English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest world news

China Briefing Diplomats On Doklam: Doval Must Follow Up For India

Published

9 years ago

on

China Briefing Diplomats On Doklam: Doval Must Follow Up For India

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

By Saeed Naqvi

It reflects on the delicate diplomacy involved that the principal issue in the China-India standoff at Doklam is being mentioned only in muted tones. The problem is the undemarcated boundary between China and Bhutan. This demarcation would require Bhutan-China to settle the matter.

The two doing a pirouette is not a good sight for India, which has a special bond with Bhutan sanctified in a treaty signed in 1949. Clause 2 of the treaty amended in 2007, (on which later) stated that Thimpu would be “guided by the advice of the government of India in its external relations”. How can Thimpu settle its border, independent of the Sino-Indian boundary?

Thimpu needed chaperoning when it took its first baby steps as a sovereign state. But once it came of age and made a formal debut at the UN’s great ball (at India’s initiative) in 1971, it began to feel the urge to dance with other partners, of course, without rupturing the special bond dictated by the 1949 treaty. India would remain more equal than others but others there shall surely be. India says “fine” but has palpitations when it fears that Bhutan may be groping for China’s hand.

At the coronation of the present king’s father Jigme Singye Wangchuk in 1974, Foreign Minister, Dawa Tsering said something that was not honeyed music to New Delhi.

India’s advice in the conduct of foreign affairs was welcome but “not binding” on Bhutan, he said. Indeed, among those invited to the coronation was China which turned up with a delegation, not a pleasing sight for the Indian contingent. A gentle, feather touch has marked Indo-Bhutanese diplomacy in both the capitals. Years 1978-79, when Atal Behari Vajpayee was the External Affairs Minister, were marked by considerable warmth in relations.

In August 1978, diplomatic missions in New Delhi received a circular from the Bhutan mission that henceforth it should be addressed as the Royal Bhutan Embassy. The upgradation of the mission was not without considerable debate in South Block.

Prime Minister Morarji Desai downwards there was an entire hierarchy, principally Foreign Secretary Jagat Mehta, endorsing a more relaxed policy towards Bhutan freeing the Himalayan kingdom from the more restrictive interpretations of the 1949 treaty. But there were hawks too

Desai’s government fell in July 1979 making way for Charan Singh’s five month rule. More damage was done to New Delhi’s relations with Thimpu during this brief period by the new, inexperienced External Affairs Minister, Shyam Nandan Mishra, than at any other period.

He led the Indian delegation to the Havana summit of Non-Aligned Nation where the King of Bhutan took a position on a key issue which was independent to the brief Mishra was carrying.

The cold war was at its peak. Indo-China was still at the centre of conflict. The two blocs were in fierce competition on who should occupy Kampuchea’s seat at the summit? Pol Pot, backed by US and China, or Heng Samrin installed in Phnom Penh after Vietnam ousted Pol Pot. He set up sanctuaries on the border with Thailand.

It seems almost comical to reflect that the world was, in the late 70s, riveted on Phnom Penh, Pol Pot and Heng Samrin. But contemplate the global picture, and the chips fall into place.

In 1972, Nixon’s visit to Beijing, creating a triangular strategic balance disadvantageous to Moscow. In 1978 Communists had come to power in Kabul, paving the way for Soviet invasion. Next year, the Shah fell in Tehran. A pro West Morarji Desai lost power in 1979. But in Pakistan, a pro West Zia ul Haq held onto power.

After what I saw at the battle of Lang Son, it was clear as daylight who won but American media dragged its feet conceding victory to Vietnam in the Sino-Vietnam war of 1979. Vietnam’s ouster of Pol Pot, his genocidal record notwithstanding, was, on the global chessboard, a reversal for both China and the US. Their romance was in its 9th year.

It was in this tense global situation that Mishra, on his first mission as foreign minister, attempted to goad the King towards Heng Samrin (Soviet Union) while his own position was unclear. He must have made for a clumsy diplomat, because the King voted for Pol Pot much to the glee of US, China and Pakistan.

