Whole Dude – Whole Equality: Jean Jacques Rousseau, Swiss-French philosopher, writer, and political theorist was one of the great figures of the French Enlightenment and he continues to inspire the Romantic generation.
Jean Jacques Rousseau(b. June 28, 1712 Geneva, Switzerland – d. July 2, 1778 France) was one of the great figures of the French Enlightenment and he had shaped 19th-century Romanticism. Enlightenment is the term for the rational, liberal, humanitarian, and scientific trend of 18th century Western thought. During 17th century, Empiricism of Francis Bacon, John Locke, and others fostered the belief in “Natural Law”, Natural or Universal Order, promoted a scientific approach to political and social issues. It gave rise to a sense of human progress, and State is viewed as its rational instrument. Other representatives of the Enlightenment are thinkers such as Voltaire, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Swift, Hume, Kant, G.E. Lessing, Beccaria, and in the United States, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin. Rousseau had inspired the French revolutionists and had influenced Kant, Goethe, Robespierre, and Tolstoy. The Romantics are associated with belief in a return to nature and in the innate goodness of man.
WHOLE MAN – WHOLE NATURAL – WHOLE EQUAL:
In response to a question set by the Academy of Dijon: “What is the origin of the inequality among men and is it justified by natural law?”, Rousseau(1754) proposed that natural man is good. He traced the successive stages by which man has descended from primitive innocence to corrupt sophistication. He exonerated nature and blamed society for the emergence of vices. He maintained that human beings are essentially ‘good’ and ‘equal’ in the ‘State of Nature’, but are corrupted by the introduction of property, agriculture, science, and commerce when people began to compete with one another. In his view, the history of man’s life on earth has been a history of decay. However, he did not advocate a return to the state of nature. He suggested minimizing social inequalities by explaining the concept of ‘Social Contract'(1762). He held that people entered into a “Social Contract” among themselves, establishing governments, and educational systems to correct the inequalities brought about by the rise of civilization. Thus, ‘Social Contract’ is the agreement by which human beings are said to have abandoned the ‘State of Nature’ in order to form society in which they now live. This belief in man’s natural goodness is the cornerstone of Rousseau’s argument. The problem is that of man’s alienation from nature and hence the loss of innocence. “Man was born free, but he is everywhere in chains.” Rousseau had profound impact on people’s way of life. In his novel Emile(1762), Rousseau expounds his theory that the true purpose of education is not imparting of knowledge but the drawing out of what is already in the child. Rousseau opened men’s eyes to the beauties of nature and made liberty an object of almost universal aspiration.
We have not yet overcome the problem of inequalities among men and man has not yet discovered true freedom. Freedom, and Equality cannot be discovered if man remains alienated from his true or real nature. To achieve Whole Equality, Whole Liberty, Whole Freedom, Whole Justice, Whole Peace, Whole Harmony, and Whole Tranquility, men need the concept called ‘Whole Dude’ to formulate a new Whole Contract to establish Whole Governance based upon Whole Democracy that includes Whole Transparency, and Whole Accountability.
Rudra N. Rebbapragada, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.,
Organization: The Spirits of Special Frontier Force.
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE – THE BATTLE OF RIGHT AGAINST MIGHT:
Special Frontier Force-The Battle of Right Against Might. Dr. Henry Kissinger, backstabbed Special Frontier Force by arranging this meeting between the US President Richard M. Nixon and Chairman Mao Zedong and Prime Minister Zhou-Enlai during 1972.
