[Assam] Publication of the editorial ‘Chinese claim over Arunachal’; with poorly researche d material makes Assam Tribune a crap newspaper. In 1962 India attacked China first. Supportive materials to enlighten readers supplied in this posting.

Mohan R. Palleti mrpallet at ncsu.edu
Wed May 2 10:47:41 PDT 2007


Dear Baratta Bistar:
I wonder which one is your first and which one is your last name. And I
wonder as always what point you are trying to make.

I was two year old at that time and very well know the panic the family
went through as my father at that time was in Guwahati trying to help some
folks take the ferry across the Brahmaputra. He came back and I remember
the panic sales that was going on in Jorhat as people left the town. There
was no Indian army at this front. It was was the municipality that worked
overnight and removed any semblence of road signs or mile posts. I am told
that the Chinese advanced into Assam and were lost without any bearings.
And soon after this, they retreated.

As far as I know, India was not prepared for any war at that time. I will
certainly take this article with a pinch of salt.

Mohan R. Palleti


>  Western Lies Blackened Beijing's Image
>
> *Gregory Clark* (Vice President, Akita International University)
>  ------------------------------
>
> China's successful moves to improve ties with India have done more than
> sabotage Tokyo's hopes for an anti-China alliance with New Delhi. They
> have
> also put an end to the myth that China's alleged aggressions against India
> since the 1960s would prevent any rapprochement between the two countries.
>
> The key to this strange belief was the claim that China in 1962 had
> launched
> an unprovoked border attack against India. That claim was a blatant lie --
> and one of the brighter and shinier variety. It was a classic example of
> the
> ease with which Western governments and intelligence agencies, together
> with
> their friends in academic, media and research organs, combine to distort
> information and blacken China's reputation in Asia.
>
> In 1962 I was China desk officer in Canberra's Department of External
> Affairs. For much of the year there had been reports of Indian troops
> pushing into Chinese positions along the Sino-Indian border. On Oct. 20 we
> had a further report about clashes between Chinese and Indian troops at
> the
> Thag La ridge near the NEFA (North East Frontier Area) border, which was
> to
> lead to a Chinese counterattack into northern India.
>
> New Delhi claimed unprovoked Chinese aggression. But the maps in front of
> me
> showed the Thag La ridge to be north of even the Indian-claimed frontier.
> So
> India must have attacked China first, and in an area where China had
> already
> offered major territory concessions (condemned, incidentally, by Taipei as
> a
> sellout to India).
>
> When my cables to London and Washington confirmed this rather important
> fact, I assumed I could suggest to my superiors to ease up on their
> instant
> denunciations of Chinese "aggression" and their promises of immediate arms
> to India. Their response was swift: "We fail to see that it is not in the
> Western interest to have the Chinese and the Indians at each other's
> throats." London and Washington went along with this grubby realpolitik.
> Soon the commentators and experts in the Western media and elsewhere were
> retailing ominous tales about China's aggressive intentions throughout
> Asia.
>
> The myth of Chinese aggression against peaceful India was to distort Asian
> affairs for more than 40 years. With the help of Western black-information
> agencies -- British especially -- it was to provide much of the
> justification later for Western intervention in Indochina. Detailed
> documentation from Beijing proving the location of the Thag La ridge was
> ignored.
>
> Even the 1972 publication of "India's China War," the irrefutably detailed
> book by Neville Maxwell, the London Times New Delhi correspondent at the
> time, proving how Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had ordered the
> attack across the frontier, largely because of national pride and angst
> over
> the way China had consolidated control over Tibet, did little to change
> things. My own book on the subject, "In Fear of China," published four
> years
> earlier, had done even less.
>
> Now, finally, with last month's historic meeting between the Chinese and
> Indian prime ministers in New Delhi, the myth is being buried. Both sides
> have agreed to settle frontier differences -- something China has long
> been
> able to do with all its other contiguous neighbors, often generously.
> India
> has dropped any challenge to China's sovereignty in Tibet. China has
> recognized Indian sovereignty over the once semiautonomous Himalayan
> region
> of Sikkim. A strategic partnership has been promised.
>
> But hopes of Japan-India cooperation to oppose China still smolder in the
> hearts of many Japanese hawks. For years the goal was a tripartite Japan-
> India-Australia alliance against Beijing in Asia. That began to fall apart
