Monday, November 27, 2017

Is Tibet a closed chapter of history?

SOURCE:
http://ajitdoval.blogspot.in/2013/01/tibet-is-it-closed-chapter-of-history.html



    









     [  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2KzHF3GAQY  ]




          India's World - Tibet in Sino-Indian Ties





    AJIT DOVAL'S PERSPECTIVES





"Tibet"  Is It a Closed Chapter of History?





The fact that China occupied Tibet ,a sovereign country, and is threatening any country which shows solidarity with Tibet is the testimony of expansive mindset of Communists in China. The outrageous claims in SCS and also distributing of maps to its troops which include Arunachal Pradesh as a part of China is an indication of CCP plans for further expansion into other countries territories. The threat from CCP is very real and is very disturbing to peace in Asia.

Nations want to take advantage of low cost manufacturing conditions, China is no exception. Based on the estimations and projections , 10 year double digit growth in GDP will make India economically strong and close the gap between India and China. India has the initiative and advantage when it comes to alliances and strategic relations to counter Chinese aggression. India should strengthen the economic and military relationship with other like minded countries in Asia. There must be an alliance between India, Japan, S.Korea and ASEAN to look after the economic and strategic interests in Asia.

It is a matter of time before the parity vis-a-vis China is restored 






Ajit Doval is India's National Security Adviser (NSA). He is a former Director of the Intelligence Bureau(IB)of India.He is a recipient of the Kirti Chakra, one of the highest military gallantry awards, the President's Police Medal for distinguished service, and the Indian Police Medal for meritorious service.He takes on national and global security issues ranging from counter- terrorism to India’s strategic challenges.





16 Jan 2013

Tibet – Is It a Closed Chapter of History? 

Is Tibet a closed chapter of history?
Many who take a short term view of history and mistake the present for perpetuity think so. For them, what exists is final. History in its march has, however, always proved the status quoists wrong - from the expansion and subsequent disintegration of the Roman empire to the balkanisation of the USSR. The old Tibetan saying that “The clouds of summer float by but the sky stays where it is forever,” underlines the oriental wisdom that anything that has changed in the past will change in the future as well. The long term strategic view of history often gets obfuscated in the dissonance of the immediate – the marching troops, political melodrama, shrill of the media and silence of the expediency. Muted but unmistakable changes in Tibet are discernible that makes revisiting the issue in the contemporary context relevant. 



There was an air of melancholy in Dalai Lama’s lamentation that, “When Tibet was free, we took our freedom for granted. Our physical isolation lulled us into a sense of complacency”. In former times, Tibetans were a war–like nation whose influence spread far and wide. With the advent of Buddhism our military prowess declined”. But more than the melancholy, it was reiteration of the harsh reality of human experience that goodness, unless fortified by strength to assert it, is meaningless and verdict of the world is always in favour of the strong and not the right. 


The developments that took place from the invasion of Tibet’s eastern province of Kham by the Chinese army in 1949 to its total subjugation in 1959 and leading to the exodus of over one hundred thousand Tibetans led by the Dalai Lama is a sordid chapter of history. It was all the more so as it came close on the heels of post-war UN Charter that asserted that the world was determined to uphold, “The dignity and worth of the human persons, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained.” It appeared that the world was ushering into a new era – but it was not. The tragedy was not only what the Chinese army did but more so what rest of the world failed to do. 


For centuries, these distinct people inhabiting the roof top of the world had a common civilisation, a unique priest-patron governmental system, flag, currency and sovereign rights to enter treaties. There is a long and continuous recorded history of Tibet from the time of King Songtsen Gompo from Sixth Century AD till date underlining its separate identity. However, as true of most ancient states, Tibet too had its ups and downs during its long history and there were times when its freedom in varying degrees was over-cast under some Chinese empires. It is, however, also true that there had been periods when strong Tibetan regimes exercised control over Chinese territories. One of the landmark treaties was signed between Tibetans and the Chinese as early as 821 AD evident by the text on the stone pillar close to Jokhang temple in Lhasa which states that “Great Tibet” and “Great China” would “act towards each other with respect, friendship and equality.” 

