China, Tibet and Indian border

I think there is a blurring of facts of history. Firstly Tibet was mostly under Chinese suzerainty though for short periods it had independence but it was always at the mercy of China. After the British with Sikh troops launched the Younghusband expedition and reached Lhasa in 1903/04 Tibet became a buffer between China and India. But historically for almost 2000 years Sikkim or the North East and Aksai Chin were never ruled from Delhi or were part of the Indian empire. The British redrew the border after the 1913 Simla conference and made Aksai Chin and NEFA part of India. But even the British never set up an administration in Aksai Chin and NEFA. Till 1938 it is recorded the British recognized Tawang as part of Tibet.

Sikkim was never part of India and only became protectorate after the British took over. No Mogul king or emperor conquered Sikkim and NEFA and this paid tribute to Tibet. Once foolishly Nehru recognized Tibet as a part of China the natural corollary is that old areas like Aksai Chin, NEFA and even Sikkim are in the Chinese sphere of influence. This is because at some time they were part of the Tibetan empire and China claims continuity and India foolishly recognized Tibet as part of China, undoing all the efforts of the British.

Nehru made the situation worse by not setting up any administration in the areas like Aksai Chin. As far as Sikkim is concerned China has recognized it as part of India but they claim the entire Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin including Ladkah as part of China as these were part of greater Tibet empire. The Chinese feel the present borders were drawn by the British during the age of imperialism and China was weak. They have a point and India has compounded its problems by not developing the areas or setting up any infrastructure. China has a rail like to Lhasa at 13000 ft and India is nowhere comparable. The fault is with the founding fathers of the Indian state who got power in their laps and failed to realize its significance. Sikkim is not the problem but other areas are.

Reply

 

A Non- Christian Cemetery in the Heart of Calcutta

The Cemetery at Park Street in Calcutta where Memories of the Raj Thrive

Updated on April 9, 2019

An Unforgettable Relic

The British came to India under the guise of the East India Company and soon by a series of Machiavellian steps took control of an entire sub-continent. After Robert Clive won the Battle of Plassey in 1757, it was the Raj (a euphuism for British rule) all the way. At that time the British made Calcutta their capital and it continued till 1911 when they shifted the capital to Delhi.

Many Englishmen served and died in Calcutta and their mortal remains were interred in the cemeteries of the city. One of the most famous is the cemetery at Park Street in the heart of Calcutta. This cemetery is looked after by the Archeological Survey of India ( ASI), another British creation.

The cemetery

The cemetery is hidden from the main Park Street which is the entertainment district of Calcutta with a string of bars and restaurants. The cemetery stands behind an imposing wrought iron gate. There are not many visitors. The cemetery is in disuse since 1790. This is a good 225 years back, yet its well maintained and for history lovers a treasure house of great information. Known as the Park Street Cemetery it's a site worth visiting for a tourist. In just 30 minutes you will glean more about the history of Calcutta and the Raj than any book.

Every sinew of the cemetery breathes history and men of the Raj who distinguished themselves find a place here. There is, however, a subtle difference from a normal cemetery and one fact that stands out is that it is a non- Christian cemetery. This makes the entire monument a different place to visit. In other words, it is an exciting place.

How to beat the apathy of the Government on NFU and parity with civil services

The armed forces despite the most hazardous job are short of perks and promotion. The matter is pending for NFU with the HSC but here is a suggestion to beat the GOI at its own game. Before I write anything further I must state that I am unable to agree that a plethora of ranks will undermine discipline.  In my service career, I had observed that most officers will not mind losing a little pay to put on a higher rank. Pay alone cannot satisfy the lucre of wearing senior rank. So where do we go from here?

The proposal of doing away with a few middle-level ranks and facilitating the retirement of all officers at least as Major Generals is laudable. It takes care of so many things. The question that command and control will be affected is like a red herring as all are governed by various acts of the Air Force and army and a sense of loyalty exist among all men and officers to the nation and the parent arm. Modern war is also not what it was at the turn of the last century. Holding a coveted rank satisfies the ego and is a must. One can read that the first act of Adolf Hitler to bolster the confidence of the army was when in that famous ceremony( I think in 1936) he promoted nearly 6 field Marshals. As he handed the FM's baton to the men in a public ceremony the atmosphere was electrifying. This was to establish motivation in the army. He was a success. So saying that ranks should be denied and in lieu pay given will not serve the purpose.

I can quote so many examples to justify what I am saying. An Air Vice Marshal. a friend of mine in an informal chat with me said he would accept lesser pay but putting on a higher rank is the glory. What have the generals to say to this? I find the opposition to this proposal is mostly from the general rank officers who are aghast that so many Marshals will be around. Frankly, nothing is going to happen as at one stroke the question of parity with the Police and paramilitary forces and the IAS can be solved and morale upped.

There is also a need to similarly think of giving something for the men who constitute the force. 

The army in India has been unable to assert itself. One will have to study the reason for it.  Even in Burma a Buddhist country the army has 30% seats in parliament reserved for it as well as key ministries.  Thailand also the army calls the shots. In Pakistan, the people still respect the army despite it losing half the country in 1971. In any case, the COAS is a member of the all-powerful security committee that almost runs the government.

One can write reams and reams in a discussion. No two points will be the same, but the crux of everything in the military is the rank. Hitler and Stalin and Roosevelt realized it. It's about time the same was accepted here. Pay increase? Its ok but rank matters.