The announcement of appointment of Harvard University professor Dr. Henry Alfred Kissinger as Assistant for National Security Affairs was made on December 02, 1968. He was sworn in as Secretary of State on September 22, 1973. He made a disastrous move to normalize relations with People’s Republic of China completely reversing the US foreign policy of containing the threat posed by China’s military occupation of Tibet. Dr. Kissinger wanted to take advantage of ‘The Sino-Soviet Split’. However, it must be noted as to how this split had emerged after the death of Stalin during 1953. Soviet leadership was taken over by Nikita Khrushchev who at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party in February 1956 had denounced Stalin’s political methods. Under Khrushchev the Soviet Communist Party cautiously loosened its grip on the country and he openly stated his goal of “Peaceful Coexistence” with the West. The Chinese showed no interest in reducing Cold War tensions. In 1960 the Soviets discontinued military and technical aid to China. The USSR signed in 1963 a treaty with the United States and Great Britain banning most tests of nuclear weapons. China had then accused the USSR of joining with China’s enemies. Thereafter, both sides waged a bitter propaganda war. China has pursued its nuclear ambitions and tested its first nuclear weapon in its occupied territory of Tibet(Lop Nor 1964). Further, Mao Zedong(Mao Tse-tung), China’s Communist Party leader had declared that the Soviets had betrayed the Communist Revolution. In 1966, Mao launched the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in which millions of young Communists organized as Red Guards went through the country attacking people for their political, and religious beliefs and practices. The Cultural Revolution ended in 1969 and Tibetan people paid a very heavy price as Red Guards destroyed Tibetan temples, monasteries and indulged in various acts of crimes against humanity. During this period of utter turmoil and attack on human rights and human values, Special Frontier Force, a military alliance between the US, India, and Tibet remained as a valuable source of information and intelligence gathering about China’s nuclear weapons program. It is simply hard to believe that Dr. Kissinger had undermined the role of Special Frontier Force and had chosen to befriend Mao Zedong who should in reality must be tried for his crimes against humanity. I would like to describe the military mission of Special Frontier Force using the words of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi(April 06, 1930) and state it as “The Battle of Right against Might.” The people of Tibet need to struggle to realize the hope of regaining their natural freedom. I believe that the opponent can be overwhelmed with a demand for right and just course of action. Both the United States and India must remain fully vigilant and be ready to defend Freedom, Democracy, and Justice in the occupied Himalayan territory of Tibet and fully resist incursions of Communist China across the legitimate India-Tibet boundary.
Special Frontier Force-The Battle of Right Against Might: Dr. Henry Alfred Kissinger had tried to reverse the course of this Battle of Right Against Might. Fortunately, Special Frontier Force has survived and it is not a relic of Cold War Era. This Battle has to be won.
R. Rudra Narasimham, B.Sc., M.B.B.S., Personal Numbers:MS-8466/MR-03277K. Rank:Lieutenant/Captain/Major. Branch:Army Medical Corps/Short Service Regular Commission(1969-1972); Direct Permanent Commission(1973-1984). Designation:Medical Officer. Unit:Establishment No.22(1971-1974)/South Column,Operation Eagle(1971-1972). Organization: Special Frontier Force.
Special Frontier Force-The Battle of Right Against Might: Shipki La Pass, Himachal Pradesh, India. India has to defend its Himalayan territory from Chinese intrusions and must resist the military occupation of Tibet.Special Frontier Force-The Battle of Right Against Might: Tenzin Tsundue, Tibetan poet and activist in exile has alerted people about Communist China’s military adventurism. We must fight this threat on various fronts apart from taking military action.Special Frontier Force-The Battle of Right Against Might. The fight against Communist China’s military occupation of Tibet needs the help and support of the entire global community of people and nations.
‘Don’t be relaxed, more Chinese intrusion coming’ Posted by: Shubham Ghosh
Published: Thursday, May 9, 2013, 13:47 [IST]
Kochi, May 9: Can India afford to relax after the Chinese reportedly withdrew from the Ladakh border where they had intruded recently, creating a massive uproar in the political and media circles in the country? According to a report published in The New Indian Express on Thursday, the next incursion by the Chinese troops could occur at Shipki La Pass along the Sino-Indian border, as per the information of Tenzin Tsundue, a noted Tibetan poet and activist in exile. Tsundue said India was complacent in the face of the growing threat from the Chinese and had no idea about the enormity of China’s military preparedness along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). He was worried over New Delhi’s casual handling of the issue of Chinese aggression. The Opposition and the media have also slammed the Congress-led UPA government after accusing it of being lax on this issue and warned that such attitude could lead to another 1962-like situation. India suffered a humiliation in the hands of the Chinese over border clashes that year. Tsundue said there is a tendency in India to play down the Chinese incursion into Ladakh and the focus here is more on entertainment like movie and cricket. He said while the establishment often portrays as if nothing serious has happened and people in the mainland do not have any knowledge, the actual issue remains a serious one. He said China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) have been making efforts to enter the Indian territory through Ladakh. The poet-activist said Shipki La is perhaps turning out to be the next theatre of Chinese aggression. He regretted that India has always remained blind towards the huge Himalayan region. He said Indian writing never focuses on the Himalayan region and hence there is a tendency to take the Chinese incursions on a light note. Tsundue had spent three years in Chinese prison after he was intercepted by PLA border men while trying to sneak into Tibet. He was tortured and never succeeded to visit Tibet thereafter. He said New Delhi should have perceived China as an enemy instead of a strategic partner. The man has been undergoing a trial in an eight-year-old case in Bangalore related to protest on the Tibetan issue. He said that Karnataka government could not produce the witnesses before the court and hence the trial is continuing.