> as Canberra belatedly realized its economic future lay with China.
>
> Now the hawks are making much of Japan and India's alleged democracy vs.
> China's alleged totalitarianism, hoping to link into U.S. neocon plans to
> use the democracy issue to inspire change not just in the Middle East but
> eventually to force confusion and breakup in China. Leading hawk Tokyo
> Gov.
> Shintaro Ishihara has now come out openly in the latest issue of *Bungei
> Shunju* magazine calling for such a breakup. With the Yasukuni Shrine
> issue
> back in the headlines, others will want to follow.
>
> Yasukuni is an especially fertile source of continued anti-China claims.
> Tokyo's insistence that Beijing's protests over Yasukuni amount to
> intervention in Japan's domestic affairs rings hollow when one considers
> how
> the shrine and its notorious museum celebrate a Japanese intervention in
> China's domestic affairs that left some 20 million people dead. And
> Article
> 11 of the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty specifically obliges Japan to
> accept Beijing's key point, namely that the 14 wartime leaders enshrined
> at
> Yasukuni were in fact A-class war criminals. You can't get more
> international than that.
>
> Talk about Japan's 60 year postwar record of peaceful behavior in Asia and
> official development assistance to China is also meaningless when it is
> clear that Tokyo wants to be involved in U.S. plans for military action
> against North Korea and China. ODA was simply a cheap way for Japan to
> avoid
> having to pay war reparations to China.
>
> The claims that Japan has already apologized to China more than 20 times
> are
> also meaningless, given Tokyo's stubborn refusals to admit to former
> atrocities in China and to compensate Chinese and Korean individuals
> enslaved during the war years. As both the Chinese and South Korean
> leadership have pointed out, actions are more important than words, and so
> far Tokyo's actions have not been impressive.
>
> That the Western media have largely gone along with Tokyo's claims over
> Yasukuni is further proof of just how easily they accept distorted views
> of
> China. Other examples include the Tiananmen massacre myth (check the now
> declassified cables from the U.S. Embassy in Beijing at the time for the
> true story), the claim that China's claims over Taiwan are expansionist
> (check the terms on which every major power has accepted Beijing's
> sovereignty over the island), or Beijing's constant reference to Taiwan as
> a
> "renegade province" (check the English-language Web sites for the main
> Chinese newspapers to find the reality). And so on.
>
> It's time this important nation was taken more seriously.
>
> *(This article appeared in the May 30, 2005 issue of The Japan Times)*
>
> * *
>
> *The following part of a letter from an American shortly after the events
> gives a startling insight into the 1962 India-China war.*
>
> * *
>
> Dec. 30, 1962
>
> Dear friends,
>
> Then on Dec. 15 appeared the *People's Daily* editorial:
>
> "WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE TO OPPOSE OUR COMMON ENEMY!"
>
> Thus it was clear that a worldwide discussion was on!
>
> * * *
>
>
>
> China has been attacked on the question of the Indian border as
> "precipitating disaster" and "pushing the Nehru government towards the
> West". No, says the editorial, we have always stood for settling borders
> by
> peaceful negotiation but Nehru has always refused. For the past three
> years
> India steadily encroached by armed force into China's territory, while
> China's border guards withheld their fire. Finally, taking China's
> restraint
> for weakness, Nehru announced and launched on Oct. 20 a massive general
> offensive to which "any sovereign state would have been forced to reply".
> China "having repulsed the Indian attacks, at once proposed disengagement
> and negotiation, and took the initiative of a Cease-Fire and Withdrawal".
> As
> a result, the border tension has begun to ease, and "de facto" Cease-Fire
> is
> established.
>
> Again the editorial counter-attacks, asking: "Where is the
> Marxism-Leninism
> of those who refuse to see the class nature of the Indian bourgeoisie?
> They
> "suppress with increasing brutality the Indian people", and therefore seek
> imperialist aid and "inflame border war as excuse". Their "persistent
> anti-China stand comes from their increasingly reactionary domestic and
> foreign policies". Those who blame China "mistake cause for effect". Where
> is the proletarian internationalism of those who call China "brother" but
> "actually take the Indian reactionaries as kinsmen"?
>
> The sharpest comment is perhaps the statement that "the minimum demand of
> a
> Communist is that he makes clear distinction between the enemy and his own
> comrades". There are some who are "accommodating" to imperialists and who
> treat their comrades as "implacable enemies". This is not the stand for a
> Marxist-Leninist to take"....
>
> I refer you to *Peking Review* Dec. 21, for the rest.
>





More information about the Assam mailing list