B.

Raman’s response to Ananth Krishnan

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?261359

AUG 17, 2009

OPINION

Not Lost In Translation

An op-ed in The Hindu says the controversial Chinese article 'China Should
Break Up The Indian Union' was 'translated and analysed with some significant
errors'. Really?
B. RAMAN
Normally, I do not pay serious attention to reports and articles on China carried
by The Hindu of Chennai. But I did take notice of an article titled Does Beijing
Really Want To break Up India? carried by The Hindu in its Op-Ed page on
August 17, 2009, for two reasons. Firstly, it tries to cast in a negative light the
Chennai Centre For China Studies, which has been closely monitoring the
Chinese language press and bringing interesting, significant or worrisome
writings to the notice of the Indian readers. I have been given to understand that
in recent months the Chennai Centre has been blacklisted by the Chinese
authorities and I was intrigued to notice that the article reflects some of the
arguments used by the critics of the Centre in China.ľľThe second reason is that
this article tries to cast doubts on the credibility of an article titled 'China Should
Break Up The Indian Union', written by Shri D.S.Rajan, of the Chennai Centre on
August 9, 2009. ľľThis article has been written by Shri Ananth Krishnan, who
has recently taken over as the Beijing correspondent of The Hindu. One does not
know his background and credentials as a China analyst. It is important for the
readers to have some idea of the credentials of Shri Rajan. Before the Sino-
Indian war of 1962, the government of India was largely dependent on the media
monitoring agencies of the UK and the US for monitoring and analysing the
writings and broadcasts of the Chinese language media. After the war, the
government of Jawaharlal Nehru realised that it was unwise to totally depend on
the Chinese media monitoring and analysis services of the West and decided to
build up our own capability. In the years following the 1962 war, a crash drive
was undertaken by the government to recruit and train a group of young people
fresh from the universities in the Chinese and Japanese languages and make
them responsible for monitoring and analysing the Chinese and Japanese
language media.ľľShri Rajan was one of those thus recruited and trained by
being sent abroad for improving his proficiency. Shri Rajan, who is now 67 years
old, had spent about 35 years as a Chinese analyst by monitoring writings in the
Chinese and Japanese language media. Of these 35 years, he had spent three
years in Hong Kong when it was a British-administered territory, three years in
China and six years in Japan in two spells. During his service, he was associated
with the visits of a number of Chinese delegations to India as well as with the
visits of a number of Indian delegations to China. ľľShri Rajan's article has eight
paragraphs. The first paragraph gives Shri Rajan's comments on the web site
which carried the article. The last paragraph gives Shri Rajan's assessment of
the article. The remaining paragraphs are a gist of the contents of the article. The
first paragraph on the background of the Chinese article says:

"Almost coinciding with the 13th round of Sino-Indian border talks (New Delhi,
August 7-8, 2009), an article (in Chinese language) has appeared in China
captioned “If China takes a little action, the so-called Great Indian Federation can
be broken up” ( Zhong Guo Zhan Lue Gang, www.iiss.cn , Chinese, 8 August
2009). Interestingly, it has been reproduced in several other strategic and military
websites of the country and by all means, targets the domestic audience. The
authoritative host site is located in Beijing and is the new edition of one, which so
far represented the China International Institute for Strategic Studies
(www.chinaiiss.org)."

Shri Ananth Krishnan says in his first paragraph: "The post was translated and
analysed with some significant errors..." One would have lauded Shri Krishnan if
he had specified these errors so that one could have stood corrected. Were the
errors in translation or analysis? Shri Krishnan is silent on this question. If the
errors are in translation and if Shri Krishnan's command of the Chinese language
is better than that of Shri Rajan, why does he not specify them?ľľWhat has Shri
Rajan said in his analysis of the contents of the article:

"The Chinese article in question will certainly outrage readers in India. Its
suggestion that China can follow a strategy to dismember India, a country always
with a tradition of unity in diversity, is atrocious, to say the least. The write-up
could not have been published without the permission of the Chinese authorities,
but it is sure that Beijing will wash its hands out of this if the matter is taken up
with it by New Delhi. It has generally been seen that China is speaking in two
voices – its diplomatic interlocutors have always shown understanding during
their dealings with their Indian counterparts, but its selected media is pouring
venom on India in their reporting. Which one to believe is a question confronting
the public opinion and even policy makers in India. In any case, an approach of
panic towards such outbursts will be a mistake, but also ignoring them will prove
to be costly for India."

