India And Asia

[Guest]

<b>CHINA AND THE MAJOR ASIAN STATES: An Analysis</b>
by Dr. Subhash Kapila

Introductory Background: China in the 21st Century has to resolve a myriad of strategic challenges before it can even hope to devise ways and means to offset its main strategic challenge, namely United States unilateralism. China’s dilemma of countering United States unilateralism emerged soon after the end of the Cold War in 1991, but it has yet to come to grips with the problem.

China’s inability to do so arises mainly from its lack of clear perspectives and foreign policy initiatives as to how to recast its relationship with the major Asian States. The major Asian states that China has to reckon with are only two, namely, India and Japan.

The aim of this paper is to analyse China’s attitudinal approaches and relationships with India and Japan. Both India and Japan have the potential to arrest or impede China’s rise towards global power status in the 21st Century.

But, first, a brief overview of the challenges that China faces in the post-Cold War era.

<b>China in the Post-Cold War Era- The Challenges:</b> The end of the Cold War posed dramatic strategic predicaments for China’s foreign policies. One noted author (Tony Saitch, 2001) has made the following appropriate observations:

* Disappearance of United States- Soviet superpower rivalry meant that China had to reconfigure its international position without the room for manoeuvre that had been offered by the Cold War. It also brought the latent antagonisms in the relationship with the USA to the fore.

* China had settled into a foreign policy premised on the notion that international politics would be dominated by the existence of bipolar rivalry between the two superpowers. This enabled China to play off one power against the other and enabled it to create more space for itself in international affairs.

* With the balance of power upset, China began to feel vulnerable and marginalised in world affairs.

Analytically, therefore, it can be said that the end of the Cold War has robbed China of its exclusivity to “strategic space” in regional and global terms. Further that China in its bid for global multi-polarity, will now have to be flexible in “sharing” this “strategic space” with the other emerging powers.

With China strategically hemmed-in by United States forward military presence in East Asia, Pakistan and Central Asia, besides US dominant naval presence in the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean, China has no choices but to shed its foreign policy concept of a “hierarchical international order”. China must remember that while it sermonizes at international fora on the “ equality and equitability” of all nations, China will also have to concede the same to the major nations of Asia.

The major deductions from the foregoing, once again is that China has to share the “strategic space” in the Asian regional order with the two other major regional powers in Asia i.e. India and Japan.

The regional power profiles of India and Japan can now be briefly analysed as to why they count in Asia and why China has to accommodate them in its foreign policy formulations.

<b>India As a Regional Power:</b> In terms of geo-strategic analysis, the following salient facts emerge:

* The Indian sub-continent rests heavily on China’s Southern under-belly bordering Tibet, an independent buffer state ensured by the British till its forcible occupation by China in 1949-50.

* India in terms of ‘comprehensive power’ analysis is the predominant power in the Indian sub-continent.

* India’s peninsular projection abuts deeply into the Indian Ocean and with a realistic naval build-up. India could effectively control the Arabian Sea, Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean. In future China’s dependency for oil imports would add upto 60-70% and which will have to traverse these waters.

Politically, India is the world’s largest democracy and with a record of political stability extending into the sixth decade, unlike its other neighbours. India today is an emerging major power with a strong “civil society” in its most liberalist interpretations.

Economically, India is on an ascendant curve with rates of economic growth likely to touch 8% and foreign exchange reserves over $100 billion.

India today is a nuclear weapons power, a space power and with the second largest armed forces in Asia after China.

China in the past, following the Sino-Indian conflict of 1962 had adopted policies of “strategic de-stabilisation” of India manifested by the following:

* China with massive military aid tried to build up Pakistan as a strategic counter-weight to India.

* China provided Pakistan and built up its nuclear weapons arsenal and Pakistan’s missile arsenal.

* In recent years, China facilitated through North Korea the supply of North Korean IRBMs to Pakistan. In return Pakistan supplied nuclear weapons technology to North Korea.

In brief, China’s policies towards India can realistically be termed as “inimical” to India’s national security interests. The change in China’s attitudes towards India came after 1998 nuclear weapons tests by India. Pakistan’s nuclear weapons tests in 1998, notwithstanding, this country had already developed the characteristics of a “failed state”. Its proliferation of China-acquired nuclear weapons technologies classify it as a ‘rogue state’.

In global strategic configurations today, despite what some critics (including some Indians) may say, India’s potential major power status is being recognised. In some global strategic calculations, India figures as a likely “strategic counterweight” to China.

Specific to China, the major deductions that arise from the discussion above are as follows:

* China’s “strategic destabilisation” policies of India have been unsuccessful in the last 40 years

* China has been unable to arrest or impede India’s emergence as a regional power and a key global player.

Recognising the above strategic realities, China has to recast its foreign policies towards this region to incorporate the following elements:

* Recognise and respect India as the pre-dominant power in the Indian sub-continent

* Concede South Asia as an Indian sphere of influence and desist from an “intrusive presence” in the region through Pakistan or Bangladesh.

India’s public opinion on China counts heavily in the Indian Governments policy calculations and the Indian public opinion desires that China demonstrates public manifestation of its attitudinal changes towards India, on the lines suggested above.

<b>Japan As a Regional Power</b>: Despite the recent slow-down in economy, Japan is widely perceived in strategic analysis circles as that:

* Japan is an economic super power

* Japan’s military capabilities and high technology indigenous defence production infrastructure classify it as a regional power in East Asia or the Western Pacific.

Reinforcing the above two, the geo- strategic analysis indicates:

* The Japanese archipelago extending in the South virtually, touching Taiwan encloses not only the Japan Sea but also the Yellow Sea and East China Sea.

* It is the above which has made it valuable to the United States for positioning of American forward military presence in Japanand Okinawa and having a bearing on China’s national security..

* While not a land-mass neighbour of China, the Japanese archipelago enables Japan with its naval capabilities to contest China’s naval pressure in the Western Pacific.

* The Japanese Navy is the best in Asia with long historic traditions of challenging the naval might of the major powers upto World War II.

China’s relations with Japan so far have been condescending, highly critical and intolerant of its established status. China has frequently used the United States with trade leverages to down play Japan’s importance in United States strategies for the Pacific.

The strategic realities that will prevail well into the future, and which China must recognise are:

* Japan’s value in US strategies in East Asia is not at stake, only the nuances change sometimes when USA leverages its links with China to force Japan into trade concessions.

* Japan, if forsaken by United States strategically, would well nigh be forced into military expansion including nuclear weapons. In fact Japan has many imperatives for going in for a nuclear arsenal. See this author’s paper: Japan's Imperative for Nuclear Weapons Arsenal: An Analysis ( SAAG Paper No. 487 dated 05.07.2002)

* Despite, China’s incessant psychological warfare against Japan on its World War II so called war crimes, the fact is that amongst Asian nations if the choice comes to choosing between China and Japan, they would prefer the latter.

The major deduction from the above is that Japan is a notable regional power. Despite its lack of traditional attributes of power in terms of size and population, it has a preponderance in East Asia in terms of other attributes of power which offset the former.

Japan, therefore, cannot be ignored by China. The Cold War balance of power no longer exists in East Asia. In fact a Japan allied to the United States holds the balance of power in East Asia in its favour and at the expense of China.

