral dialogue over the border issue, while avoiding India.

The Chinese are now forthcoming and candid on bilateral or regional issues when they share the platform with Nepali academics and other individuals. Their remarks include barbed and sarcastic references to India and its “interference” in Nepal’s internal politics. At times, they suggest that the Indian way of dealing with Nepal recalls the “British legacy”. Hu Shisheng, a director at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, a think tank with enormous clout on formulating China’s neighbourhood policy, recently presented a paper on the occasion of Nepal and China entering the 62nd year of diplomatic relations. The paper suggests that China and Nepal establish “connections” through railways, pipelines and highways. It also calls for Nepal to link China and India and has a veiled prescription that Nepal should ignore India if it does not cooperate.

Heeding the advice is not easy for Nepal, but China knows that anti-India sentiment is unprecedentedly high in Nepal. China, officially, has been full of appreciation for what Nepal has done to discourage anti-Chinese activities on its territory. In most bilateral academic fora, China takes pride in not having interfered in Nepal’s internal affairs. Hu, for instance, indicates that two treaties Nepal and China signed in the past have settled the British legacy as well as Tibet-related issues. He emphasises that in the absence of the British legacy, Nepal and China can treat each other as “equals”.

China also insists that it never supported the Maoist insurgency. It claims that except for appealing to the Maoists to join the political mainstream at times, it did not mastermind regime changes in Kathmandu, so frequent since 1990. In contrast, India is seen to have promoted the Maoist insurgency and subsequently, brought the Maoists to the political mainstream, sidelining traditional forces and causing the current chaos. China’s reference to the Maoist insurgency is significant since India has been blamed for displacing the Oli regime last year with a coalition of the Maoists led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal and the Nepali Congress led by Deuba. Oli, buoyed by the clear lead the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist gained in the recent local bodies election, has started making claims that he would form the government at the Centre when Parliament elections are held by January, as mandated by the constitution. Deuba is also under pressure from powerful political groups in Nepal to tell India that it should either execute the major hydro projects it undertook several years ago or give up. These are signs India must not ignore.

India has lost goodwill in Nepal. Kathmandu knows that if the Doklam issue escalates it will affect Nepal’s life and economy adversely. However, India can’t be assured of Nepal’s support on the issue.

What says India now about dokhlam issue

India, today, said it continues to engage with China diplomatically and has been coordinating with Bhutan to find a mutually acceptable solution to the Doklam standoff. South Asian Monitor

“We continue to engage with China through diplomatic channels to find a mutually acceptable solution,” external affairs ministry spokesperson Gopal Baglay said.

 Asked about China’s claim of India reducing its troops from 400 to 40 in Doklam, he said refused to give a direct reply calling it an operational matter.

Our objective is to achieve peace and tranquillity and it will be achieved through diplomacy, Baglay said.

He also said that India has been in continuous coordination and consultation with Bhutan on the Dokalam issue.

Why arms industries in India, China and Pakistan fail to produce enough equipments

India, China and Pakistan have indigenous arms industries in order to sustain their independence and assert their power in the region and beyond. All three have come a long way from total dependence on friendly foreign suppliers to meeting many of their requirements from indigenous sources. They are even exporting to other countries. South Asian monitor

Not surprisingly, China is streets ahead of India and Pakistan in arms production and export and is aiming at overtaking leading Western countries by 2020.

But defense industries in these countries are being held back by structural issues entrenched in the over-arching political and bureaucratic system. Reforms are urgently needed to bring about efficiency, innovativeness, cost-effectiveness and competitiveness, attributes which are essential for survival in the globalized marketplace.

With 1.3 million under arms, India has the second largest standing army in the world after China’s. Besides, it has 1.2 million in reserves and 1.4 million in its paramilitary outfits. It is believed to possess 90-110 nuclear bombs. Its defense budget is US$ 51.3 billion, which is 2.3 % of its GDP.

Pakistan has a 600,000 standing armed force, 300,000 men in reserve and 100-120 nuclear war heads. Its defense budget is US$ 9.5 billion which is 3.4% (higher than India’s figure).

China’s Peoples’ Liberation Army (PLA), which includes its Navy and Air Force, has 2.3 million men and women. This is to be cut by 1 million soon, but only to arm it better and make it “lean and mean”. China’s paramilitary comprises 500,000 persons. It has 260 nuclear warheads. Its defense budget is a whopping US$ 214.8 billion. But as a percentage of the GDP it is a minuscule 1.9%.