What is wrong in this analysis? In the 1950s, a number of maps of the Indo-
Chinese border started circulating in China and appearing in sections of the
Chinese media. The Indian intelligence rightly brought these to the notice of
Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister, who took up the matter with Chou En-
lai, his Chinese counterpart. He assured Nehru that these maps were circulated
by private individuals and had been prepared by the Taiwanese before 1949. He
told Nehru that India should not worry about them. Nehru was shocked before
the 1962 war when the Chinese used the very same maps, which Chou had
described as not official, for claiming large parts of Indian territory and occupying
much of it. Today, it is on the basis of the very same maps which the Chinese
portrayed as not official that they are claiming Arunachal Pradesh as Chinese
territory.ľľWas Shri Rajan mistaken in sounding a word of caution that while "an
approach of panic towards such outbursts will be a mistake, but also ignoring
them will prove to be costly for India"? This was a sound word of caution based
on our past experience of dealing with China. I leave it to the readers to decide
what they will believe -- Shri Rajan's word of caution or Shri Krishnan's soothing
words on China?ľľShri Krishnan also writes:

"The post in question appeared in an important-sounding web site calling itself

the International Institute of Strategic Studies (which has no relation to the
London-based think-tank of the same name). The Chennai Centre For China
Studies, which first translated and analysed the post before it was circulated
among the Indian media, assumed that this was a Government-sponsored think-
tank and also wrongly claimed that this was linked to the China Institute For
International Starategic Studies (CIISS), a Beijing think-tank. But a quick-check
revealed that the IISS web site where the post appeared actually has no
government ties and is by no means an established Beijing think-tank---it is just a
web site."

Dear Mr.Ananth Krishnan, where has the article said that this was a Government-
sponsored think-tank? Where has it claimed that this was linked to the China
Institute For International Strategic Studies? Mr Krishnan, we know more than
you probably do about the China Institute For International Strategic Studies,
which is a highly reputed think tank of the Chinese Defence Ministry. Its chief is
generally a senior retired officer of the People's Liberation Army. Its past chiefs
and scholars had visited India. Shri Rajan had interacted with it during his stay in
China. Where is the question of Shri Rajan confusing the web site with this
prestigious think-tank?ľľFollowing the uproar in Indian non-governmental circles
over the contents of the Chinese article, there was a damage-control exercise
mounted by Beijing through the owners of the web site in question as well as a
former Chinese Ambassador to India and others. Many of us were in receipt of e-
mails from Beijing making some of the same points which Shri Krishnan has
made in his article, which I am inclined to see as part of this damage control
exercise.ľľShri Rajan had drawn attention to this anti-India web site as early as
November 27, 2006, immediately after the visit of President Hu Jintao to India in
an article which can be found at here. He was also the first to draw attention in
2006 to the fact that Chinese writings had started referring to Arunachal Pradesh
as "southern Tibet" and not as Arunachal Pradesh. One was told at that time that
these were all private writings, that China was changing and that non-
governmental views in China no longer necessarily reflected the governmental
view. We know the reality today.ľľIt is a fact that some sections of our media
went to town with Shri Rajan's article and sensationalised the contents of the
Chinese article, but the concern in large sections of the Indian civil society over
the implications of the theme of the Chinese article is understandable if one
remembers the fact that China before 1979 had trained many of our Nago and
Mizo insurgents in secret training camps in Yunnan, that there are reports that
Paresh Barua of the United Liberation Front of Assam is even today in touch with
the Chinese, that before November, 2008, China opposed the declaration of the
Lashkar-e-Toiba as a terrorist organisation by the Sanctions Committee of the
UN Security Council and even today opposes the declaration of the Jaish-e-
Mohammad as a terrorist organisation.