As an independent nation, Tibet entered into treaties with Bushair (1681), Laddakh (1683 and 1842), Nepal (1856), Mongolia (1913) etc. Signing of the Shimla treaty in 1914 with the British where it delineated its frontier with India is a historic landmark. 

In recent history, Tibet enjoyed all the characteristics of a sovereign nation following expulsion of the Chinese forces from the Tibetan territory by the 13th Dalai Lama in 1911. All pre-1950 maps, globes and atlases show Tibet as an independent nation. There was an independently functioning government in Tibet when on the dawn of October 6, 1950, 52nd, 53rd and 54th divisions of the 18th Army of the Chinese military attacked the Tibetan frontier, guarded by 3,500 soldiers and by 2,000 Khampa militiamen. Though heavily outnumbered, Tibetean forces fought to the last man on the banks of Drichu river and at the river crossing near Markham in the South. 



The fact that Tibet was an independent country that was invaded by China was upheld by the Legal Enquiry Committee of the International Commission of Jurists. It asserted in its report that, “Tibet demonstrated from 1913 to 1950 the conditions of statehood as generally accepted under international law. In 1950, there was a people and a territory, and a government that functioned in that territory, conducting its own domestic affairs free from any outside authority. From 1913-1950, foreign relations of Tibet were conducted exclusively by the Government of Tibet, and countries with whom Tibet had foreign relations are shown by official documents to have treated Tibet as an independent State.” Historical realities are hard to wish away and like the buried seeds assert themselves when the time is ripe. 

The relevance of the Tibet issue is, however, not only political. Much beyond politics there lies a threatened civilisation, cultural heritage, spiritual order and way of life nurtured over the centuries. The struggle in Tibet more than political is for its cultural and spiritual survival. In the march of history the identities rooted in these enduring human attainments prove to be indissoluble; often unfolding the future in most unpredictable ways. 



As often misconstrued, civilisational identity of Tibet is not limited to the geographical confines of the Chinese drawn Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR). It extends far beyond and includes areas inhabited by the people who identify themselves as ‘Bodpas’ and consider the Dalai Lama as their temporal and spiritual head. Often referred as ‘historical’ or ‘cultural’ Tibet, besides TAR, includes provinces of Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan; together accounting for roughly one fourth of what constitutes present day China. These areas with an average altitude of 3,000 meters are topographically clearly distinguishable with non-Tibetan low lands and are marked by a sparse density of population, ethnically different from people of mainland China. 




The other aspect that lends the Tibetan issue a sense of urgency is its human rights dimension. The deeply religious people unable to defend themselves have fallen victim to rapacious expansionism and religious suppression of a power, that subscribes to the Marxian prototype that, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature.” 

The post 2009 spate of protests and suicides that have rocked Tibet are as much against Sinocisation and cultural degradation as for political freedom. The gruesome trail of self immolations over the years has become more intense, widespread and frequent; the year 2012 alone recording over 82 incidents. Significantly, the incidents were not only confined to Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) but also to ‘historical Tibet; which includes several areas that have now been declared as non-Tibetan provinces of China.


For last six decades the people of Tibet have been facing grave violation of human rights, denial of religious freedom and restrictions to pursue their way of life. Ample evidence of gross human rights violations have been placed before the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and other international bodies by the Tibetans living in exile and their supporters. In March 2012, four international NGOs deposed before the UNHRC on gross violation of human rights, abuse of power and denial of religious freedom. Faith in pacifist philosophy of Buddhism, small and scattered population, economic poverty and lack of international support make the hapless population an easy target for the Chinese army to suppress and subjugate. Dubbing Dalai Lama as a conspirator, the Chinese consider these self immolations as part of his crafty mechanisms. The Chinese Embassy in New Delhi in its website reproduced a December 11, 2012, report of People’s Daily insinuating that self-immolations in China's ethnic Tibetan areas was "among the latest tactics that the Dalai clique has taken in recent years to achieve their political purposes". This, however, has failed to obfuscate the harsh reality that the resentment in Tibet against repression and violation of human rights is assuming serious proportions. There is a need for realistic and meaningful initiatives by all stake holders, including the international community to establish peace and normalcy in Tibet. It is unfortunate that the talks between Dalai Lama and the Chinese did not yield any fruitful results. There exists a sort of stalemate which needs to be broken through bold political initiatives. 