China, like in South Asia is guilty of building up the nuclear and missile arsenals of a rogue state like North Korea in Japan’s vicinity. Japan has gone on record that it would take pre-emptive action in case North Korea becomes threatening. That is the ominous signal for China.

In view of the foregoing analysis, China in its national interest should:

* Share “strategic space” in East Asia with Japan as the other regional power.

* Desist from irrelevant psychological warfare against Japan.

*Force North Korea to roll back its nuclear and missile arsenal built up with Chinese assistance, before Japan and USA take preemptive actions.

<b>Asia Major Powers -The Inter-Se Relationships and Perspectives: </b> The Cold War period in terms of Asia’s major powers was distinguished by:

* China exploited the Cold War by playing one super power against the other by its alternating “ swing policies”

* Japan stood by and continued as a solid a strategic partner of the United States. This despites America willfully ignoring Japan at times to appease the Chinese.

* India was viewed with suspicion by USA and misperceived as a Soviet ally. USA and China with a convergence of strategic interests kept India tied in South Asian confines through Pakistan’s proxy war against India.

With the above pattern, China with United States patronage or call it permissiveness could deny “ strategic space” to India and Japan in Asian security configurations.

In terms of inter-se relationship between the three major Asian powers, it can be said that:

* China presently does not enjoy a full measure of trust in its relationships with India and Japan.

* India and Japan have a good relationship.

* Both India and Japan await better manifestations from China in building up trustful relationships.

In terms of Asian security, greater scope exists between India and Japan to build a strategic partnership. For a detailed analysis on this subject, please see this authors paper: “Japan-India Strategic Cooperation: A Perspective Analysis”.( SAAG Paper No. 126 dated 13.06.2000).

<b>Concluding Observations:</b> In the post Cold War era, China no longer enjoys the luxury of basing and operating its foreign policies on the predictable template of super-power rivalries. Further with the emergence of United States unilateralism China can no longer exclusively claim the prerogatives of “strategic space” in Asian security configurations. The simple reason being that China alone is no longer the “balancer” of Cold War days. More importantly United States-China latent antagonisms have re-surfaced prominently with China’s attempts to bring about a multi-polar architecture in global affairs.

In the changed post-Cold War strategic realities, China’s foreign policy planners are presented with a serious predicament. The question for China is whether it can continue its traditional foreign policies in South Asia and East Asia i.e. by building “failed states” or even “rogue states” as proxies ( Pakistan and North Korea ) to strategically destabilize India and Japan,. Or, should it flexibly now re-adapt to changed strategic compulsions by conceding “strategic space” to other major Asian powers.

While India and Japan may not be forthcoming to embrace China in strategic partnerships, China can serve its national interests by seriously attempting strategic cooperation with India and Japan. China also has to discard its “hierarchical concept” in international relationships which in the Cold War era it could afford to do so.

Both India and Japan will witness the build up of increased military profiles to meet their respective national interests. China has to learn to take these in its stride. India’s Defence Minister George Fernandes’s statement at a recent lecture drives home this point tellingly: “ We must ensure that whatever be the nature of the profile that China and India acquire in the near future, this must be managed in such a way that there is no mistrust or needless anxiety. Such capabilities must be seen as contributing to regional and global stability.”

China would face competing interests with India and Japan in the future. Asian security imperatives and those of the three major Asian powers dictate that China willingly concedes and shares the Asian “strategic space” with India and Japan.

[Guest]

This is serious development, it will haunt East Asia.

<b>THAILAND: Dangers of Jihadi Reprisal</b>

9. There is already a wave of anger in Pakistan and Bangladesh over what is perceived as the deliberate massacre of Muslim youth in Southern Thailand by the security forces. The Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) of Pakistan and the Bangladesh branch of the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HUJI-B) have been projecting southern Thailand a the Fallujah of Thailand and comparing the alleged massacre of the Thai Muslims by the Thai authorities to the massare of the Iraqis by the occupying US forces and the attack on the mosque in southern Thailand to the firing by the US Marines in the beginning of April on a mosque in Fallujah under the pretext that the Iraqi resistance fighters were firing on the Marines by taking cover behind a wall of the mosque.

[Guest]

Thai Leader Rejects Foreign Criticism
Sat May 1, 6:45 AM ET

By ALISA TANG, Associated Press Writer

PATTANI, Thailand - Thailand's leader shrugged off international criticism of his government's crackdown on suspected Islamic militants, saying in speech to the nation Saturday that he had no choice but to use overwhelming force.

More than 100 suspected militants — mostly young men wielding machetes — were killed Wednesday when they attacked police and army posts in pre-dawn raids in
three southern provinces. Three police and two soldiers were also killed.

On Friday, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights demanded that Thailand investigate the killings, citing treaties that require security forces to refrain from using excessive force.

International and local human rights groups have also called for investigations.

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra responded with defiance.

<b>"Please don't intervene. Please leave us alone," he said in a radio address Saturday. <!--emo&:cool--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/specool.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='specool.gif' /><!--endemo-->

"It is my job and we can cope with this matter. We are trying to explain this to foreigners. But if they do not understand or ignore our explanation, I don't care
because we are not begging them for food," Thaksin said.</b>
Thaksin initially blamed drug traffickers and organized crime but the government now says it suspects the attacks were the work of Islamic separatists.

Police said they found Arabic-language pamphlets calling for the creation of a Muslim homeland on some of the militants' bodies.

The same area has seen numerous attacks on government targets in recent months, though on a smaller scale.

Most of Thailand's 63 million people are Buddhist, but the southern provinces near Malaysia have Muslim majorities. A separatist movement flourished there for years, but faded after a government amnesty in the 1980s.

The Bangkok Post newspaper, quoting an unidentified source, reported Saturday that some of the militants were members of the al-Qaida linked Jemaah Islamiyah
regional terror group. It did not elaborate and the report could not be independently verified.

The violence began earlier this year with the torching of several schools and a raid on an army arsenal in which four soldiers were killed. The attacks, usually by armed men on motorcycles, have left 97 people dead, including Buddhist civilians.

"We could not tolerate that any longer," Thaksin said.

Thaksin also defended his security forces, saying they had no choice but to used the massive force to kill the militiamen.

"They stormed security outpost with fire arms, bombs and knives and machetes. They meant to rob guns and weapons," Thaksin said.

<b>"The security forces could not sit idle and wait for the attackers to kill them," he said</b>. <!--emo&:thumbsup--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbup.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='thumbup.gif' /><!--endemo-->

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?
tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20040501/ap_on_re_as/thailand\
_southern_violence

[Guest]

Problems of Himalay Parivaar are problems of Bharat. The damage done by accepting the accession of Tibet by China is no less disastrous than the internationalisation of the Jammu and Kashmir problem.

What are the chances that a radical rethinking occurs in national security interests and in promoting not only the re-establishment of Free Tibet but also detoxification of Nepal by removing the maoist menace. It is Bharat's responsibility, it is bharatiya dharma.

Kalyanaraman

Turmoil of Himalayan proportions

Arabinda Ghose in Pioneer, June 17, 2004

Reacting to the resignation of Prime Minister Surya Bahadur Thapa on May 7, 2004, after a little more than 11 months in office, a Nepali Congress leader Ram Chandra Paudyal demanded the restoration of the "stalled constitutional process" and formation of a responsible government. "I hope a dialogue will proceed between the King and the major political parties," he had added.