B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New

Deelhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also
associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies.

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?261359

Ananth Krishnan’s response to D.S.Rajan

Date:17/08/2009
URL:http://www.thehindu.com/2009/08/17/stories/2009081751
020900.htm

ľľDoes Beijing really want to “break up” India?

Ananth Krishnan
What the overreaction in India to an anonymous post on an
obscure Chinese website calling for “splitting India” reveals about
the challenges of understanding China’s changing information
landscape.
Whoever the anonymous Internet user “Zhong Guo Zhuan Le
Gang” (literally, “Chinese strategist”) is, he must be quite pleased
with himself. Little more than a week ago, a post by him appeared
on an obscure Chinese website calling for China to “break up” the
“Hindu Religious State” of India for its own strategic gains. The
post was translated and analysed, with some significant errors, by a
Chennai-based think-tank, following which reports appeared in the
Indian media expressing outrage that “Beijing” had a secret plan to
divide India by supporting separatist movements in Kashmir and
the Northeast.

Leave aside for a moment the contents of the post, which to most
readers with even a little understanding of foreign policy reveals an
inexperienced writer with poor understanding of India, far
removed from a supposedly influential Chinese strategist. Also
leave aside the question of whether having broken-up states on its
borders with the troubled Xinjiang region and in north-east India
even really suits Chinese interests. The real question to be asked
here is why and how does an anonymous post by an insignificant
Chinese blogger generate such attention and consternation in
India? Part of the answer lies in the media reports that appeared
last week, which made the following assumptions: an influential
Chinese strategist must have been behind the suggestions; he must
have had the tacit backing of Beijing since all opinion in China is
controlled by the government; and that the website where this post
appeared sounded influential enough for India to take notice and
worry.

But in these assumptions are fundamental misperceptions. For one,

there is a tendency to assume every view expressed by a Chinese
strategist or newspaper – let alone an anonymous blogger — is
inextricably linked to Beijing and the Chinese government’s views.

This tendency is located in the prevalence of the idea of a monolith

China and “Chinese” view which dominates Indian perceptions.
This was especially evident last week, when news reports in
national newspapers, without exception, linked the claims made by
the anonymous blogger to “what Beijing thinks”.

This perception dates back to the 1970s and 1980s, when the only
opinions coming out of China were voiced through one or two
State-run organs, and often closely mirrored the Chinese
government’s views. The last decade has seen the emergence of a
completely different information landscape in China. Yet the
manner in which this information is processed and interpreted in
India remains rooted in the past. The nineties saw the emergence of
dozens of new newspapers in China, a few dozen think-tanks in
Beijing and a proliferation of voices expressed through the
Internet. Currently, there are four main avenues through which
information emerges out of China. Their status and roles need
spelling out, as understanding and evaluating the nature of this
information is crucial for India to create a level of discourse that
allows for a more layered analysis of China’s opportunities and
threats.

Most significant is the official channel through China’s Foreign

Ministry, which voices China’s official position on issues. The
second, more complicated channel is print media. There are dozens
of newspapers in Beijing, and most are State-owned. But each
enjoys a unique relationship with both the government and the
Communist Party (CPC), and consequently, their opinions need to
be interpreted contextually. For instance, the People’s Daily, the
CPC’s mouthpiece, often articulates the Party’s stand, which does
not necessarily reflect the Chinese government’s official position.
Recently, the paper ran a strong editorial aimed at India, crudely
belittling India’s political status and calling for a stronger Chinese
stand on the border dispute and other issues. This was interpreted
in India as the Chinese government changing its position.