India’s armed forces look good on paper. But among other deficiencies, the country’s defense industries are backward. No wonder that even 70 years after independence, India imports 70% of its military hardware. Its ammunition stock is sufficient only for 10 days of fighting. Today, India has the dubious distinction of having been the second largest importer of arms, next only to Saudi Arabia, between 2011 and 2016. Its stock of ammunition is sufficient only for 10 days of fighting.

Faced with traditional rival Pakistan and a resurgent and assertive China, India has to import more. According to defense commentator Ajai Shukla, India’s arms are of the 1970s vintage. According to Jane’s, the Air Force’s 45 MIG 29K jets are up to 40% not airworthy at any given point of time. India had 13 submarines at one time, but now it has less of them than Pakistan. India has been trying to devise or buy a suitable field rifle since 1982 but it yet to succeed. It has not made or purchased a medium range gun like the Bofors gun, since the Bofors guns were bought in the 1980s.

But besides all this, India’s defense industry, though large (the outlay for it is a whopping Rs. 250 billion (US$ 3.9 billion) by the last count) is inefficient and incompetent.

Speaking at a public forum recently, the Vice Chief of Army Staff, Lt. Gen. Sarath Chand, said that Pakistan has a better defense industry than India. Being almost entirely in the public sector the Indian defense industry is weak because there is no competition and no motivation to innovate, do better and faster.

In an article in The Statesman on August 1, Maj. Gen. Harsh Kakkar, pointed out that the overheads in the Indian ordnance factories are as high as in other public sector undertakings in India. Therefore, costs and prices are high. Because of a lack of innovations and quality consciousness, products fail at the field level. Twenty officers were killed in an arms depot explosion at Pulgaon when anti-tank mines exploded due to a TNT leak. Complaints to the manufacturing companies went unanswered as usual.

Manufacture of arms gets delayed because parts are not available or are not made available on time. The tank factory at Avadi near Chennai, delays delivery because of non-availability of parts. There is also wanton wastage as in the case of truck manufacturing. The Vehicles Factory is located in Jabalpore, but the parts are made by Ashok Leyland at Bengaluru. The parts are transported to Jabalpore to be assembled over a thousand miles when this could easily have been done at Ashok Leyland at Bengaluru.

Writing in the Indian Defense Review, Brig Arun Bajpai says that India’s defense industry comprising 41 ordnance factories, 42 laboratories and eight Public Sector Undertakings is under performing because it is working on inherited pre-independence principles.

According to Western sources, Indian technical skills being low, the integration of indigenously developed systems with imported ones, is unsatisfactory, causing delays in joint development projects.

Recommendations of two committees to reform the system to meet modern needs, made since 2003, have been ignored. Bajpai notes that it is only now, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has unshackled the tri-forces from the mandarins of the Defense Ministry by empowering the Vice Chiefs of Army, Navy and Air Force to take financial decisions.

In the past few years, and especially after Prime Minister Modi inaugurated the “Make in India” project, the private sector has been roped into the hitherto highly restricted defense production area. But in a media interview, a private sector representative, Vinay Kaushal, said that annual policy changes make it very difficult for private sector to participate. Furthermore, the interest rate on bank loans is high at 9.65%. And it takes months to get the required clearances from multiple agencies and ministries apart from the Defense Ministry.

However, India has been making modest headway in exporting military hardware.      This new emphasis on exporting military wares has yielded early results with Indian defense exports doubling over the course of the past year to about $330 million in 2016. The target is to export $2 billion worth in two years.

India has exported select avionics for Malaysia’s Su-30 MKM fighters. Indian exports to Afghanistan, Nepal, and Namibia have included light helicopters. India  has developed HMS-X2 sonars to Myanmar and protective armor for NATO members like Turkey. A range of spares, mechanical components, and electronic assemblies are being supplied to global manufacturers. The 1,300-ton US$ 50.8 million Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) MCGS Barracudawas supplied to Mauritius in December 2014. The Goa Shipyard Limited has supplied an Advance Offshore Patrol Craft to Sri Lanka, and eleven Fast Attack Craft (FAC) and two Fast Patrol Vessels for Mauritius.

Typically credit is given for buying Indian equipment, but the BrahMos missile is being sought for its capability. Vietnam, Indonesia, UAE, Chile, Malaysia, the Philippines, South Africa, Algeria, Greece, Thailand, Egypt, Singapore, Venezuela, Brazil, and even Bulgaria have expressed interest.