Seventy-five plus Surya Bahadur Thapa, a known loyalist and leader of the Rashtriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), was appointed Prime Minister on June 4, 2003, after his predecessor and a non-controversial party colleague Lokendra Bahadur Chand resigned a few days earlier. Both were prime ministers during the 29-year old Panchayati system. The mainstream political parties, the Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist Leninists) and some other parties launched an agitation demanding the resignation of Mr Thapa and restoration of the "constitutional process". Even Mr Thapa's own party chief, Mr Pashupati Shumshere Rana, had led a demonstration supporting the demands made by the other mainstream parties.

However, one may ask Mr Poudyal and others whether it is at all possible to restore the constitutional process in present-day Nepal. And in any case, where do the vital constitutional organs of the state exist today? It was a red letter day for the people of Nepal, led by the Nepali Congress Party and the UML to some extent, when popular agitations forced Late King Birendra to restore parliamentary democracy on April 8, 1990, after 29 years and the country got a new Constitution on November 10 that year which transferred the sovereignty of the country from the crown to the people (Article 3) and adopted a parliamentary system, constitutional monarchy and a multi-party polity (Preamble).

The first general election was held in April-May 1991 and a Nepali Congress Government led by Mr Girija Prasad Koirala had taken office. However, the new system did not work smoothly even for five years. Factionalism in the Nepali Congress, which has been its bane since the very beginning of its foundation, was the main reason for such an affair. Came the June 1, 2001, massacre of the royal family and the crowning of Prince Gyanendra, brother of King Birendra, taking over as the King on June 7 that year.

The disunity in the Nepali Congress, the split in the party between Mr Koirala and his one-time junior colleague, Mr Sher Bahadur Deuba, and above all the rapid spread of Maoists who have gained control of a large territory mostly in Western Nepal, have played havoc with the constitutional process. Mr Deuba had become Prime Minister in early 2002 with a mandate to hold the general election by November 13, 2002. King Gyanendra sacked him on October 4, 2002, on the ground that he had expressed his inability to hold the elections.

A supposedly non-partisan Lokendra Bahadur Chand, who would not contest the elections, was appointed the Prime Minister in Mr Deuba's place. He was removed after a few months and Mr Surya Bahadur Thapa was appointed the new premier and has now quit. Who succeeds him appears to be only an academic exercises. The stark truth is the main plank of the Constitution has disappeared after November 13, 2002, because by that date a Pratinidhi Sabha, the Lower House of Parliament, had become non-existent.

The Kingdom is now being ruled under one provision of the Constitution: Article 127 - thoughtfully inserted by the framers in 1990. A free translation of this article from the original Nepali says that the King is empowered to issue orders to get across any obstacles, which may come in the way of implementing the Constitution. So, the King is empowered to issue any order under Article 127 for ensuring the implementation of the provisions of this Constitution. It is this Article which empowers the King to appoint or dismiss ministries and undertake any other measure for implementing the constitutional provisions.

The real problem before Nepal today is how to deal with the Maoist violence that has claimed the lives of about 10,000 people. Even with a trained Royal Nepal Army equipped with modern weapons from the United States and India, it is becoming difficult to contain bloodletting. There has been "internal" displacement of people in Nepal - girls and women going to Kathmandu and able-bodied men and youth are heading for India in search of jobs. With constitutional breakdown and Maoist violence pushing the kingdom to the brink, it is time India took greater interest in Nepal. (NPA)

http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_...t&counter_img=2

[Guest]

Now natwar is FM, he may be more interested to help royal family, his distant niece is married to King's son.
Bharat is unable to check Commies and naxalites in India, it will be difficult to check in other country. Now commies are controlling central government and their master China will have field day with Nepal. Strong movement in India can change equation. Why they are unable to neuteralize Doctor, head of movement in Nepal?

[Bhootnath]

>Problems of Himalay Parivaar are problems of Bharat. The damage done by accepting the accession of Tibet by China is no less disastrous than the internationalisation of the Jammu and Kashmir problem

http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?m...t&counter_img=1

As per news , I gather 3/4th of Nepal is under Mao control. 1/4th is under control of the Milatry ( and not Police ). Condition is that bad.

Abt India , Maoist ( Nepali ) live in Delhi / Gurgaon / NOIDA and enjoy life under the tag of NGO and HUMAN RIGHT ACTIVIST, nothing concrete is happening and reasons are obvious.

Is Nepal lucky enough to have a person like Mr. KPS Gill ?

I have lived in certain trouble prone areas and my experience is under extreme situations, ppl will support anybody who doesnt trouble them too much. So as soon as Maoist are tackled decisively , ppl will support government.

> Now natwar is FM, he may be more interested to help royal family, his distant niece is married to King's son.

Even Sciindia's have connection there, that said, your wish is misplaced in my opinion.

Since when these Kings, Kunwars, Shahenshahs, Nawabs did anything worthwhile for the ppl and regions they ruled. They never thought beyond their Havellis, Forts & priviledges. For every Rajamata Scindia who did things for ppl, there are many Madhavraos like cowards.

Congress is result of that culture, third rate Kunwars & Nawabs have proped up Sonia to ensure their illegitimate benefits continue

Lets not be starry eyed abt Kings and Kingdoms.



Oops I jumped the gun .. KNS as he is referred to ..did use his Royal Bloodline Connection to do something ... King of Nepal did invite Queen Antonio.

PS: My sarcasm is not meant for Mudy, its just that feudal culture gets my goat.
Any feelings hurt , advance apology

[acharya]

http://www.project-syndicate.org/series/...t.php4?id=


The Asian Century
A Monthly Commentary on Asian Issues

Can democratic Indonesia hold together? Whatever happened to Asian values? Is there a Pacific arms race and who is winning it? Can Asia grow if Japan remains mired in slump? Twenty-six years after Saigon’s fall, are America and Vietnam moving towards a military rapprochement? This series of Project Syndicate monthly commentaries focuses on the complicated and diverse issues that go under the name of Asian affairs. Read more >>

[muddur]

http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?N...77202&PageNum=0

<b>Putin signs law on Russia joining southeast Asia friendship treaty</b>

[muddur]

From intelligence online ...


<b>Burma seeks Indian help against isolation </b>
28 July 2004: Fearing tightening US and EU economic sanctions and a possible naval blockade, Myanmar’s foreign minister, U Win Aung, hoped on his India visit that India would stand by his country, but officials would not say if India has held out any assurance.

The Asia-Europe (ASEM) summit in Hanoi in October is threatened by the Myanmar military junta’s refusal to give a deadline for the return of democracy and release of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, and economic sanctions imposed last year by the US and EU after Suu Kyi’s arrest could be further tightened.

U Win told the Indian side the situation was very unstable in Myanmar, with as many as twenty ethnic groups fighting the government, and that in this unstable condition, it would be perilous to consider the return of democracy, but the US and EU argue military rule is responsible for the instability, and that democracy would bring peace.

Fearing more international isolation, U Win hoped India would be able to convince the US and EU of Myanmar’s position, but India has been also pressing for return to democracy and the speedy release of Suu Kyi.