So cross was the King by the indecorous way he had been handled in Havana, that, on his way back to Thimpu, he sought me out for what turned out to be a controversial interview. This was the only interview the King of Bhutan had ever granted to the media. I was then the Special Correspondent of the Indian Express.

He clarified his vote in Havana. If Bhutan had not asked for Pol Pot’s representative to be seated at Havana, it would have been tantamount to endorsing Vietnamese armed intervention in Kampuchea. He then made the allegation, “India took no position at all: can you blame us if we took one and can our stand be described as being in opposition to India?” India’s stand was neither here nor there: let Pol Pot be seated but not participate – a non stand endorsed at an earlier NAM meet.

On the relevance of the 1949 treaty he said: “If you want my candid reply and not a diplomatic one – the treaty can certainly be brought upto date.” The two countries have not had serious differences in the interpretation of Article 2 of the treaty. “But why should we retain a treaty which can lend itself to loose interpretations?”

The King was uncomfortable with the expression “close consultations” defining relations. He preferred “close understanding” – consultations implied advice.

The spirit of what the King said in September, 1979, influenced the language of the treaty when it was revised in 2007. The new words were, “India and Bhutan will cooperate closely with each other on issues relating to their national interests. Neither government should allow its territory for activities harmful to its national security.”

What will be the upshot of the Doklam standoff? Well, the king’s explosive interview (on which more later), did have a ripple effect which, in slow measure, resulted in an amended treaty, freeing Bhutan somewhat.

In the given situation, similar advantages will accrue to Bhutan post Doklam. These advantages will not displease China.

After his return from Beijing, the National Security Adviser, Ajit Doval, must brief the diplomatic corps in New Delhi which so far has heard only from the Chinese here and in important capitals. To my knowledge only the American have been briefed by South Block.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Latest world news

Trump says Iran getting more serious in talks, no decision yet on major strikes

Donald Trump says Iran is becoming more serious in negotiations with the US but insists no decision has been taken on launching major military strikes against Tehran.

Published

2 days ago

on

July 25, 2026

By

Donald Trump

US President Donald Trump has said he has not yet decided whether to authorise major military strikes against Iran, stating that Tehran has become “more serious” in its negotiations with Washington even as tensions between the two countries remain high.

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Friday, Trump said discussions with Iran were continuing and suggested diplomatic efforts were showing signs of progress.

“We’re talking to them right now. I think they’re getting more and more serious as the days go by,” Trump said, adding that no final decision had been taken on launching military action.

Trump says diplomacy remains an option

Trump said the United States remained prepared for military action if required but indicated that ongoing talks could still lead to an agreement.

“We’re locked and loaded and ready to go. But we’re talking to them, so I think while we’re talking, we’ll see what comes of it. I believe they’re very serious. They should be,” he said.

The US President also warned that Iran would face a “much higher level” of strikes if negotiations failed, while reiterating that preventing Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon remained his key red line.

The United States has said its military operations are aimed at preventing Iran from closing the strategically important Strait of Hormuz. Iran, meanwhile, has carried out retaliatory strikes on US bases, with four American service members reported killed.

Reports claim Trump discussed large-scale military operation

Trump’s remarks came after media reports suggested he met senior advisers to discuss the possibility of a large-scale military operation against Iran. Another report said he was considering a “massive attack”, although Trump did not confirm those reports during his interaction with journalists.

He also acknowledged that the prolonged conflict, which he had earlier expected to last only a few weeks, was approaching its fifth month and had become a political challenge ahead of the US midterm elections scheduled for November.

Trump issues warning over support for Iran

Trump also addressed reports claiming that Russia and China were providing intelligence or military support to Iran. He said both Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin had assured him they would not arm Tehran.

“I think they wouldn’t want to have me disappointed,” Trump said.

In a separate post on his Truth Social platform, Trump warned Moscow and Beijing against supplying weapons to Iran, saying such a move would not be in their interests.