As regards, Pakistan, its defense production for local use has reached $1.5 billion per annum, according to a report published in the journal Jane’s Defense Weekly, which quoted an unnamed Pakistani official as saying: “We have substituted imported defense equipment worth US$1.5 billion, which for us is a huge bonus”.

Pakistan exports its Khalid battle tanks and J-17 fighters. But the quality of its ammunition has been questioned in some countries like Oman. Like India, Pakistan too has to involve the private sector to make quality products.

In 2016, China’s defense industry produced products worth US$ 362 billion. China has reached high levels of competence in some sectors like missile technology, but research in other areas is still lagging behind leading to continued dependence on Russian technology. Its submarines are still too noisy.

China’s state-owned defense industry faces many challenges typical of the public sector anywhere. Due to high centralization and security consciousness, inefficiency, lack of innovation in certain areas, and mounting debt are prevalent.

There is now a move to involve the private sector. As a first step, between 2010 and June 2016, the defense industry raised US$ 62.87 billion by issuing bonds and equity.

President Xi Jinping has called for a scientific and technologically advanced and better organized PLA. But at the same time, he made it clear that the Communist Party will have the final say in military matters and that the structure will continue to be highly centralized.

What says US about India-China recent fight

Tensions have been building on the Himalayan frontier that separates China and India, even as a new round of political instability roils Pakistan. A recent skirmish in Kashmir, moreover, raises the stark possibility of a South Asian conflagration that involves not just two nuclear powers, but actually three (or even four). Some strategists in Washington are gleeful that Beijing confronts yet another brushfire on its flank—the more so to dissipate the energies of the resurgent Middle Kingdom. Indeed, it has long been fashionable in Washington to advocate for stirring up trouble on China’s unruly western borders in order to contain any ambitions that China might have on its eastern or maritime flank. However, such viewpoints are appallingly short sighted. South Asian Monitor

We have learned before, perhaps more than once, that playing geopolitics in South and Central Asia can have disastrous consequences for U.S. national security. Advocates for the ever-deepening U.S.-Indian strategic partnership have long been in ascendance in the Pentagon. The recent Malabar exercise has become a potent symbol of New Delhi’s prominent role alongside Tokyo and Washington as the “Three Musketeers” that will keep the fire-breathing Chinese dragon in check. Not surprisingly, Chinese commentators interpreted the Malabar exercise, yet again, as aimed squarely at Beijing. Meanwhile, the new trend in Washington is increasingly to blame Pakistan for all woes in Afghanistan. Increasingly, it looks as if South Asia will be subsumed into the larger superpower struggle—a rather familiar and dreadful scenario from the Cold War. Such an outcome is hardly good for South Asians. Nor does it accord with U.S. national interest either.

Rather than opposing the spread of Chinese influence in South Asia at every turn, Washington and New Delhi should instead objectively study the details of China-Pakistan engagement and consider how these ties, for the most part, actually benefit global security. This is not the first time that this Dragon Eye column has considered the unfolding strategic situation in the Indian Ocean, but this edition uses a cover spring 2017 story from the influential Chinese magazine Caijing (Finance and Economics) about the mystery port of Gwadar that China has been building on Pakistan’s coast near the Strait of Hormuz to elucidate a fresh perspective.

The Caijing story does not sugar coat the current situation related to developing the port of Gwadar. The challenges are readily admitted in the subtitle, which states that a project with the “hidden potential to transform the Eurasian continent’s energy and trade landscape” will require China to “cut through the brambles.” All kinds of difficulties are discussed in the piece, from the problem of electricity and fresh water shortages to the issue of illiteracy that is said to reach as high as 75 percent of the local population. Pessimists, the article notes, are doubtful that Beijing can show a return for all of its investments in the port and the whole concept of the China-Pakistan economic corridor is described as “facing a test.”

Pakistan’s internal fissures are said to hold the project “by the elbows.” “The overall deterioration of the security situation strikes a blow against investor confidence.” Indeed, it is observed that China is building its port in the most unstable part of Pakistan, the restive province of Baluchistan. To boot, the port is located very near to Iran—not exactly a darling of global investors—and is dependent on Iranian energy supplies. The article relates how the shock of a May 2004 terrorist attack against Chinese workers that killed three has not been forgotten, so that an outburst of further violence in Baluchistan in April 2015 has again rattled Chinese confidence. According to the Caijing article, Pakistan has committed to deploying 15,000 soldiers to protecting the China-Pakistan economic corridor. But the author of this assessment also laments that having armed guards everywhere also may not make investors feel completely comfortable either.