Officials said U Win assured Myanmar’s soil would not be allowed to be used at any point and under any circumstances by anti-India militant groups.

[Guest]

WTF is going on in Nepal ?

Bomb explodes in Nepal as rebel siege enters Day 3

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Maoist guerrillas set off a bomb at an empty police post near Kathmandu on Friday, police said, and the Nepali Capital remained cut off by land for the third day due to a rebel blockade call.

No one was injured in the early morning blast in the Kaushaltar area on Kathmandu's outskirts, a police officer said. He blamed the Maoists for the blast. It was the second bomb attack in the area around Kathmandu this week and is seen as a rebel strategy to scare residents and ensure that they do not violate the unprecedented blockade.

Four bomb blasts, also blamed on the guerrillas, rocked Nepal's oldest luxury hotel, Soaltee Crowne Plaza, on Monday but again caused no injuries. Those blasts forced the hotel and nine other companies to shut down following rebel threats.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

Didn't the new MEA refuse help to Nepal against the Maoists? Maybe they didn't want to offend their marxists partners in the alliance.

[Guest]

India, Nepal launch joint operations

[Guest]

<b>GREATER INDIAN VISIBILITY IN ITS NEIGHBOURHOOD</b> by B.Raman

[Guest]

<b>Japan Defense Agency set 3 scenarios of "China attack" </b>
PEOPLE’S DAILY
November 8, 2004

“Japanese Defense Agency officials established in internal meetings three scenarios of possible attacks on Japan by China as the agency prepares to revamp national defense strategy, agency sources said. The scenarios are attacks <b>stemming from disputes over ocean resources and territorial claims over the Senkaku Islands as well as a clash across the Taiwan Strait</b>, they said. …they indicate a strong warning that China is a threat and are likely to further upset Beijing amid the ongoing political standoff over the development of gas fields in the East China Sea and the territorial dispute over the Senkaku Islands. <b>In the case of a clash between China and Taiwan, China may attack parts of Japan to prevent aid from U.S. forces in Japan, according to the scenarios.</b> <b>In the second scenario, the report says China may take military action to seize the Senkakus if Chinese public criticism of the Chinese Communist Party over the territorial dispute grows strong enough to threaten its leadership</b>. As for the <b>third scenario, the report says China may conduct illegal moves to secure its interests in the East China Sea if it deems Japan did not take what Beijing believes to be appropriate measures regarding the dispute over development of gas fields near the boundary of the two sides</b>.”

[ramana]

Editorial in Pioneer, 1 Dec., 2004...

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->ASEAN highlights

The Pioneer Edit Desk

<b>For India, the two most important features of the recent ASEAN summit at Vientiene is clearly Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's 40-minute-long meeting with his Chinese counterpart, Mr Wen Jiabao, and the signing of the historic ASEAN-India partnership agreement for peace, progress and shared prosperity with the 10 ASEAN countries. </b>Mr Singh's meeting with Mr Wen Ziabao strikingly underlined the transformation that has come into the relationship between two of the world's most populous and powerful countries since the border clashes of 1962 between them.

<b>The process began in 1976 with Mr KR Narayanan's appointment as India's ambassador in Beijing where Delhi had maintained a charge d'affaires-level representation since the clashes.</b> Yet, the going was slow and uneven and marked by awkward turns of event like China's invasion of Vietnam in 1979 during a visit by Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee, then Foreign Minister in the Janata Party's Government headed by Mr Morarji Desai. If Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's visit to China in 1988 ushered in a new climate in India-China ties, the process was considerably helped by the new orientation that marked China's approach to the world following its recovery from the chaos and anarchy of the Cultural Revolution (1966-76) and the launching of its economic reforms programme in 1978.

With economic progress emerging as its principal concern, the quest for peace, the prerequisite for its single-minded pursuit, followed as a corollary. In India-China relations, the 1993 Agreement on the Maintenance of Peace and Tranquillity along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), and the 1996 Agreement on Confidence Building Measures in the Military Field along the LAC, reflected Beijing's new hierarchy of priorities. With the border talks receiving a new fillip from National Security Adviser JN Dixit's recent visit to China, and two way India-China trade likely to total $ 12 billion in 2004, economic cooperation understandably featured prominently in the talks between Mr Singh and Mr Wen Jinbao.

<b>An important factor in all this has been India's emergence as an economic powerhouse to be courted for access to its huge and booming market. It is, therefore, not surprising that Mr Wen Jiabao told Mr Singh that his visit to India, scheduled for March, 2005, "was the most important event" on his agenda for the next year, and that his handshake with his Indian counterpart would "catch the attention of the world." </b>Also, in respect of both China's and ASEAN's relations with India, fundamentalist Islamist terrorism has emerged as a major factor. China faces it in Xinjiang; Islamist fundamentalists have killed its technicians in Pakistan.

Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand and even Singapore are threatened by the Al Qaeda and its regional affiliates. Malaysia has to contend with increasingly aggressive Islamist fundamentalism. <b>Significantly, the India-ASEAN agreement signed in Vientiene not only outlines measures to boost trade, investment, tourism, cultural relations, sports and people-to-people contact between India and the ASEAN countries but also seeks to intensify efforts to combat terrorism and transnational crimes like drug trafficking, arms smuggling, human trafficking, sea piracy and money laundering-many of which are closely linked with terrorism. </b>Clearly, both India and ASEAN countries have displayed a remarkable ability to recognise their common concerns and act together, something which holds out a lesson for the SAARC countries.

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[ramana]

Another commentary from UPI on the Indo-ASEAN pact.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Future looks foggy for Indo-ASEAN pact

By INDRAJIT BASU, UPI Business Correspondent

CALCUTTA, India, Dec. 1 (UPI) -- <b>In a move to set a tone for a durable relationship with the South East Asian countries and strengthen economic ties, India on Tuesday signed a "partnership agreement pact" with ASEAN at the third India-ASEAN summit in Vientiane, Laos.</b> This agreement is important for India in many ways but significantly, <b>it will allow India to forge strong economic relations with ASEAN that could catalyze trade between the two sides from $13 billion at present (year 2003-04) to $30 billion by 2007.</b>

It will also bring the country closer to economic powers like Japan, China, and South Korea since <b>this agreement involves a new ASEAN grouping that now includes these three countries.</b>

In its original form, the ASEAN, short for Association of South East Asian Nations, is a union of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam. <b>About a decade back a new grouping called East Asian Economic Caucus was proposed by the erstwhile Malaysian leader Mahathir Mohammed but the notion was quashed due to stiff opposition from the United States that feared it would be pushed aside from its central security role in Asia. </b>

<b>However, the 1997 Asian financial crisis revived a sense of greater urgency among the leaders of ASEAN and these countries as well as India in setting up a regional trade bloc </b>that finally took a concrete shape in the current two-day summit concluding today. <b>The trading zone this new grouping creates will have a combined gross domestic product exceeding $2 trillion.</b>

"This landmark document incorporates a plan of action for more intensive cooperation on political and security issues as well as in the economic, social and cultural fields," said India's external affairs minister K Natwar Singh. "It is indeed a matter of gratification that a number of new dimensions, such as cooperation in remote sensing, space technology and information technology have been added to our two millennia old cultural, religious and civilization links."

