The deadlock in the border talks seems to continue over the issue of Arunachal Pradesh, which the Chinese call Southern Tibet. The Chinese are reported to be demanding that at least the Tawang Tract of Arunachal Pradesh, if not the whole of it, should be transferred to China. They are apparently adamant that there will be no border settlement without the transfer of at least Tawang to China.
Their claims to Tawang are based on the fact that the monastery at Tawang, according to them, has had historic relations with the monastery at Lhasa and that one of the previous Dalai Lamas was born in Tawang. India's position has been that any border settlement should not involve the transfer of populated areas. Tawang is a populated town. Its residents are Indian citizens. The Chinese had originally agreed to the principle that there should be no transfer of populated areas, but now they are reportedly insisting that this principle cannot apply to Tawang.
The atmosphere over the border issue has become somewhat tense recently following media reports that the government of India had sanctioned the raising of two more Mountain Divisions for deployment in Arunachal Pradesh and that some planes of the Indian Air Foce had been deployed for the defence of Arunachal Pradesh. The government of India has also embarked on a crash programme for the development of the road infrastructure in the Arunachal Pradesh area.
All these measures, which are of a purely defensive nature, were decided upon by the government of India in reaction to the development of the road infrastructure in Tibet, the construction of the railway line to Lhasa and reports that China plans to extend this railway line from Lhasa to the Indian border and to connect its road network in Tibet with the Nepalese road network.
Till four years ago, the government of India had given low priority to the development of road and other military-related infrastructure in Arunachal Pradesh in order to avoid bilateral tensions on this issue when the border talks were going on. But reports that China was strengthening its military-related infrastructure in Tibet led to a decision to take defensive measures in the Arunachal Pradesh area.
An increase in the number of Chinese troop intrusions into the Indian territory in this area also contributed to this decision.
In recent weeks, sections of the Chinese media, with the Global Times of the People's Daily group at the forefront, have started an angry campaign against India on this issue. They have not only been critical of alleged Indian actions in Arunachal Pradesh, but also very sarcastic about India's aspirations of becoming a major power. This sarcasm has annoyed Indian public opinion.
India has bilateral disputes with Pakistan as well as China. However, large sections of the civil societies in India and Pakistan are well disposed towards each other and want close relations. This is particularly true of the younger generation in India and Pakistan. This enables the political leaders of the two countries to make political gestures to each other.
In the case of China, large sections of the Indian civil society in all age groups-- except in the leftist parties-- are suspicious of the Chinese military intentions and would not approve of any concessions or gestures of a political nature to Beijing. In China, the older generation has nostalgic memories of the good old days of Sino-Indian friendship, but the younger generation, which is very nationalistic, does not think well of India and is very critical of it. This suspicious attitude of the two civil societies would come in the way of any gestures or concessions by either side on the border issue for the present.
Despite this, the political leaders of India and China have shown wisdom in not allowing the border dispute to affect bilateral relations in other fields. Bilateral trade continues to gallop. China has overtaken the US as India's second largest trading partner. Chinese companies are winning an increasing number of construction contracts in India. An increasing number of Chinese students are coming to India for improving their English. The Chinese are less and less suspicious of Indian IT companies doing business in China as possible surrogates of the Indian intelligence. The Indians are less and less suspicious of Chinese construction companies winning contracts in India as possible surrogates of the Chinese intelligence. More and more Indian students are going to China to study medicine. There is a steadily developing military-to-military relationship with two joint counter-terrorism exercises, exchange of port visits by naval ships etc
Despite this increasing comfort level , there is still a trust deficit. Suspicions of each other's intentions and motives in matters such as China's military and nuclear related relationship with Pakistan and India's strategic relationship with the US and Japan continue to cast a shadow on the political relations and come in the way of a mutually acceptable border compromise.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT