India sHould noT ConCede gRound To CHina: exPeRTs
‘In some cases, China has followed the inch-by-inch strategy, where the aim is not to obtain territory overnight, but gradually over 10-15 years.’
India must not concede any ground to China in the standoff in the Doklam area along the trijunction of India, Bhutan and China, experts say, as it is China’s second nature to acquire the territories of its neighbouring states. They also say that the border stand-off is likely to continue until November.
Speaking to The Sunday Guardian, A.B. Mahapatra, chairman, CASS-India, said, “The list of the countries that are stuck in border disputes with China is too long. Mongolia, South Korea, Taiwan, North Korea, Afghanistan, Tibet, all have had troubles with China. In some instanc- es, the dispute began after the country signed a border agreement with China. It is called the ‘inch-by-inch’ strategy, where the aim is not to obtain territory overnight, but gradually over 1015 years.“
Quoting a few examples, Mahapatra said, “Both Tajikistan and Myanmar have suffered at the hands of expanding Chinese settlements into their regions by the local Chinese, who come on the pretext on trade, start to live in the regions which have been agreed upon as being undisputed border regions, but when Chinese presence increases, then China puts a claim on the land. In Tajikistan, Chinese nomadic people were used by China to make in- roads into Tajikistan’s territory and China pleaded innocence when Tajikistan objected. It was only after Russia intervened that China retracted 5 km back to its earlier position. Similarly in northern Myanmar, China claimed a stretch of 200-250 km long as its own territory when the trade and social settlement in northern Myanmar had become dependent on the Chinese people who had started moving into Myanmar and marrying the locals.”
Mahapatra cited two other curious cases where China has created border disputes with its neighbours. For example, in the case of northern Vietnam, the border dispute began after the formal border agreement in 2000. The subject of dispute became the Red River which was used as a basis of the 2000 border treaty. “The Chinese geologists studied the river and then used stones and boulders to change its course in such a way that the river ate into Vietnamese territory. When Vietnam noticed the change in their annual geological survey, China concluded that since the river was the basis of the border treaty therefore, wherever the tributaries of the river go will be seen as Chinese territory,” said Mahapatra.
Similarly, Indonesia and China came at loggerheads when China laid claim on the Natuna Islands after the two countries started a trade and tourists exchange programme. “The Chinese found coins of Ching and Ming dynasties and made it the basis of their border claim that has made Natuna Islands a disputed territory now, “explained Mahapatra.
Former National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon said on Friday that the India-China dispute in Doklam sector was likely to continue till the annual Congress of the Communist Party of China gets over in November.
“Don’t expect flexibility till the party Congress is over. No leader would like to come across as weak to the party Congress. So the continuation of the situation is expected till November,” Menon said at an interaction at the Foreign Correspondents Club in New Delhi.
Menon, who has also served as the foreign secretary, said the face- off was also a message from China that “Why are you in Bhutan? They don’t recognise your locus standi in Bhutan”.
Menon, who served as the country’s envoy to China, said the once prevalent global order had become stagnant and the reality of today’s time was multiple regional orders. He added that Iran did not view the development of Chabahar port as a “Chinese strategy”. “The Iranians would like to see it as an economic project and they would like India and Iran to co-exist,” the former National Security Adviser said. Chaos and ad-hocism have impacted the smooth functioning of the Delhi University (DU), academicians with the university have alleged. DU Vice Chancellor Yogesh Tyagi is yet to constitute his core team, while governing bodies in 28 Delhi government funded colleges have also not been constituted. The principal’s post in some colleges also remain vacant. Even as a new academic session is about to commence, nearly 4,000 teaching staff posts are also vacant. In fact, even the University Grants Commission (UGC) is yet to get a new Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Despite two meetings of the DU’s Executive Council (EC), no decision has been taken on the governing bodies of the 28 colleges. The colleges where principals have to be appointed include Kirori Mal, Shri Ram College of Commerce, Hansraj, Ramjas, Kamala Nehru and Delhi College of Arts and Commerce. Recently, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)led Delhi government announced that it may stop funding to 12 fully-funded and 16 partially-funded DU colleges if the governing bodies were not formed. AAP is alleging that the Centre is putting pressure on DU to people the governing bodies according to the “whims” of the Bharatiya Janata Party, a charge denied by the latter. The Delhi University Teachers’ Association (DUTA) has been attempting to communicate to the V-C about the urgency of the situation. In a letter to Yogesh Tyagi in June, DUTA president Nandita Narain wrote, “Since the governing bodies of colleges are the appointing authority for both principals and teachers, it is essential that regular governing bodies for all the colleges are in place to ensure that the appointment process takes place in a smooth, timebound and fair manner. The silence over the appointment of governing bodies is unprecedented and a blame game between university officials and the Delhi government is going on and this has resulted in a mess in DU.” A governing body includes the college principal, two teachers’ representatives and two university representatives. Another 10 members are nominated to the body, five by the state and five by DU after verification by the Delhi government. The terms of the last governing bodies ended in October 2016, but the replacements have not been appointed till now.
In a recently held DU-EC meeting, members had deferred taking a decision on the appointment of governing body members of the 28 colleges, citing “improper procedure” being followed in nominations and a five-member committee was formed to look into the names. A.K. Bhagi, an EC member, told The Sunday Guardian: “The committee comprises the dean of colleges, two EC members, a college principal and a court member. Soon, we will select the names for the governing body and forward it to the Delhi government for its sanction. We expect the AAP government not to sit on the files. They have been halting the process of formation of governing bodies for over six months by not following the rules prescribed.”
Abha Dev Habib, former EC member and a DU professor, told The Sunday Guardian, “Successive governments have given a boost to ad hocism and contractualisation of teaching and non-teaching posts in public-funded state and Central universities. Also, permanent teachers are stagnating for the last 10 years as a result of the points-based promotion scheme. Many institutions, including the UGC chair, are headless, resulting in instability.”
“All these bad policies have resulted in insecurity among the academia.Recently, the formation of governing bodies in Delhi government-funded DU colleges has been put on hold. The DU has been turned into a battleground between the Centre and the state government at the cost of stability of institutions,” Habib added.