<b>But even as this partnership takes yet another step ahead </b>in bringing Asian countries closer to creating a significant trading block capable of a global impact, <b>experts in India have already started doubting if this pact will work at all, and if yes, when?</b>

"The experiences of the recent Indo-Thai FTA as well the Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA), give enough reasons to fear this pact too is set to drag on interminably," said Prasun Joshi, an international trade commentator

Indeed, despite years of efforts the now-on-now-off Singapore CECA is yet to see the light of the day, stuck by many controversies, the most recent being the Indian Finance Ministry's objection raised on November 27 to the elimination of duty-free imports on certain "sensitive" items. The Indo-Thai deal too is being viewed with concern by the Indian industry sectors.

<b>The common factors in all these pacts are; one, Indian industry is not yet sure about its competitive efficiency. Second, many industry sectors say that they do not want competition in their home turf, which is still protected to a great extent. And finally, there is a huge fear among corporate India that such pacts will be misused as a staging ground for cheaper exports to India.</b>

Some of these concerns are genuine, as city- states like Singapore are trading rather than manufacturing hubs with the presence of 4,000 plus multinational companies. And Thailand, known as the Detroit of Asia poses threat for the India's nascent automotive industry struggling to make a mark in the global arena.

<b>This is why India in all FTAs insists that imports originating in the trading partner and not a third country.</b> This leads to complicated rules of origin which are difficult to enforce. <b>Related is the issue of value addition or domestic content, which is 40 percent for free trade agreement with Thailand. Measuring value addition from the point of view of customs enforcement also presents a number of challenges in its own right.</b>

Moreover, after a decade of engagement, Indo-ASEAN trade touched $13 billion in March 2004 and the <b>country's hopes of pushing it to $30 billion in the next two years certainly looks daunting as long as Indian industry -- rightly or wrongly -- harbors reservations about opening up too quickly. </b>

"Getting our tariff levels to ASEAN levels and concluding an FTA with ASEAN as a whole calls for a consensus of sorts within Indian industry," said Joshi. "And in the backdrop of the delays over finalizing agreements with Thailand and Singapore, the future of this pact (Indo-ASEAN) pact too looks cloudy."

<b>Yet, ASEAN leaders are optimistic that the two major pacts (with China and India) ASEAN signed at the two day summit that concluded on Tuesday, will not only work, but also secure the future of ASEAN. "We recognize the emergence of China and India in the global trading environment," said Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmed Badawi. "South East Asia needs greater integration with these trading partners and cannot remain competitive merely by strengthening intra-regional co-operation."</b>

For that matter, India could also be a hedge for the ASEAN, which is hoping that a new agreement with India pull this South Asian giant closer into its fold as it urgently needs a counterbalance to the trading bloc's growing dependence on China.

<b>"We in Southeast Asia have no wish to become merely an adjunct to the Chinese economy," </b>Singapore's trade and industry minister George Yeo told members of the industry lobby Confederation of Indian Industry during a trip to India in February: "Hence, our decision to move closer to all economies that want closer links to us."

Admittedly, there's little doubt that <b>China's dominance in the region's economy is overwhelming.</b> In 1991, ASEAN accounted for about 6 percent of China's imports; in 2002, that figure exceeded 8 percent. While trade with India at $13 billion accounts for a mere 2% of ASEAN's total trade, the trade between China and ASEAN members amounted to $62 billion in 2003 (up 40 percent from 2002). In the first nine months of 2004, China's trade with ASEAN grew by 35 percent from a year earlier and is due to surpass $100 billion this year.

<b>Moreover, growing ties with China have brought another worry: Southeast Asia's success is becoming too closely tied to China. </b>Last year's outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) shut down factories and slowed trade, sending shivers through foreign companies that are increasingly relying on their Chinese operations.

<b>According to experts, therefore, the need to develop an alternative market has become that much more imperative for ASEAN members because of the specter of China applying brakes on its scorching economy and rattling their economic foundations in turn. </b>

Copyright 2004 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

Nepal jittery over king's India visit

This has to be a major development. Hopefully Nut-war and gang show some imagination & class.

[Guest]

Nepal king to seek safe haven in India

[Guest]

This will be a counterpoise to EEC and be a powerhouse, an engine for world growth. Expand ASEAN/APEC/SAARC into a network that creates an Indian Ocean arc from south africa through Straits of Hormuz and Straits of Malacca upto Tasmania. This should be principal geopolitical priority, next only to liberation of Tibet and reclaiming Manasarovar as the cultural capital of Greater India (cf. George Coedes, Hinduised States of Southeast Asia).

Kalyanaraman

Chennai, Feb. 17, 2005 Express News Service (Page 3, City Express)

Economic cooperation along the Indian Ocean

An economic community comprising of countries along the Indian Ocean
was necessary to enhance trade in the region, said S. Kalyanaraman,
(former) Senior Executive of the Asian Development Bank, Manila, here
today.

Delivering a lecture on 'Indian Ocean as an Economic Community', he
said, 'A union of nations along the Indian Ocean for economic
cooperation in lines with the European Union is the need of the hour.'

Elaborating on his theory, the senior executive outlined certain
features of the countries in the rim of the Indian Ocean which could
make it an economic powerhouse if cooperation between the countries
were to be enhanced.

The relevance of the region in the world could not be neglected as the
region alone accounted for around 30 percent of the total population
of the world. With an enormous economic resource and a highly
professional manpower, the South_Asian region along the Indian Ocean
was knocking at the doors of world power, he added.

While the European nations took 40 years to build a common platform,
the countries along the Indian Ocean could achieve it in around 10
years. This he added, was due to the existence of organisations like
SAARC and ASEAN which could be used to enhance the cooperation and
hence build an arena for a bigger union.

Kalyanaraman felt that India could be a key player in such an
atmosphere as the country was today leading in fields like IT, nuclear
technology, satellite communication, education, rail and power.

He also felt that the creation of a union would hasten the dreams of
creating a free-trade zone in the region. This could be achieved by
building international highways as in Europe, which would connect
nations across Asia.

Around 150 students from the Department of Economics attended the
lecture, which was conducted by Agurchand Manmull Jain College.