He further stated that Xi had assured him during their meeting in Beijing in May that China would not provide weapons to Iran, while Putin had conveyed a similar position despite the ongoing war in Ukraine.

Continue Reading

India News

For second time, US strikes ship with Indian crew near Strait of Hormuz

Published

5 days ago

on

July 22, 2026

By

Strait of Hormuz

The United States Central Command (CENTCOM) has said that an oil tanker carrying Indian crew was drifting with its engine switched off near the Strait of Hormuz before it was struck by US forces.

A CENTCOM spokesperson said the vessel had stopped due to engine failure and was drifting after its crew repeatedly sought additional time to carry out repairs. US officials said the tanker was struck only after it failed to comply with directives issued by US forces enforcing a blockade on vessels allegedly transporting Iranian oil. The military said the strike was aimed at disabling the ship by targeting its engine room rather than sinking it.

The incident involved a tanker carrying Indian seafarers near the Gulf of Oman, close to the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s busiest maritime trade routes. The strike triggered a fire onboard, prompting rescue efforts by Omani authorities and maritime agencies. Indian authorities closely monitored the situation and coordinated with local officials regarding the welfare of the crew members.

The incident has drawn concern in India, with the government emphasising the safety of Indian nationals working aboard commercial vessels in the conflict-hit region. The Ministry of External Affairs has remained in touch with the authorities concerned as tensions between the United States and Iran continue to pose risks to international shipping.

In June, three Indian sailors were killed in a US strike on another oil tanker. The Strait of Hormuz handles a significant share of the word’s oil trade, and the latest incident has renewed concerns over the security of merchant vessels operating in the region. Maritime experts have warned that escalating hostilities could further disrupt commercial shipping and endanger civilian crews navigating one of the world’s most strategically important waterways.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

Trump announces phased tariff of up to 200% on generic drug imports, India may face impact

US President Donald Trump has announced a phased tariff plan on imported generic medicines, raising duties to 200% after three years, a move that could affect India’s pharmaceutical exports.

Published

5 days ago

on

July 22, 2026

By

Donald Trump

The United States has announced a phased tariff plan for imported generic medicines that could have implications for pharmaceutical exporters, including India. US President Donald Trump said the policy is intended to encourage companies to shift generic drug manufacturing to the United States by imposing steep tariffs after a two-year transition period.

The announcement is particularly important for India, one of the world’s largest suppliers of affordable generic medicines and a major exporter to the US market.

Trump outlines phased tariff plan

In a post on his Truth Social platform, President Trump said the new policy will take effect from August 1, 2026. Under the plan, imported generic medicines will continue to attract zero tariffs for the first two years.

Beginning in the third year, the tariff will increase to 100%, before rising further to 200% thereafter.

Trump said the measure is designed to encourage pharmaceutical companies to establish manufacturing facilities in the United States instead of relying on imports.

He added that companies choosing not to invest in US-based production during the transition period would face the higher tariff rates. According to Trump, the existing policy governing patented, branded and innovative medicines will remain unchanged.

Why India could be affected

India is widely regarded as the “pharmacy of the world” because of its large-scale production and export of generic medicines.

Indian generic drugs account for nearly 40% of the US generic medicine market by volume. According to a Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI) report, India exported pharmaceutical products worth USD 9.7 billion to the United States during the 2024-25 financial year, representing around 38% of the country’s total pharmaceutical exports of USD 25.8 billion.

However, the immediate impact of the newly announced tariff policy on Indian pharmaceutical companies remains uncertain.

Existing trade agreement and industry concerns

India and the United States struck a trade pact in February that states India would receive negotiated outcomes regarding generic pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients.

Despite that provision, previous tariff threats by Trump had already raised concerns within the pharmaceutical industry over the future of affordable medicine exports from India.

Indian pharmaceutical companies supply a wide range of generic medicines used to treat conditions including hypertension, diabetes, depression, cancer, infectious diseases and mental health disorders.

According to a Financial Post report cited in the source material, around 65% of birth control pill prescriptions in the United States during 2024 were manufactured by two India-based companies — Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Lupin Ltd.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com