The Cabinet Committee on Security approved the blueprint of the Border Defence Cooperation Agreement that both India and China are due to ink during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Beijing next week. The main aim of BDCA aims to prevent face-offs between Indian and Chinese troops along the over 4,000 km Line of Actual Control (LAC), the de facto border.
Since 1962 Indo-China War, neither side has officially recognised the Himalayan border, which is referred to as the “Line of Actual Control.” Border talks began in 1981 but after many rounds of negotiations there is hardly any progress made. For India, Aksai Chin is the key concern, while for China, Arunachal Pradesh (which China refers as South Tibet) are the key contentious issue.
There has been ‘working mechanism’ in place since 2009 and a group of diplomats and military officials are working on to work out an agreement for areas of cooperation along the border. Since then China has increased its incursions in Arunachal Pradesh. A Chinese airline last week blocked two Indian archers from disputed Arunachal Pradesh from travelling to China, was part of the Chinese pressure building.
China is also increasing its presence in the border areas. It is believed that China wants to build-up pressure on India by engaging in some negotiations but at the same time keeping the dispute on. This is helping China to upgrade its defence and road infrastructure in the region. While concluding any pact India has to think of the real Chinese intentions. The real interests of China are not in war but encircling geographically and enforcing trade terms on India. Is UPA government equipped enough to deal with these Chinese plan? When India and China is not sure of where the LAC is, what kind of border agreement is approved? China has been pressurising India to sign the pact on its own terms, people of India hope that we are not heading for another “Panchsheel” blunder.
Selling dignity without prosperity!
Why politics of underdevelopment suits Congress?
While launching Congress campaign in Madhya Pradesh, Rahul Gandhi declared that respect is more important to me than progress and prosperity. Coincidently, a day before, in the Global Hunger Index declared by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), the level of hunger in India remained at ‘alarming levels’. So Rahul apparently looks on the right page of the reality, but he has missed many pages in between.
First of all, both developmental models propagated by Jawaharlal Nehru and Rajiv Gandhi claimed that they will ensure prosperity and dignity to the people of India. The first model of socialism neither brought prosperity nor dignity. The other model claims to brought prosperity but not dignity. Now Rahul Gandhi should explain the masses how he is going to be different from the both? Is he going to provide dignity without development? Surely, charity is not the answer, which even his father was agreed to. Another important question is can Congress deny the responsibility for unable to provide respect to the people for the last 55 years or is garibi hatao has been another sloganeering like ‘secularism’ to threaten people to vote for the Congress?
The reality is, politics of underdevelopment suits Congress. If we go into the details of Global Hunger Index report from 2008, it shows that wherever there is economic and social underdevelopment, Congress has maintained its grip. Whether it’s Amethi, Bellari, Nadurbar or Bastar, the constituencies that are dominated by the Congress are the most backward. Whenever development takes place, with education and prosperity, the aspirations of people also amplify. So the Gandhi scion should explain whether he wants to ensure dignity with prosperity or to sell dignity to empty stomachs?