The problem of over one million Tibetan exiles, living in different parts of the world, is another important dimension of the Tibetan issue. These exiles, most of them living in India, in terms of their legal status, being neither citizens of any country, nor refugees, illegal immigrants or stateless persons are non-existent. Uprooted from their homeland for over half a century their economic and social life is in shambles. The only hope that sustains them is their abiding faith in the Dalai Lama’s leadership, their religious and temporal head, who heads the Tibetan government in exile and takes care of their basic survival needs. This, however, is undergoing a change following the Dalai Lama’s historic step to give up his political power.



The Dalai Lama’s voluntary abdication of his political power in March 2011 and its devolution to an elected democratic leadership is a watershed point. In April 2011, Dr. Lobsang Sangay was elected to the high office of Kalon Tripa (Prime Minister) of the government in exile. This step has long term implications. First, of course, is that hereafter the political and administrative powers which were earlier vested in the Dalai Lama would be exercised by a democratically elected body. Secondly, it brings about a separation of religious authority from the political authority which had been the hallmark of the priest-patron relationship in Tibet for centuries. Lastly, and most importantly, this brings to an end reliance of the movement to the life of an individual. It will prove those wrong who thought that the life of the Tibetan movement, was co-terminus with that of the Dalai Lama. Through this transfer of political power, the Dalai Lama has made every Tibetan- in and out of Tibet - a stake holder in the Tibetan struggle. 



From Indian perspective, Tibet has a special security import. India shares nearly a 4,000 km. of border with Tibet, which is now the Sino –Indian border. Despite India’s best efforts and sixteen rounds of talks to settle the border dispute, little progress has been made in this direction. China’s development of military infrastructural in Tibet, assistance to Pakistan in developing strategic weapon systems, new assertions in the Indian Ocean, claiming Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh as ‘Southern Tibet’ etc. have raised security concerns in India. Seen in the backdrop of China’s rise as a major military and economic power and its comprehensive military modernisation programme, that is more aggressive than defensive, serious security concerns have been raised in India. India’s security interests are thus intricately linked to developments in Tibet and need detailed study and analysis.




In recent years, there has been considerable interest among the scholars, human right activists, strategic thinkers and people at large about Tibet. I am happy that Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF) is bringing out a publication focussing on different aspects of the Tibet imbroglio. Some noted experts and professionals with long experience have contributed to this work. The articles cover a wide range of issues providing comprehensive perspectives as also an analysis of contemporary developments. I am grateful to Ambassador Prabhat Shukla for his painstaking efforts to bring out this book. I am sure the readers will find the publication useful. 













Saturday, November 25, 2017

: WARNING - धम्की - DHAMKI OF NEXT INDO- PAK WAR

SOURCE:




                      WARNING  -  धम्की  -  DHAMKI   

          WARNING  -  धम्की  -  DHAMKI

                                  OF 

               NEXT  INDO- PAK   WAR



Unlike   INDO-  PAK   WARS  from ( of )   1947- 48   and its continuation  to date  with  war  of  TERRORIST STRIKES  going on  since 1989-90  in the Indian sub continent,  

 NEXT WAR WITH PAKISTAN  IS GOING TO BE THE BLOODIEST' IN THE HISTORY OF THE  INDIAN SUB CONTINENT.

Next war  with Pakistan will be fought not only  with TACTICAL  NUKES   & MODERN INSTRUMENTS OF  MODERN WARFARE  It will  also be fought at a mammoth scale  with                       
               KNIVES SWORDS & EVEN BRICKS. 