The Colors of Spiritualism: An artist uses colors with imagination to create forms and to generate a desired visual effect. A “Whole Artist” is a person who creates his own canvas, his own tools, his own pigments, and creates the desired visual effects while the forms that are created have no such creative and cognitive abilities.
THE COLORS OF SPIRITUALISM: Color plays an important role in every aspect of life. Human civilization has developed taste in color and has attached values and functions to the colors it visualizes. A sense of fitness has been acquired concerning the use of color. The spectral array of colors exhibited by a rainbow is a glorious sight that cannot be improved by the omission of one or more of its components.
GOD’S COVENANT WITH MAN:
The Colors of Spiritualism: The Rainbow Covenant.The Colors of Spiritualism: The first recorded Covenant between God and Man. The Book of Genesis, Chapter 9, verses 12-16.
God’s covenant with all living creatures is described in the First Book of Moses, The Old Testament, The Book of Genesis, Chapter 9, verses 12, 13, and 16. And God said, “This is the sign of the Covenant I am making between Me and you and every living creature with you, a Covenant for all generations to come. I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the Covenant between Me and the Earth…. Whenever, the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting Covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the Earth.”
In the Bible, the rainbow is the first of the Covenant Signs. The record of Noah’s life mentions the rainbow as the Covenant Sign. The rainbow in the clouds speaks to the man from God. The rainbow is the Lord’s Promise made visible in a display of colors.
The Colors of Spiritualism – Photoreception: Photoreception is the biological responses of organisms to stimulation by light. Such responses to environmental stimuli demonstrate the presence of consciousness, the awareness of an organism of the fact of its own existence in a given external environment.
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE – THE FIGHT FOR FREE TIBET:
Special Frontier Force – The Fight for Freedom in Tibet: The military incursion by Communist China is only a symptom of an underlying disease. The real issue is that of military occupation of Tibet. The real remedy would be that of a Fight for Freedom in Tibet.
Special Frontier Force – The Fight for Freedom in Tibet: I would first expel all Chinese nationals from India before taking military action to expel members of People’s Liberation Army from Ladakh.
I am not surprised to read about this confrontation between China and India about national boundaries along the Himalayan frontier. India won its political freedom in 1947 and had to give attention to the problems of people and could not take decisive action to defend its northern frontier. India faced a much stronger threat from the west and was constantly put under pressure by Pakistan which has scant respect for India’s chosen secular traditions. The Communist revolution in China is the most important historical event in Asia and it has become the most significant threat to Freedom, Democracy, and Justice in this part of the world. Harry S. Truman(1884 – 1972), 33rd President of the US(1949-1952) is generally blamed for the “loss” of China to the Communists. Chiang Kai-Shek(1888-1975), and the Nationalists were ousted(1949) from mainland China by the Communists. However, the US recognized that the Communist expansion must be resisted and had helped the ‘Kuomintang’, Nationalist Party to establish the Republic of China in Taiwan(Portuguese Formosa) and has given it consistent support and has prevented Communist China from using military force to occupy Taiwan. Tibetans are not very fortunate as Tibet pursued a policy of political ‘isolationism’ and had failed to seek active US intervention in their Land to stop Communist China’s military expansion. During 1950, China occupied Tibet as the resistance was minimal and as Tibetan leaders believed that China could be appeased by agreeing to their demands. When Tibetans recognized that they made a fatal error in their political calculation, it wasn’t easy to the US to intervene directly. The military threat posed by China’s military occupation of Tibet was duly recognized by India and the United States. Dwight David Eisenhower(1890-1969), 34th President of the US(1953-1961) who had continued President Truman administration’s policy of containing Communism gave sanction to support the Tibetan Resistance Movement with active collaboration of India, and Tibet from 1958. The National Uprising of Tibetans on March 10, 1959 was brutally crushed by China, and