Still, the report is not all gloomy and there seems to even be some decent progress. Since the management of the port changed hands from a Singaporean owner to Chinese management, the article claims that all new equipment and machinery has been installed, including cranes, forklifts and trucks for hauling the containers. Up to now, most of Gwadar’s trade is with Pakistan’s most populous city of Karachi, which is 600 km away along a coastal highway. The planned handling capacity of the new port, at 3–400 million tons, apparently amounts to ten times that of Karachi, however, and is said to be equivalent to all of India’s ports combined. A new desalination plant is reported to be up and running to provide for the port’s basic fresh water requirements. That plant is also said to distribute some of that precious resource to nearby residents free of charge. Much more fresh water is needed, but another benefit to locals, according to this Chinese rendering, will be the opportunity for Pakistanis to develop training and experience in modern port operations. Perhaps most impressive in this report, however, is the interesting detail that a convoy of sixty-plus trucks rumbled down the 3,115 km road journey from Kashgar in the Chinese province of Xinjiang to Gwadar in fifteen days during November 2016. With export products destined for Africa and the Middle East, this convoy apparently signifies that the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor “has been realized”. For China, there are the benefits that Pakistan has valuable resources in its own right, such as a major cotton export industry, or the opportunity to gain tax and tariff advantages. But the most tantalizing dream for Beijing is that coveted energy resources will be shipped almost directly via Gwadar through pipelines from the Persian Gulf into western China.

Even as China and India once more come nose to nose and eyeball to eyeball across the forbidding glaciers of the high Himalayas, the United States must resist the temptation to pour gasoline on this potentially dangerous conflagration even though more than a few U.S. (and global) arms merchants would benefit from the intensification of Sino-Indian military rivalry. Nor do more bombs and special forces for Afghanistan portend any particular progress. Indeed, the inclination in Washington to blame all of Afghanistan’s troubles on Pakistan is extremely unlikely to resolve any fundamental strategic issues and may well make the overall strategic situation highly combustible. On the other hand, China’s “Belt and Road” holds out the promise of genuine developmental progress for both Afghanistan and especially Pakistan, as discussed above. The Chinese Ambassador to Islamabad from 2002–07, Zhang Chunxiang, is quoted in the Caijing article as follows: “From 2002 to the current day . . . China has pursued commercial goals in Gwadar and there is not a single [Chinese] document to demonstrate the intention to convert Gwadar into a military port.” But whether or not Ambassador Zhang is believed or not, there is actually nothing especially alarming about the PLA Navy having a foothold near Hormuz anyways. Even the most truculent China hawks must concede that Beijing has legitimate security interests in this region.

A more mature and forward-looking approach is badly needed. That is not one that seeks to plunder Afghanistan’s mineral wealth to pay for a failed war—a farcical line of argumentation that recalls the fantasy of using Iraqi oil to compensate the United States for trillions squandered in Middle East quicksand. Rather, a responsible policy for Central and South Asia that respects the reality of limited U.S. resources (and patience) would finally withdraw all forces from Afghanistan and initiate a major effort to bring about confidence-building measures to improve the climate of relations between Beijing and New Delhi. These could involve prior notification agreements concerning major military exercises or deployments of naval task groups into sensitive areas, as well as restraint in selling arms.

Most critically, the new approach would accept and even embrace the long-time, but now blossoming, China-Pakistan partnership as revealed in the discussion above of Gwadar’s difficult, but steady development. Such an acceptance would be built on the stark logic that Washington and New Delhi have much to lose if Pakistan slips into violent chaos or radicalism. They each have significant gripes with Islamabad (and Beijing), to be sure. But seen in a larger context, they both also have much to gain from a more stable and prosperous Pakistan.

Lyle J. Goldstein is Professor of Strategy in the China Maritime Studies Institute (CMSI) at the United States Naval War College in Newport RI.

India rebuilding sub fleet amid China threat

After years of delay, India’s navy is preparing to take delivery of one of the world’s stealthiest and most deadly fighting tools: the INS Kalvari, an attack submarine named after a deep-sea tiger shark. South Asian Monitor

The commissioning later this month of the Scorpene-class submarine is a milestone in India’s effort to rebuild its badly depleted underwater fighting force, and the first of six on order.

It also comes as China’s military expands its fleet to nearly 60 submarines – compared with India’s 15 – and increases its forays into the Indian Ocean in what New Delhi strategists see as a national security challenge.