While the Chinese government on occasion does use the

newspaper to articulate its views, the newspaper is more often used
by different factions within the CPC in internal debates and has
less impact on actual policy. For instance, some groups within the
CPC favour a more hawkish attitude to India, and others in the
government a more conciliatory position. The distinction between
Party and Government is not often clear even in China. This poses
a challenge for Indian observers to tease out what opinions really
matter to the countries’ relationship, and what opinions are no
more than postures adopted for the sake of internal party politics
and are less relevant to the countries’ ties. The third category, also
diverse, is think-tanks. In the last decade, dozens of think-tanks —
many with similar sounding names, to add to the confusion —
have emerged in China. The fourth and newest avenue of
information is the Internet, through Chinese blogs and websites.

Confusion between the last two categories was at the heart of last
week’s uproar. The post in question appeared on an important-
sounding website calling itself the International Institute of
Strategic Studies (which has no relation to the London-based
think-tank of the same name). The Chennai Centre for China
Studies, which first translated and analysed the post before it was
circulated among the Indian media, assumed that this was a
government-sponsored think-tank, and also wrongly claimed that
this was linked to the China Institute for International Strategic
Studies (CIISS), a Beijing think-tank. But a quick check revealed
that the IISS website where the post appeared actually has no
government ties, and is by no means an established Beijing think-
tank — it’s just a website. Scholars at the CIISS and other
institutes said they hadn’t even heard of it, and expressed
amusement at the media circus that the obscure website had caused
in India.

The website’s founder Kang Lingyi issued a clarification saying

his website was independent and had no link to the government.
What news reports did not mention was Mr. Kang, who is only in
his twenties, represents a fringe firebrand nationalistic viewpoint
that has in the past tried to stir public opinion against another
neighbour of China’s — Japan. Mr. Kang’s views often reflect
those of a section known in China as the “Fenqing” — it literally
translates to “Angry Youth”, but when pronounced slightly
differently describes such youth in a far less kind way, one that’s
not fit to print. This reflects the position these views hold in the
mainstream in China — and the error in assuming these fringe
views mirror Beijing’s position. But even the nationalistic Mr.
Kang distanced himself from the post and stressed that in no way
did his website approve of its message.

News reports also claimed the write-up could not have been
published without the permission of the Chinese authorities —
another dubious claim tied to the simplistic notion that the Chinese
government vets every opinion expressed on all of China’s
hundreds of political websites. The Chinese government blocks
and censors numerous websites that are politically sensitive,
discussing subjects like the Tiananmen Square protests or the
Falun Gong. But suggesting that the government controls and
moderates debates and political opinions in blogs and newspapers
is a stretch.

It also belies a lack of understanding of the changing nature of

China’s information landscape. China has 338 million Internet
users and more than 100 million blogs and websites, such as the
one where this post first appeared. It only takes a quick glance
through half a dozen such sites – even “influential” ones - to look
at the divergence of opinions and vibrancy of debates, with many
voices even strongly criticising the Communist Party and its
government. Yet the simplistic perception still endures in India that
in authoritarian China, every analyst or writer must surely speak in
the same voice.

Interpreting information from these four avenues is further

complicated by the fact that they are sometimes inter-linked. For
instance, the Chinese government sometimes uses influential think-
tanks to hint at changes in policy. Views and opinions from
mainstream Chinese newspapers and think-tanks must indeed be
taken seriously in India. But at the same time, a more nuanced
understanding of China’s information landscape is needed to avoid
shrill hyper-reactions to anonymous bloggers and irrelevant fringe
groups.

This is crucial to creating a level of discourse in India that allows

for a deeper, more meaningful engagement with China’s
opportunities and threats.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu

Original article by D.S.Rajan

China Should break up the Indian Union, suggests a Chinese Strategist

D.S.Rajan, C3S Paper No.325 dated August 9, 2009

Almost coinciding with the 13th round of Sino-Indian border talks (New
Delhi, August 7-8, 2009), an article (in Chinese language) has appeared in
China captioned “If China takes a little action, the so-called Great Indian
Federation can be broken up” ( Zhong Guo Zhan Lue Gang, www.iiss.cn ,
Chinese,8 August 2009). Interestingly, it has been reproduced in several
other strategic and military websites of the country and by all means,
targets the domestic audience. The authoritative host site is located in
Beijing and is the new edition of one, which so far represented the China
International Institute for Strategic Studies (www.chinaiiss.org)."