the Tibetan Head of State, the 14th Dalai Lama was forced to take asylum in India. Since its independence in 1947, India never had an opportunity to establish strong relationship with Tibet and define its northern frontier. At the same time, it must not be ignored that India, and Tibet had signed the 1914 Simla Agreement and had ratified McMahon Treaty that established the McMahon Line as the official and legitimate boundary between these two countries. The 13th Dalai Lama had agreed that McMahon Line determines the Indo-Tibetan border. China’s military occupation of Tibet will not alter the reality of an agreement made by the two sovereign nations. Communist China lost no time and had retaliated against India by its War of Aggression during October-November 1962. John Fitzgerald Kennedy(1917-1963), 35th President of the US(1961-1963) with his intervention and the threat to “NUKE” China had forced the Communists to declare unilateral ceasefire on November 21, 1962 and China withdrew from the captured territory while retaining Aksai Chin region of Ladakh. Mao Tse-tung or Mao Zedong(1893-1976), founder of the People’s Republic of China and its Chairman from 1949 to 1959 had established China’s policy of military expansionism and there is no change in that policy. China has been very aggressively pursuing its policy of territorial expansion using its superior military strength and intelligence capabilities. India, and Tibet have no choice other than that of resisting Communist expansion and seek help, encouragement, and support from the US to fight this challenge as best possible with the limited resources that they can muster. I would make the following recommendations to resist the military threat posed by China’s incursion into Ladakh:1. Expel all Chinese nationals from India. This task is easier and can be effectively implemented without firing a bullet and without any direct combat at the Himalayan frontier.2. Cancel all visits, meetings, and diplomatic exchanges until China voluntarily withdraws its troops from Ladakh.3. Reduce the size of China’s diplomatic staff and other support personnel present in India until China commits itself not to use its military power to discuss the boundary demarcation issue.4. Insist upon the inclusion of Tibetan Government-in-Exile in any talks that concern the border between India, and Tibet.
SERVICE INFORMATION:R. Rudra Narasimham, B.Sc., M.B.B.S.,
Personal Numbers:MS-8466/MR-03277K. Rank:Lieutenant/Captain/Major. Branch:Army Medical Corps/Short Service Regular Commission(1969-1972); Direct Permanent Commission(1973-1984).
03rd May 2013: Chinese military move seriously to test India’s resolve has been on the cards for a long time now. But, this is only a gambit by Beijing to see what level of provocation will get the Indian government to act, and a means to establish a baseline for future actions. Alas, the Chinese planners misjudged how much soft tissue there is in India’s China policy, and foreign and defence policies generally, where spine should be. From the first, the China Study Group (CSG) headed by the National Security Adviser and old China-hand, Shivshankar Menon, which fuels the Ministry of External Affairs’ thinking on the subject and dictates the government’s response whenever China heaves into view, decreed that the brazen armed intrusion be soft-pedalled. Thus, the depth of penetration in the Depsang Valley in Ladakh by People’s Liberation Army troops was initially stated as 8 km, before this figure was revised to 10 km and later 19 km. Now, 19 km is not a distance that small military units “stray across” as much as it is ground covered in a directed mission and yet, the junior minister in the Home Ministry managing the Chinese border with some miserable paramilitary maintained it was a mere “incursion”, not armed “intrusion”. By such hair-splitting is the Manmohan Singh government determined to do nothing? China, in the meantime, adopted its standard stance when disrupting peace on undemarcated land and sea borders. It refused to acknowledge there was any such intrusion. When the PLA presence at Raki Nullah could no longer be denied, it stood the incident on its head by accusing the Indian Army of “aggressive patrolling”, and followed up by offering a fantastical trade-off: India ceases construction of necessary border military infrastructure and mothballs the advanced landing fields in the area in return for the status quo ante. All the while, Beijing took its cues from excuses the MEA offered for the Chinese outrage, saying it arose from “differing perceptions” of where the LAC lay. The MEA minister, Salman Khurshid, revealing his cosmetological skills, then referred to the