      IT WILL BE THE BATTLE OF HATRED



            It will be a war of  HATRED , it will be a war  of  

    " THE CLASH OF  ISLAMIC (ARABIC) TRIBALISM  
                                                   & 
        RIVER VALLEY SETTLED  CIVILIZATIONS" 



   
   
   WHY THIS WARNING




Democracy in India has been hijacked by THE 

FEUDALISM  using  UNAWARE, ILLITERATE & 

IGNORANT VOTE BANK . This phenomena  is 

gradually giving rise to  "LOCAL WAR LORDS"



WITH   THICK WAR CLOUDS  OF  RELIGIOUS  HATRED  AND THE CHINK COLONIAL LIBERATION(read perpetual slavery)  PEOPLES ARMY breaching the borders every second day it is time now for   "WAKE UP CALL"


Experience of last seventy years has demonstrated in absolute crystal clear way that an AVERAGE citizen is on his own


THE LEAST A CITIZEN CAN DO IS


  "" START UNDERSTANDING WAR""



  TO UNDERSTAND  WAR  DO  NOT  


LEAVE  IT FOR THE NEXT DAY. Start  with

our own wars since independence. Most of

 us either have participated in these wars 

or were in service or are aware of these 

happenings . A few videos are placed 

below to begin with. To spread awareness

 our WAR HERITAGE INHERITANCE is our 

collective responsibility. 


          DO NOT DEPEND ON  "NETAS " 

          For them once an entry to the  

         "TEMPLE OF DEMOCRACY " 


                                 is 

                  TIME FOR LOOT

                
               for next five years







INDIAN WAR VIDEOS


 If you haven't viewed these videos 

before, you might like to view them 

sequentially- eight episodes of approx 

22 minutes each, presented by Mr 

Kabir Bedi (for "Headlines Today")






Episode 1: 1971 War :      https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=XH7Q5jXGzXg




Episode 2: 1971 War :      https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=TANNDticUck


Episode 3: 1947 War :      https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=huvEzONcutw


Episode 4: 1962 War :      https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=y0lc6b4bVX4


Episode 5: 1965 War :      https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=X-DuD_CHYwM


Episode 6: 1987 IPKF in Srilanka:      https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=ULDYqMRrSxQ


Episode 7: Kargil War Pt 1:       https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=I0iIqnw6fLw


Episode 8; Kargil War-Pt 2:      https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=xLh9DINk4QU


















Thursday, November 23, 2017

WW II : "Operation Uranus" THE GAME CHANGER Stalingrad (R)







SOURCE:

https://us11.campaign-archive.com/?e=2b23b22499&u=781d962e0d3dfabcf455f7eff&id=33b716217b




















              Stalingrad :GAME CHANGER 


                    

                     "Operation Uranus"


                                  By 


                     George Friedman





























              INVASION OF SOVIET UNION



           Stalingrad :GAME CHANGER 


                     "Operation Uranus"


                                  By 


                 George Friedman



READ ALSO 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Uranus


Nov 22, 2017

On Nov. 19, 1942, the Soviet Union launched Operation Uranus. Its goal was to envelop and destroy the German army fighting in the city of Stalingrad. Uranus closed the noose on the Germans a few days later

I have been writing about the four great battles of 1942 that extinguished the Axis powers’ chances of winning World War II. So far, I’ve written about MidwayGuadalcanal and El Alamein. Now, it is time to write about the most massive, brutal and crucial of those four battles: Stalingrad. It was a battle that stretched over five months, from late August 1942 to early February 1943, but Operation Uranus was its decisive moment. As with the other battles I’ve discussed, Stalingrad did not win the war for Russia. What it did was make a German victory impossible.

Intelligence Failures

The Battle of Stalingrad had its origins in a pivotal German miscalculation at the start of the war. Operation Barbarossa, the code name for Germany’s invasion of the east, was designed to destroy the Soviet Union, securing Germany’s eastern flank and thereby guaranteeing German control of continental Europe. The invasion began on June 22, 1941.