A Chinese Yuan-class diesel-powered submarine entered the Indian Ocean in May and is still lurking, according to an Indian naval officer who asked not to be identified, citing policy.

It is an unwelcome reminder of China’s rapidly expanding naval strength at a time when Indian and Chinese soldiers are engaged in a border stand-off.

The official opening last month of China’s first naval base in Djibouti at the western end of the Indian Ocean, recent submarine sales to Pakistan and Bangladesh, and the visit last year of a Chinese nuclear- powered submarine to Karachi have also exposed how unprepared India’s navy is to meet underwater challenges.

Still, analysts say it will be years before China can pose a credible threat to India in the Indian Ocean.

“Simple geography gives India a huge strategic advantage in the Indian Ocean,” said Mr David Brewster, a senior research fellow with the National Security College at the Australian National University in Canberra.

China’s navy needs to enter the Indian Ocean through narrow choke points like the Malacca Strait that runs between Indonesia and Malaysia.

“And although China has been sending in submarines, you have to understand they are probably decades away from being able to seriously challenge India there, especially while the United States is present,” Mr Brewster added.

In the meantime, India is slowly upgrading its underwater fleet. To deter both China and Pakistan, planners reckon that the fleet needs at least 18-diesel, six nuclear and four nuclear-armed submarines.

The INS Kalvari is the first of six French-made Scorpene submarines on order in a 236-billion rupee project awarded in 2005 to the state-owned defence shipyard Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders and France’s Naval Group, formerly known as DCNS Group.

China is going to defeat India within 2 weeks - Chinese media

Amid the ongoing standoff between Indian and Chinese soldiers in Sikkim, a new editorial of Chinese state daily Global Times on Friday targeted Prime Minister Narendra Modi, warning him not to push India into a “reckless conflict” with China. The editorial titled, “Modi mustn’t pull India into reckless conflict”, warned, “Indian border troops are no rival to PLA field forces. If a war spreads, the PLA is perfectly capable of annihilating all Indian troops in the border region.” South Asian Monitor

China has exercised great restraint, demonstrating respect to peace and human life through its decision not to strike at Indian troops who have taken up positions in Doklam, the Global Times said but warned of ‘devastation’ if India continues to provoke its giant neighbour.

“India is concerned that the road China was building in Doklam might threaten the security of the Siliguri Corridor, but does that justify Indian troops’ incursion into another country in utter disregard of international treaties,” the newspaper queried.

Emphasising that the PLA did not strike in the past month when Indian troop trespassed into Chinese territory, the editorial warned of a mismatch in strength between India and China in the case of a military confrontation and urged India to recognize the ‘grave consequences,’ its actions could have.

“The Modi government’s hard-line stance is sustained by neither laws nor strength. This administration is recklessly breaking international norms and jeopardizing India’s national pride and peaceful development.”

It further said “India is publicly challenging a country that is far superior in strength. India’s recklessness has shocked Chinese. Maybe its regional hegemonism in South Asia and the Western media comments have blinded New Delhi into believing that it can treat a giant to its north in the way it bullies other South Asian countries.”

“Its move is irresponsible to regional security and is gambling against India’s destiny and its people’s well-being,” the Global Times said reiterating that India was being aggressive towards a country far superior in military capability.

“Over the past month, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has been on the move. We believe that the PLA has made sufficient preparation for military confrontation,” the editorial further said and opined that it would be war with an ‘obvious result.’

“The government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi should be aware of the PLA’s overwhelming firepower and logistics. Indian border troops are no rival to PLA field forces. If a war spreads, the PLA is perfectly capable of annihilating all Indian troops in the border region,” it said.

“The Modi government should stop lying to its people that “India in 2017 is different from India in 1962.” The gap in national strength between the two countries is the largest in the past 50 years. If the Modi government wants to start a war, at least it should tell its people the truth,” it added.

The Global Times commentary on the ongoing stand-off between China and India comes amidst statements issued by the Chinese Foreign Ministry this week demanding that India immediately and unconditionally pull back the trespassing border troops.

“If the Indian side truly cherish peace, what it should do is to immediately pull back the trespassing border troops to the Indian side of the boundary,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said, describing the action of India as one of “irresponsibility and recklessness.”

He maintained that until Wednesday, there had been 48 Indian soldiers and one bulldozer in the Doklam area, calling this as an illegal intrusion into Chinese territory.