GEO-POLITICAL AFFAIRS
From Containment to Cooperation:
Indian Ocean Perspective

Columnist Dr SM RAHMAN looks at the various options available to the
Indian Ocean Rim nations

The fast-fading 20th Century, leaves behind a trail of traumatic
events and catastrophies. The first half of this century witnessed the
harrowing experiences of the First and Second World Wars, and the
second half depicts a frenzied disposition for arms race between the
two Super Powers - USA and former USSR - each trying to knock out its
adversary from the power arena of the globe. Mainly on account of
mismanagement of geo-economic imperatives of power preponderance, USSR
contributed to USA's emergence as the lone super power, when the
cold-war era formally received its burial after over four decades of
hopes shattered and promises unfulfilled, symbolized in the
aspirations of the founders of the United Nations in San Franscisco in
June 1945. The United Nations charter had envisaged a new
international order to free humanity of the scourge of war, and build
a road towards stability, righteousness and 'healing'. Such lofty
ideals met a cold response and peace remained hostage to a
sensibility, where overriding passion for geo-political power,
culminated into doctrines of confrontation and containment.
Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, chemical and
biological - was the obsessive commitment of nations for the elusive
and narrowly conceived goal termed 'security'. Ironically, these
weapons were not closet weapons. Many of these were used in nearly
hundred and fifty (150) additional wars escalating human casualties to
a staggering figure of over 20 million. The propensity to kill people
was so over-bearing that more than half of the world scientists and
engineers during the cold-war, period consumed their 'creative' skills
towards research and production of instruments of death. An Urdu poet
of repute Akbar Allahabadi had lamented:

Jan hi leney ki hikmat mein taraqi dekhi

Maut ko roknay walla koi paida na howa

(All ingenuity was towards perfecting skill of killing human beings,
none was born to arrest death)

Had the misdirected pursuits been channellised towards positive ends
of health and happiness for humanity, the world would not have been as
dangerous an abode to live as it is today. For the developing
countries, the cold war epithet is hardly relevant and appropriate.
There were hundred and twenty (120) conflicts of varying magnitude
during this era, e.g., in Vietnam, Korea, Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua,
Afghanistan, Somalia, Rwanda, India, Pakistan and others - all within
the orbit of the Third World countries. Big powers, through a tacit
understanding avoided coming to a frontal blow. Their 'stooges' were
made to fight through proxy wars and skirmishes. After all, the
affluence of the developed world maintained through massive arms trade
was only possible if the developing nations served as their ever
increasing market. Moreover, the salesmanship required that the
lethality of sophisticated weapons are demonstrated on soils other
than their own.

'Containment', says, Gaddis, is 'the term generally used to
characterize American policy toward the Soviet Union during the
post-war era, as a series of attempts to deal with the consequences of
that World war II Faustian bargain: the idea has been to prevent the
Soviet Union from using the power and position it won as a result of
that conflict to reshape the post war international order, a prospect
that has seemed, in the West, no less dangerous than what Germany and
Japan might have done had they had the chance. George F. Kennan coined
the term in July 1947, when he called publicly for a 'long-term,
patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive
tendencies'1. There was inherently a Machiavellian design contained in
the Containment concept. Truman made no attempt to camouflage its
crudeness and said it quite bluntly: 'If we see that Germany is
winning the war, we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we
ought to help Germany and in that way let them kill as many as
possible.'2. No wonder, as a natural concomitant to this dehumanized
sensibility, peace remained elusive even though the war was won. A
former ambassador to Soviet Union, William Bullitt, said it best in a
1948 Life magazine article entitled: 'How we won the war and lost the
peace.'3

Doctrines and concepts, if conceived for the furtherance of power,
dominance and hegemony can only serve as dissolvent of peace, and
humane order. Containment served as an anti thesis to holistic nature
of peace and security. The UNICEF in 1992 laid down a new paradigm for
assessing progress of nations: 'The day will come when the progress of
nations will be judged not by their military or economic strength, nor
by the splendour of their capital cities and public buildings, but by
the well-being of their peoples: by their levels of health, nutrition
and education; by their opportunities to earn a fair reward for their
labours; by their ability to participate in the decisions that affect
their lives; by the respect that is shown for their civil and
political liberties; by the provision that is made for those who are
vulnerable and disadvantaged; and by the protection that is afforded
to the growing minds and bodies of their children.'4

It is indeed a redeeming feature of the post-cold-war era, which took
its birth on July 1, 1991, when the Soviet Union and its erstwhile
satellites formally abrogated the Warsaw Pact, that search for
alternative doctrines and constructs began, where geo-economics
assumed a greater salience over geo-politics. Not completely
by-passing the imperatives of military power, the geo-economics is
conceived as a new arsenal to combat chaos and conflicts in the world.
There is a marked realization that threat of weapons and arms -
nuclear or otherwise, are not the only threats. No less volatile and
dangerous are the threats such as poverty, ethnic and racial strifes,
political instability, drug and environmental degradation.

The conflicts today, occur more among people within nations as opposed
to conflicts between nations, as was the trend in the past. During the
nineties there is a reawakening to what President Roosevelt, had very
passionately proclaimed in the Congress of the United States, on
January 6, 1941 - the Four Freedom Concept: Freedom of Speech, Worship
and Freedom from Want and Fear. The last two freedoms have remained
unfulfilled. He had elaborated these two as follows: 'The Third
freedom from want which translated into world terms, means economic
understandings which will secure every nation a healthy peace time
life for its inhabitants - everywhere in the world.'5 'The fourth ...
translated into world terms, means a world wide reduction of armaments
to such a point and in such thorough fashion that no nation will be in
a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any
neighbour - anywhere in the world'.6

Freedom of Fear can only be ensured if disarmament is vigorously
pursued and implemented in a non-discriminatory manner. Not only
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are to be feared, and
recognized as 'immoral', but even the conventional weapons fall into
the same category. The death toll in Hiroshima, as a consequences of
the first savage demonstration of nuclear weapons was approximately
1,40,000 and added to this was 70,000 in Nagasaki - the total loss was
around 2,10,000 of human lives. As per Human Development Report 1994,
use of conventional weapons have been instrumental to deaths over 20
million.7 Light weapons, have contributed to the massive proliferation
of terrorism. Availability of conventional and light weapons, have the
inherent risk that where tensions and conflicts exist, these are
likely to manifest in aggression and war.

Freedom of Want entails fulfilment of Fundamental Economic Rights as
contained in the UN Charter. This is essentially a survival issue.
Poverty, population pressures are the gravest challenges facing
humanity. People are increasingly awakening to their basic and human
rights and they cannot accept the 'status quo', which in essence, is
an exploitative order. They rise in rebellion to the kind we have seen
in Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo, Palestine and Kashmir. The ruthless
rulers have a pathological predilection to suppress through brutal
violence. But it is increasingly becoming a patent reality that
military interventions compound problems. They do not resolve them.
The world is now moving fast towards regionalization, globalization
and integration. There constructs are not impositions, but fundamental
imperatives of a new paradigm of existence, which places premium on
peace and prosperity of nations. It is a new vision which hopefully
aims to salvage humanity from the debilitating and morbid impact of
hegemonistic constructs like confrontation and containment. These are
flickers of hope and there is a light at the end of the tunnel. This
is a parting gift of the ongoing century, which has had a nightmarish
impact on the minds of the people of the impoverished world.

Peace and prosperity - necessary adjuncts to each other - are built on
the solid rock of cooperation. Nations therefore, cognizant of the
imperatives of geo-economic compulsions, deemed it expedient to shun
their narrow shell like national identities to coalesce into wider
regional economic groupings. Gaining economic resilience required
mustering of a collective force. The European countries got themselves
interwoven into European Union (EU). They even went steps ahead to
integrate themselves into a cohesive economic community with the glue
of a common currency. Nations who develop an attitudinal
predisposition to construct infrastructure of a network of
communication and a facilitative climate of growth, hardly ever go to
war with each other. Europe, ravaged through two horrendous world
wars, learnt it a hard way, the futility of living atomized existence
and breeding ethnocentric prejudices and hatred against each other.
EU-idea is a strategic leap forward toward a new dimension of security
- the economic deterrence.