But the Germans made a critical error even before the invasion began. Barbarossa was a three-pronged attack. One was into the Baltic states and then toward Leningrad (modern-day St. Petersburg), the second was toward Moscow, and the third was into the south, designed to capture Ukraine and then the Caucasus. Formulating the plan in this way violated one of the principles of warfare, one sacred to the German high command: the concentration of forces. By dividing their forces, none of the Germans’ goals were achieved. Leningrad held out in spite of Germany’s blockade, the Germans were stopped just outside of Moscow, and the southern thrust wasn’t set up to succeed





                                   Operation Barbarossa



The Germans’ blunder was rooted in an intelligence failure. The Abwher, Germany’s military intelligence, severely
underestimated the size of Soviet 
reserves.
Based on those estimates, German high command mistakenly believed it didn’t need to concentrate its forces. The Germans envisioned an initial battle of encirclement to capture Soviet armies, followed by an advance against feeble reserves, ending in victory well before the end of winter 1941.

The German plan also didn’t account for Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor that December. Germany had hoped the Japanese would attack Siberia, pinning down the Soviet army stationed there. After Pearl Harbor, however, the Soviets knew that Siberia was secure. Japan could fight on only one front at a time, and the United States would keep it busy. This freed up the Soviets to shift their eastern forces – forces that German intelligence thought would be irrelevant to the European war – to Moscow, where they were instrumental in blocking the German advance.

This intelligence failure cost the Germans a victory in 1941. They might have knocked the Soviet Union out if they had taken Moscow, but that’s unclear. Leningrad was a strategic sideshow. But the war could certainly have been won in the south. And the crucial battle in the south was at Stalingrad.


The Meat Grinder

Modern wars and economies run on oil, and the Soviets’ major source of oil was Baku, in Azerbaijan. The city in the South Caucasus had been developed by the Nobel Brothers (the family for whom the prize is named) in the mid-to-late 19th century and had been Europe’s first major source of oil. Had the Germans focused their entire invasion on the south and captured the land bridge between the Volga and the Don rivers, Baku’s oil wouldn’t have been able to flow to Soviet factories, and no amount of lend-lease could have made up for it. But because of their faulty intelligence, the Germans felt as though they could have all three goals in 1941. They were wrong.

By the next spring, the Germans had realized their mistake. It was now Stalin who fell victim to bad intelligence. Stalin believed (and the Germans led him to believe) that the main German assault in 1942 would be toward Moscow. Instead, Germany concentrated its forces in a thrust toward the Volga, the Don and the city of Astrakhan, intent on cutting off Baku. Stalin was stunned when the Germans launched Case Blue in the south.


By August 1942, the Germans had reached Stalingrad. It was a way station for them that they expected to take easily before crossing the Volga and advancing toward Astrakhan. The Soviets immediately understood the threat that Case Blue posed, but their forces were concentrated in the wrong place.


SOVIET  forces were concentrated in the wrong place.







Without a massed army to throw into the fight, the Soviets implemented a meat grinder strategy. They shipped poorly trained, poorly armed troops across the Volga to be annihilated by the Germans. The Soviets’ hope was that this would buy them time to shift their forces south for a counterattack. The Germans misunderstood the threat. They thought Stalin was sending tens of thousands of soldiers to their deaths simply to keep the Germans off-balance, and they decided that the Soviets were on their last legs. Instead of withdrawing from Stalingrad and engaging in a battle maneuver – the sort of thing the Germans were best at – they[GERMANS] accepted the worst kind of warfare for themselves: a static urban battle that put the attackers at a massive disadvantage.


Soviet soldiers in 1942 during the battle of Stalingrad. -/AFP/Getty Images

Some have said that Hitler and Stalin saw Stalingrad first and foremost as a potential propaganda victory; that they were less concerned with its strategic value and more concerned with capturing or defending a city named after the Soviet leader. That just wasn’t the case. Stalin had to keep Hitler from crossing the Volga. Hitler was sure that the Soviets were down to a suicide strategy and that if Germany could hold on a little longer, the Soviets would fall and the road to Astrakhan would be clear. Their mistakes were understandable, and German generals saw things the same way, despite what they said in their postwar memoirs.

