Six Expert Views on How India Should Look at the Latest Border Stand-Off With China
3 As of today, however, the trajectory of the India-China relationship remains as . such as rules or models defining what entities and actors exist in a system and how they . This experience also conditions the domestic debate in India: The. China–India relations, also called Sino-Indian relations or Indo-Chinese relations , refers to the .. In , talks by the India-China Expert Group led to an agreement to set up two In January , Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited China to discuss trade, commerce, defence, military, and various other issues. The strategic partnership between India and China is viewed by China as a balancing act against her MBA Admission GD Study Topic India China Relations.
It is really shameful for a modern civilized society like ours that even after 55 years of independence, a scheduled caste barat party is not allowed to go through a Rajput dominated village near Agra, young lovers belonging to higher lower caste are hanged in village panchayats in broad daylight without a whimper of protest!
Hence, reservation is an affirmative action to bring about socio-economic betterment of these classes and must, therefore, continue. Being a Welfare State, we owe it to the weaker sections to ensure their well-being through governmental action. Their economic backwardness, poor state of education and social deprivation are all due to our society which even at this late hour should not prevent their upliftment.
It is because of this oppressive, humiliating and torturous caste system and resultant deprivation that has led thousands of scheduled castes people From Dr. Ambedkar to Ramraj now Uditraj to get converted en masse into other religions. Resort to such conversions as a means of escape from caste-based oppression is a shame on the entire society.
If the Brahmins can work as pujaris and act as agents of God for all auspicious occasions like births, marriages,deaths, etc. Even now the total reservation is only Besides, true social justice can come with a price and reservations are the prices that are privileged classes should be willing to pay so that the accident of birth is no more used against their lowborn brethren.
I am not interested in freeing India merely from the English yoke. I am bent upon freeing India from any yoke whatsoever. But can such freedom be possible for the exploited and oppressed weaker sections? The depressed and backward class people cannot fare well in an open competition because of centuries of suppression and deprivation, and, hence, they cannot develop themselves.
In this modern age of knowledge explosion through mass media, they may get alienated from the main stream of our society. This can generate dangerous consequences for the nation as a whole.
Therefore, to avoid such an eventuality, we should accept our downtrodden brethren with an open arm and give them a helping hand in realizing their potential. Let all be happy, let no one be miserable.
Inequalities will always exist. Society will always try to set right these inequalities in some ways. Policy checks here should be to see if the solution is working in the long term or not.
What form of Democracy is better - parliamentary or presidential? India adopted the Parliamentary form of democracy after getting Independence in because India had been familiar with its working during the days of the British rule. Since then 13 general elections have been held to the Lok Sabha on the basis of universal adult franchise, and barring a few violent incidents during the polls, there has been peaceful transition of authority from one political party to the other.
Moreover, while in a parliamentary democracy, the Executive is responsible to the legislature and therefore, the opposition always keeps it alert. It can make him autocratic. Since the majority party or a majority coalition of several parties comes to power in a Parliamentary democracy, there is bound to be co-operation and harmony between the Executive and the Legislature. It ensures easy implementation of plans and policies of the ruling party for it can have its own way, no matter what the opposition parties in the Lok Sabha say.
In the Presidential form, on the contrary, the system of separation of powers between the Executive and Legislature often leads to conflict: This leads to delay, confusion and procrastination. Therefore, it is advisable for us to continue with the present system which has unity of responsibility, direction and power.
It is always possible to remove a failed Prime Minister and replace him with a new competent and acceptable individual as per the wishes of the people. But a President cannot be thus removed before the expiry of his tenure except by an extremely difficult process of Impeachment. Thus this system being rigid does not mould itself easily to abusing circumstances.
Therefore, there is no point in having a Presidential democracy where even a persona non grata has to be tolerated for the remaining tenure of his office. Bryce maintains that the Parliamentary form of Government secures swiftness in decision and vigor in action because cabinet can easily get the measures it deems essential passed through the Legislature. In the Presidential form, inordinate delay is caused in arriving at decisions, for the Legislature is to be convinced of major policy decisions.
This applies to the position of a President vested with the entire administration and absolute power who might on his own take drastic action at home and in foreign policy and bring about great suffering to the people. We should therefore, maintain the status quo of Parliamentary Government, notwithstanding its shortcomings and faults, which has several heads to solve national problems in the form of the cabinet.