As evil often tends to become contagious, positive and bright ideas
have inherent propensity to produce snow-ball effects. Regionalization
of nations was one such idea. It is a basic intermediary step towards
globalization, which is the final destiny of humankind. The emergence
of North American Free Trade Arrangement (NAFTA) is a regional bloc,
comprising USA, Canada and Mexico. Attempts are in hand to bring in
some Latin American countries within its fold and a wider western
Hemisphere grouping is in the offing. Concurrently the US President
Clinton, realizing the immense economic potential of the countries
around the Pacific region comprising around two billion people, took a
bold initiative to integrate America into partnership with the Pacific
community, where over forty percent of the international trade occurs
and is the lucrative abode half of the world's total production and
services. Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) was thus a giant
step towards economic integration. Atlantic and the Pacific regions
had thus become the hub centres of economic bonanza. It was but
inevitable that Indian Ocean countries would also seize the
opportunity to bring into effect a collective bloc. The time for this
idea had came, and the organization called the Indian Ocean Rim
Association for Regional Cooperation (IORAC) ultimately came into
being in 1995, but the idea was first mooted by South African Foreign
Minister in 1993. Although it was a brilliant idea but crudely
executed. In the first inter-governmental conference in March 1995,
the seven countries participated and they became the Founder Members -
Mauritius, Australia, South Africa, India, Oman, Kenya and Singapore.
An exclusive club approach was adopted, which is grossly incongruent
to a cooperative paradigm. The membership was extended to fourteen
countries in the subsequent meeting at Mauritius in May 1996, and the
new countries admitted were Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia,
Mozambique, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Yemen.

It is indeed revealing and also ironical that India did not recommend
Pakistan from the South Asian conglomeration of nations. It opted for
Sri Lanka, as every member among the seven Founders, had the right to
select only one from its region. The inclusion of Sri Lanka was indeed
a wise step, but to leave Pakistan, Iran, Bangladesh and the rest, was
a strategic blunder, as it would contribute to misgivings and
apprehensions and sow seeds of dissent. In the first place, the very
modality of selecting or nominating a country is repugnant to
democratic ethos and values. The propriety demanded that an
'inclusive' approach should have been adhered to from the very
beginning to promote greater integration and forging a climate of
trust, which is a basic pre-requisite to galvanizing nations into
becoming a community of achievers. India's obsession for hegemony, and
exhibiting a dominating posture, is the road-block to Indian Ocean Rim
Countries' prosperity and progress, despite its vast potentials to be
in step with the Atlantic and Pacific nations. A number of countries
in the Indian Ocean Rim expressed their willingness to include
Pakistan and other left over countries, but for India's authoritarian
defiance and obduracy the expansion idea could not get through. It is
time that India is made to realize that through its intransigent
approach it will deprive the people of the region of the colossal
dividends of economic cooperation. Just as non-governmental
organizations - the academic and business networks - named the Indian
Ocean Research Network (IORN) and the Indian Ocean Rim Consultative
Business Network (IORCBN) in the Track Two sphere, are broad-based and
inclusive the Track I should reflect the same spirit. The exclusive
mind-set which is restricted only to fourteen members, living close to
fifty littoral and land-locked countries is a retrogressive step and
must be dispensed with the earliest.

The land-locked countries need special deal. The sea has so far
dominated in determining the affluence of nations around its rim. It
is reported that approximately 95% of global trade is carried out
through the sea.8 The Great Game was essentially very selective in
sharing affluence. It is time that the destiny of land locked
countries be changed through constructing infrastructures like roads
and railways and linking them with the rim countries. Relevant in this
context is the idea of strategic linkage with Eurasian Continental
Bridge, which has been elaborately spelt out in my monograph - China
and the Post Cold War Paradigm in Asia by General Beg, during his
address at 21st Century Forum at Beijing, China.9

In the end one would like to reiterate what

James Grant said: 'Individually, yes, we can do some important things.
But we are setting out to do something that is beyond the powers of
any of us individually. But what we have been demonstrating is that,
when we work together, we really can begin to change the face of
global society, the face of the world.

Notes and References

1. John Lewis Gaddis, Strategies of Containment, New York, Oxford Univ
Press 1982. P.4.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid p-5.
4. UNICEF - The Progress of Nations 1993.
5. Quoted in World Goodwill Commentary, freedom from fear and want:
Disarmament, Peace and Security. No. 21, Jan 1996. World Goodwill,
120, Wall Street New York NY-10005, USA, p-3.
6. Ibid. p-3.
7. Capturing the Peace Dividend. Human Development Report 1994. UNDP.
Oxford Univ. Press 1994 p-47.
8. Faringdon Hugh Strategic Geography, Rontledge, London 1989, p-42.
9. Aslam Beg, China and the Post Cold War Paradigm in Asia, paper
presented in the First Conference of the 21st Century Forum sponsored
by National Committee of the Chinese Peoples Political Consultative
Conference (CPPCC), Beijing China, September 4-6, 1996, Monograph
printed by FRIENDS Publications.
10. James Grant at the Sixth Bellagio Conference in New Delhi, India.
February 1994.

http://www.defencejournal.com/dec98/indian-ocean.htm

See also:
http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/iorarc/
http://www.iornet.com/
http://www.dfa.gov.za/foreign/Multilater...iorarc.htm
http://www.geography.laurentian.ca/cb/ge...ration.htm
http://www.europaworld.org/week208/indianocean21105.htm

[Guest]

MY BALI DIARY

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->        MY BALI DIARY
        by B.Raman

        “I am a Brahmana married to a Shatriya," said the girl at a foreign exchange shop in Denpasar, the capital of Bali. "And you?"
        'I am also a Brahmin, " I replied, "but not married".
        "How old are you?" she asked.
        "69".
        "Why have you not married?”
        "Just like that"
        "So, you are a Brahmacharya? Are there many Brahmacharyas in India ?"
        "Yes, there are many. And in Bali?"
        "Not many. People get married once they have a steady job."
        “Are there many divorces? Do men and women quarrel? Do men beat up their wives?"
        "Rarely. We are not like that."
        "What is your name?"
        "Neuman Kalawati."
        "Kalawati is a Hindu name. But,why Neuman? It is Christian."
        "No.No. It is not. Neuman means third. I am the third child of my
        parents. Often, Balinese Hindu names have a number. It indicates which
        child of their parents they are."
        "How much you earn?"
        "Rupiah 500,000 per month." (One US dollar equal to 9,800 Rupiahs)
        "And your husband?"
        "Rupiah one million."
        "Rupiah 1.5 million per month. Is that good money in Bali?"
        "We manage to survive, but that is not good money. One-fourth of it
        goes for milk for our three kids. One-fourth for house rent.
        One-fourth for the Brahmana priests and offerings to God. Only
        one-fourth remains for other purposes."
        “Have you ever travelled?"
        "Never."
        "Not even to Java?"
        "No. Where is the money?"
        "Are you a happy woman? A happy wife? A happy mother?"
        "Of course, I am. Do I look unhappy?"
        "No. You don't. Your face looks somewhat different from the face of
        other Balinese women I have met."
        "Oh, really! Probably because I am a Brahmana."
        "Do you know India?"
        "Yes, I do."
      "You know Sonia Gandhi? Manmohan Singh? Atal Behari Vajpayee? Shah
        Rukh Khan?Aiswarya Rai?"
        "I know Vajpayee. He came to Bali. Also  Shah Rukh Khan and Aiswarya
        Rai, but not others. Who are they?"
        "They are Indian political leaders. Which other Indian you know and like best?"
        "Satya Sai Baba."
        "You have met him? Has he come to Bali?"
        "No. But sometimes our TV shows him. And his prayer meetings. When he is on TV, the whole of Bali watches.
        "You know Shankaracharya?"
        "No"
        "You know the RSS, the VHP, the Hindutva people?"
        "No"
        "Yesterday ( October 19,2005), I saw a long procession. Nearly 50 well-dressed women walked in front of what seemed a small chariot carrying religious offerings on their head. There appeared to be a dead body covered with a white cloth in the chariot. Nearly a hundred men and women walked behind, but without any offerings on their head. Seemed like a funeral procession."