While the static battle raged, in September and October, the Soviets were stealthily massing forces north and south of the city. 

On Nov. 19, 1942, they launched their 
counterattack, 

                   Operation Uranus.











STRIKE ON STALINGRAD BY SOVIETS




The Battle of Stalingrad (1942-1943)


Soviet forces struck to the north and south of Stalingrad, encircling it and trapping the German Sixth Army, which had been fully committed to the battle. The Soviets targeted troops allied with Germany – Italian, Romanian and Hungarian – knowing they were the least motivated and least resilient. The Germany knew this too, but they didn’t have enough troops to hold the line so they had no other choice but to use their allies.


Once they had the city surrounded, the Soviets held firm.






Rather than suffer more casualties 
entering Stalingrad, they opted to try to
 starve the Germans out.

Hitler told the Sixth Army to hold and did not try to relieve it until the end of December. Withdrawal would mean that the war was lost. In the meantime, the Germans launched a weak offensive into the Caucasus in a last-ditch bid to take Baku directly. Crossing the Caucasus in early winter, however, was impossible.


What If

Baku was there for the taking in 1941, but by 1942, the Soviets were ready for war. Even after the start of the Battle of Stalingrad, Germany may have been able to recover if it could have given the Soviet troops in the city an alternative to the meat grinder. The troops there were trapped between the ruthlessness of the Germans and the ruthlessness of their compatriots. For the Soviet soldiers on the west bank of the Volga, the slogan was, “There is no land east of the Volga.” They faced certain death from the Soviet secret police, the NKVD, if the retreated, and certain death from the Germans if they were captured. This failure on the part of the Germans to give the Soviet troops in Stalingrad an incentive to surrender was a great failure. It cost them time and, eventually, the battle.

Beyond Stalingrad, if the Germans had reached Astrakhan, there would have been no Allied invasion of France. 

With the eastern front secure, Germany would have been able to transfer the majority of its forces to the west. The oil from Baku would have fueled Hitler’s war machine through Allied bombing, and the Germans could have built aircraft to respond in kind. Instead, they underestimated the reserves and resilience of the Soviets; they failed to understand that Stalingrad could be bypassed on the way to Astrakhan; and unlike Stalin, they didn’t have agility to shift strategy quickly.


The Wehrmacht was not broken at Stalingrad, but by 1943, it was out of serious offensive options. The Germans needed to make peace, and apparently there were contacts with the Soviets. But the Germans insisted on retaining a great deal of their conquests. The Soviets had no reason to accept any such offer. They knew that if the Germans kept any captured territory, they would rebuild and strike again. And they knew that Germany was facing a war of attrition on two fronts that it could no longer win.


 [A]   Midway and Guadalcanal dashed any hopes of a Japanese victory in the Pacific

 [B]   War. El Alamein closed the door on the Germans’ effort to cut off the Suez Canal.

  [ C ]  And Stalingrad eliminated the possibility of a Soviet defeat. 

These facts stem from geopolitical realities.    

The Japanese needed to control the flow of raw materials to Japan. They could jump out to an early lead over the U.S., but unless they could compel the U.S. to sue for peace, they couldn’t hold their advantage. The Germans needed the Soviets’ resources, but like the Japanese, they needed to win quickly or they wouldn’t win at all. They couldn’t sustain a two-front war.


German and Japan were both mighty 
powers with crippling vulnerabilities 
that they tried to rectify through war. For a time, they were able to create the 
illusion that they were stronger than 
they were. It was an illusion sopowerful 
that they themselves began to believe it.


 They became blind to the fact that to 
win, everything had to go perfectly. In 
any human endeavor, nothing goes 
perfectly.


The post Stalingrad appeared first on Geopolitical Futures.
The greatest compliment you can give us is a recommendation to your friends and colleagues. Please feel free to share this piece with anyone you think would enjoy reading it.