Claiming that Beijing’s ‘China-Centric’ Asian strategy, provides for

splitting India, the writer of the article, Zhan Lue (strategy), has found
that New Delhi’s corresponding ‘India-Centric’ policy in Asia, is in reality
a ‘Hindustan centric’ one. Stating that on the other hand ‘local centres’
exist in several of the country’s provinces (excepting for the U.P and
certain Northern regions), Zhan Lue has felt that in the face of such local
characteristics, the ‘so-called’ Indian nation cannot be considered as one
having existed in history.

According to the article, if India today relies on any thing for unity, it is
the Hindu religion. The partition of the country was based on religion.
Stating that today nation states are the main current in the world, it has
said that India could only be termed now as a “Hindu Religious state’.
Adding that Hinduism is a decadent religion as it allows caste
exploitation and is unhelpful to the country’s modernization, it described
the Indian government as one in a dilemma with regard to eradication of
the caste system as it realizes that the process to do away with castes
may shake the foundation of the consciousness of the Indian nation.

The writer has argued that in view of the above, China in its own interest
and the progress of whole Asia, should join forces with different
nationalities like Assamese, Tamils, and Kashmiris and support the latter
in establishing independent nation-states of their own, out of India. In
particular, the ULFA in Assam, a territory neighboring China, can be
helped by China so that Assam realizes its national independence.

The article has also felt that for Bangladesh, the biggest threat is from
India, which wants to develop a great Indian Federation extending from
Afghanistan to Myanmar. India is also targeting China with support to
Vietnam’s efforts to occupy Nansha (Spratly) group of islands in South
China Sea. Hence the need for China’s consolidation of its alliance with
Bangladesh, a country with which the US and Japan are also improving
their relations to counter China. It has pointed out that China can give
political support to Bangladesh enabling the latter to encourage ethnic
Bengalis in India to get rid of Indian control and unite with Bangladesh as
one Bengali nation; if the same is not possible,creation of at least
another free Bengali nation state as a friendly neighbour of Bangladesh,
would be desirable, for the purpose of weakening India’s expansion and
threat aimed at forming a ‘unified South Asia’.

The punch line in the article has been that to split India, China can bring
into its fold countries like Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan, support ULFA in
attaining its goal for Assam’s independence, back aspirations of Indian
nationalities like Tamils and Nagas, encourage Bangladesh to give a push
to the independence of West Bengal and lastly recover the 90,000 sq km.
territory in Southern Tibet.

Wishing for India’s break-up into 20-30 nation-states like in Europe, the
article has concluded by saying that if the consciousness of nationalities
in India could be aroused, social reforms in South Asia can be achieved,
the caste system can be eradicated and the region can march along the
road of prosperity.

The Chinese article in question will certainly outrage readers in India. Its
suggestion that China can follow a strategy to dismember India, a
country always with a tradition of unity in diversity, is atrocious, to say
the least. The write-up could not have been published without the
permission of the Chinese authorities, but it is sure that Beijing will wash
its hands out of this if the matter is taken up with it by New Delhi. It has
generally been seen that China is speaking in two voices – its diplomatic
interlocutors have always shown understanding during their
dealings with their Indian counterparts, but its selected media is pouring
venom on India in their reporting. Which one to believe is a question
confronting the public opinion and even policy makers in India. In any
case, an approach of panic towards such outbursts will be a mistake, but
also ignoring them will prove to be costly for India.

(The writer, D.S.Rajan, is Director of Chennai Centre for China Studies,

Chennai, India, email: dsrajan@gmail.com).