        "Yes, it was."
        "Appeared to be an important person. When did he die?"
        "Three years ago."
        "Three years ago? Why are they cremating him now?"

        "Lot of money is required for cremation. We have to pay the priests. Make religious offerings. Invite all relatives and friends. When a person suddenly dies, his relatives do not have enough money. They bury the body in a simple ceremony, save enough money and then take out the remains and cremate them. Without cremation, they will not be reborn or go to heaven."

        "Do you eat beef?"
        "No. We don't. We eat all kinds of meat, but not beef."
        "Is it only the Brahmanas who don't eat beef or everyone?"
        "Everyone."
        "But, in India, we think the Balinese Hindus eat beef."
        "Wrong. We don't."

        “About 80 per cent of the population (2.7 million) are Hindus. The remaining are Muslims, Buddhists and Christians. Do Hindus and Muslims inter-marry? "

        "No.If a Muslim wants to marry a Hindu, the Muslim should embrace Hinduism."

        The Balinese---whether Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists or Christians--- are a very sweet-tempered people. They rarely show signs of irritation. Life has been hard on them ever since international jihadi terrorism made its appearance in Indonesia---particularly after the terrorists started targeting the tourist resorts in Bali. After the first Bali explosions of October,2002, more than a half of the foreign tourists ran away---mostly Australians and Americans. It took two years for normalcy to be restored.

        There has again been a steep fall in tourism after the recent explosions of October 1, 2005. The Australians and the Americans have run away and fresh arrivals from Australia and the US have dwindled. Europeans---particularly the French, the Italians, the Germans and the Spanish--continue to come in large numbers despite the explosions. But their number is not sufficient to keep the economy moving. All tourist resorts have reduced the number of working days for their staff from six to three days a week---halving their salary.

        Though there are no evident signs of bitterness against the Muslims for bringing about this hardship on the local population, there is a growing demand for carrying out the death sentence awarded to three of those involved in the explosions of October, 2002.Most of the Muslims involved in the explosions seemed to be from Java, Malaysia or elsewhere. Hence, one can detect no signs of anger against the   Balinese Muslims.

        Hinduism had flourished both in Java and Bali, but in Java the Hindus have greatly dwindled in numbers either due to migration to Bali or due to their conversion to Islam. The people of Bali remain steadfastly Hindu and maintain their pride in their religion and culture. While there are very few Hindus still left in Java, the Hindu cultural influence still remains strong---even in Java---but it is slowly being diluted due to the onward march of hard Islam, which is trying to replace the soft face of Islam in Indonesia.

        I have visited Thailand, Cambodia and Indonesia---the three countries in South-East Asia, most strongly influenced by the Hindu religion and culture. In Myanmar, which too I have visited, the influence is more Buddhist than Hindu.

        The impact of the Hindu scriptures, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata is a common feature of all the three countries, but beyond that, there are differences.The influence of Hindu painting and dance forms is strong in Thailand, but not in Cambodia and Bali. The style of temple architecture in Cambodia is more Hindu than in Thailand and Bali, where the Buddhist style seems to have had a stronger influence than the Hindu. The Hindu temples of Angkor Vat in Cambodia are a glorious example of  ancient Hindu temple architecture. One does not find anything even remotely comparable in Thailand and Bali.

        The depiction of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata in plays in the three countries has characteristic differences. While in Thailand and Cambodia, one could see unalloyed Hindu influence, one could notice some Chinese influence in Indonesia, including Bali.

        The uniqueness of Bali lies in the fact that it is the only place in the whole of South-east Asia, where the impact of the Hindu religion and culture on the daily lives of the people remains as strong as it was 2000 years ago, when Hinduism made its first appearance there.

        Did the Hindus of India take their religion and culture to Indonesia? No, they didn't. It is the ancient spice traders of these islands, who happened to visit Southern and Eastern India, and who were so impressed by the glories of the Hindu religion and culture and the rule of the Hindu kings, that they created amongst the Balinese rulers and people a desire to learn from Hinduism, emulate it and adapt to Java and Bali the styles of governance of the Hindu rulers of India, particularly the Pallava kings of South India.

        Hinduism came to Bali through emulation and not through migration, invasion or conquest. In their book on the "Peoples of Bali", Angela Hobart, Lecturer on Anthropology at the University of London's Goldsmiths' College, Albert Leemann, Emeritus Professor of Human Geography at the University of Zurich, and Urs Ramseyer, Curator of the Indonesian Department at the Museum of Ethnology in Basel, Switzerland, write as follows: " At no time in the history of Indonesia, including Bali, was there an Indian migration or conquest during which military or economic colonies could have been established. Thus, the Indianised old Balinese kingdom was never an institution imposed from outside. In Bali, it was domestic political needs and demands that enabled religious and political ideas from India to take hold."

        Between the first and the ninth century AD, the flow from India to Bali was largely of religious and cultural influences. Starting from around AD 882, one could see the increasing influence of  Hindu political ideas and styles of governance in shaping the political evolution of the island.One saw Balinese rulers---sons of the soil and not migrants or invaders from India---assuming Sanskritised Hindu names one after the other---- Sri Kesari Wamadeva,  Udayana, Sang Ratu  Ugrasena and so on.

        This practice of assuming Sanskritised Hindu names was seen in Java too. Udayana married a Javanese Princess by name Mahendradatta, who after her marriage to him, assumed the title Gunapriya Dharmapatni.

        It is said that the Balinese look upon themselves as the descendants of Markendaya. Is it possible for a religion and culture to spread so widely, to take such deep roots in a society and to make such an impact on the minds of the people without a certain measure of migration, invasion or conquest?  No satisfactory answer to this question is available.

        A visit to a local bookshop revealed over 50 books relating to Bali--its history, culture etc. One also noticed Balinese Hindu calendars and panchangs and commentaries on the Ramayana, the Mahabharata and the Kamasutra written by Balinese scholars. Many of the books on Balinese history and culture have been written by Western scholars, including one by an officer of the US Foreign Service posted in the US Embassy in Jakarta for eight years. Having had very little knowledge of the Hindu religion and culture and of Sanskrit and other Indian languages, their writings are superficial and do not answer many questions, which would normally come to the mind of a Hindu.

        But, one did not find a single book or monograph written by an Indian scholar. That is the shocking state of our interest in this region.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->