Parliamentary democracy suits us because here persons fit to be members of the Executive make known their sagacity, political acumen, grasp and common sense, and the Prime minister will always be one who has undergone a long and strenuous period of political apprenticeship.
This state of affairs does not obtain in a Presidential democracy in the United States any person without adequate political experience can hope to become the President. He very often comes from obscurity and goes into obscurity again after his term of office is over and he is 'a leap in the dark.
A fixed tenure of office for a President does not make this possible in a Presidential democracy. India has been the most stable nation of Afro Asia. The main factor contributing to our stability has been the holding of periodic general elections.
Government seeks to correspond to the desires of the electorate. Members of the Legislature who represent prevailing tendencies and opinion of the nation apprise the cabinet of them.
Cabinet or the ruling party can ignore or brush aside them only at its own peril. Presidential democracy, on the other hand, has nothing much to care for a shift in public opinion because the fixed term of office of the President makes him secure in office for the stipulated number of years. This may make him unresponsive to the wishes of the people and rule as a dictator. The time has come for us to switch over to the government of experts, as the Presidential government is called instead of the government of amateurs or the Parliamentary democracy.
The President is authorized to appoint the members of his cabinet irrespective of party affiliation. He can even obtain the services of nonparty experts. A Prime Minister, on the other hand, is bound to appoint only members of his party or of parties supporting him.
And he has to take into consideration their caste, region, religion and their following, notwithstanding their otherwise unsuitability for the post. In India, we have had, in the past and have even today, several persons as ministers not because of their intrinsic quality but due to parochial considerations. Presidential system ensures that the President has a national image. He does not belong to this or that group or faction in the Legislature. Since he is elected for a fixed term of office, stability is inbuilt in this form of government because he is not dependant on the vagaries of the Legislature.
In Parliamentary Government, on the other hand, the Prime Minister has to please both his party men and the opposition to continue in office. The instability of this form of government becomes more obvious when a single party does not hold a majority in the Legislature and a coalition government is formed, as was the case in France prior to the inauguration of the 5th republic, and in India during the Janata Party rule 80National Front Governments in and in The BJP led coalition government had to resign in just 13 days and 13 months respectively and the NDA Government had to put up with the tantrums of this or that coalition partner.
In a Presidential democracy, the Legislature is less likely to be dominated by party spirit and the individual members can vote independently on the issues presented to them, as the fate of the government does not depend on them. This phenomenon is so much in evidence in the classic case of United States that the two main parties the Republican and the Democratic are called 'same wine in different bottles'.
Even if there are no important issues of policy before the nation, there are always the offices to be fought, for one party holds them, the other desires them and the conflict is unending for immediately after defeat, the beaten party begins its campaign to dislodge the victors. While the opposition criticizes Government policy regardless of its merits, the ruling party avoids putting unpopular measure, however important they may be, and resorts to populism ignoring the need of the nation.
Don't we witness this happening here in India? Should, then, we still continue with this irresponsible state of affairs? The fusion of executive and legislative functions in a parliamentary democracy like ours has made the cabinet usurp the functions of parliament, for the Union Legislature is now in session for about 3 months in one year while during Pt.
Jawaharlal Nehru's time it used to be in session for more than 4 months. Moreover, rule by ordinance tends to bypass the authority of Parliament. In the Presidential system, on the other hand, there is separation of the Executive and the Legislature. Hence, no wing can usurp the powers of the other. This ensures that no legislation is enacted in haste or without, in-depth deliberation.
In a presidential democracy, a continuous and consistent home and foreign policy can be followed because the chief executive enjoys security of tenure and cannot be easily removed.
This fact is established by the Rooseveltian era in USA. Contrary to this, in a parliamentary democracy, there is no continuity or consistency of policies because of instability of Government. A new cabinet may even reverse the policy followed by its predecessor. In a presidential system, bureaucratic appointments are made by the president, and in some cases, with the approval of the legislature. They are responsible for their acts of omission and commission.
My own impression is that the present stand-off has more to do with the Doklam plateau and with Chinese moves to alter the tri-junction point. But tensions of this sort must be managed and defused carefully.
GD Topic - India - China Relations
Otherwise, they tend to spread to other disputed pockets of the border and this is obviously not beneficial for the overall bilateral relationship.
Can we assume that border incidents are sanctioned directly from Beijing? Local PLA commanders work according to the template handed down by their superiors in terms of definition of what areas are disputed.
In the Doklam area it is difficult to believe that they are behaving thus on their own initiative. There is a structure and pattern to Chinese military activity especially when it comes to these sensitive border pockets. The commandments are handed down, in my view.
Are there domestic motivations for China escalating the issue this time? As China has consolidated its hold on peripheral areas like Tibet, its approach to old border disputes has only grown more rigid and unyielding.
Unfortunately for us, we did not read sufficiently between the lines in that formative period of our bilateral relations. The rest is history. We can only speculate on the Chinese motives. We should look at the Chinese action in this light, rather than merely ascribing it to other developments in India-China relations, though those developments do provide the context.
Why has China roped Bhutan into its dispute with India? China has certain territorial claims in Bhutan. There have been creeping encroachments since For the first time, the Chinese are constructing a motorable road from Dokola towards the Bhutan army camp at Zompelri. It might be their assessment that Bhutan would not be able to resist. Clearly, the Bhutanese are not in position to make the PLA troops stop construction, even though they have conveyed to the Chinese side, both on the ground and through diplomatic channels, that the construction of the road inside Bhutanese territory was in violation of earlier agreements.
The Chinese might also have assessed that India will not step into this situation. They want to change the facts on the ground through unilateral action, which they have done elsewhere as well.
- MBA Admission GD Study Topic India China Relations
- Chinese Goods vs Indian Goods
- China–India relations
For us, there are two other issues which cause direct concern to India. The Chinese are unilaterally changing the tri-junction point. This is in violation of the understanding we have reached with them in As the MEA statement has noted, the construction of the road will involve a significant change of status quo with serious security implications for India. The Bhutanese position is very clear.
This is under bilateral understandings between India and Bhutan. It is not new. Second, there is very close coordination and consultation between India and Bhutan on the current issue. At the same time, you would have noticed that the tone and contents of the MEA statement are very measured and balanced. The government of India is seeking amicable resolution of the present stand-off situation, eschewing any polemics.
Is China a threat to India?
India and China are broadly in agreement on the boundary in the Sikkim sector. We agree on the basis of alignment, which is the highest watershed in the area, but both sides are fully aware that more negotiations are required among the special representatives to fix the alignment of the boundary on maps and also demarcate it on the ground. By the summer ofhowever, both sides had backed away from conflict and denied military clashes had taken place.
A warming trend in relations was facilitated by Rajiv Gandhi 's visit to China in December India and the People's Republic of China agreed to achieve a "fair and reasonable settlement while seeking a mutually acceptable solution" to the border dispute. Rajiv Gandhi signed bilateral agreements on science and technology co-operation, establish direct air links, and on cultural exchanges.
The two sides also agreed to hold annual diplomatic consultations between foreign ministers, set up a joint committee on economic and scientific co-operation, and a joint working group on the boundary issue. The latter group was to be led by the Indian foreign secretary and the Chinese vice minister of foreign affairs. Progress was also made in reducing tensions on the border via mutual troop reductions, regular meetings of local military commanders, and advance notification about military exercises.
Consulates reopened in Bombay Mumbai and Shanghai in December InThe sixth-round of the joint working group talks was held in New Delhi but resulted in only minor developments. Prime Minister Narasimha Rao and Premier Li Peng signed a border agreement dealing with cross-border trade, cooperation on environmental issues e.
PollutionAnimal extinctionGlobal Warmingetc. A senior-level Chinese military delegation made a goodwill visit to India in December aimed at "fostering confidence-building measures between the defence forces of the two countries.
In JanuaryBeijing announced that it not only favored a negotiated solution on Kashmir, but also opposed any form of independence for the region. Talks were held in New Delhi in February aimed at confirming established "confidence-building measures", discussing clarification of the "line of actual control", reduction of armed forces along the line, and prior information about forthcoming military exercises.
China's hope for settlement of the boundary issue was reiterated. Talks were held in Beijing in July and in New Delhi in August to improve border security, combat cross-border crimes and on additional troop withdrawals from the border. These talks further reduced tensions. The Centre serves as the representative office of the Republic of China Taiwan and is the counterpart of the India-Taipei Association located in Taiwan.
Both institutions share the goal of improving India-ROC relations, which have been strained since New Delhi's recognition of Beijing in Sino-Indian relations hit a low point in following India's nuclear tests. InChina was one of the strongest international critics of India's nuclear tests and entry into the nuclear club.
During the Kargil War China voiced support for Pakistan, but also counseled Pakistan to withdraw its forces. Nathu La was re-opened in following numerous bilateral trade agreements.