Chinese ingress as acne that can be cured with “ointment”. With the offensively disposed Chinese military units inside Indian territory, it was again the CSG-MEA that offered Beijing a reason to stay put, saying the Chinese should be provided a “face-saving” way out of the mess they created by repairing to the negotiating table, whereupon the Chinese government promptly called for talks to restore peace. It is little wonder China sees India as a punching bag, an easy target to bully and badger. The conclusion cannot any longer be avoided that either the China Study Group constitutes a Chinese fifth column at the heart of the Indian government, or is staffed by idiot savants. The classic illustration of an idiot savant is a mentally challenged person who can memorize the numbers on the wagons in a freight train rattling past his house, but does not know how to tie his shoelaces or, in this case, can read Confucius’ Analects in the original but is unable to see a straightforward land-grab for what it is — loss of national territory. The mostly Mandarin-speaking diplomats and experts in CSG seem so overawed by China they cannot resist acting as Beijing’s B Team. At heart, the problem is that the 1962 war so institutionally rattled the MEA they still act groggy from that blow fifty years after the event and cannot recall just how military success was gained against the Chinese PLA, most recently in the 1986 Somdurong Chu incident. Having espied a PLA unit on the Indian side of LAC, General K. Sundarji airlifted troops, surrounded the Chinese encampment, placed artillery on the nearby heights ready to reduce the Chinese position to rubble, and tented a unit just 10 metres from the Chinese camp (not 500 metres as was bandied about in official circles). It was an initiative, incidentally, the then army chief took disregarding procedure and not consulting the MEA or anyone else in government, hence its success. It unnerved the Chinese who sued for peace. In contrast, the present army chief, General Bikram Singh who, by repeatedly parroting the government assertion over the past year that China poses no threat and all’s well on that front, in fact, preempted any action that Headquarters Northern Army or Leh-based 14 Corps could have instantly taken to vacate the presence of the Chinese troops, and imposed costs on PLA for this little adventure. But subordinate commanders taking their cue from the chief did nothing. The Prime Minister then compounded the trouble by reiterating the MEA-CSG line that this is but a “localised” incident. Nineteen days into this affair, General Bikram reportedly briefed the Cabinet Committee on Security about prospective actions, such as severing supply links, etc. Except, has he planned on what he’ll do when PLA helicopters or logistics truck convoys turn up to replenish the food and water stocks? Shoot down the ’çopters and destroy the trucks. Fine. Then, is the army prepared for a bigger fight? 14 Corps can mount a divisional-level action easily, but will require immediate airlifting of another division as reserve. Moreover, half a brigade’s worth of army units should forthwith descend on the PLA-occupied site, raze their camp, and physically push the PLA soldiers back on to their side, and no-nonsense about it. If this is not done, a permanent realignment of LAC is on the cards in this strategically important tri-junction area. Much worse, instead of showing self-respect and brio, and making the new Chinese premier Li Keqiang’s proposed Delhi visit in end-May conditional on immediate PLA pullback, Khurshid is planning to fly to Beijing to ensure Li keeps his date in Delhi and to ask the Chinese to withdraw, pretty please! It is as if China is the aggrieved party and needs placation. Appeasement never pays; it only emboldens belligerent states to become more demanding. China has proved this time and again, but it is doubtful the CSG-MEA and the Indian government even know what the national interest is, or where it lies. Bharat Karnad is professor at Centre for Policy Research and blogs at www.bharatkarnad.com
November 07, 1961: The alliance between the United States, India, and Tibet dates back to late 1950s and early 1960s. This is an alliance in response to the military threat posed by People’s Republic of China’s occupation of Tibet.
November 07, 1961: People’s Republic of China had attacked India during October-November 1962 to test the strength of this India-US relationship to support Tibet.
November 09, 1961: People’s Republic of China had attacked India during October-November 1962 as the United States and India have expressed a sense of solidarity about the future of Tibet.
1964 – NEW DELHI. A photo after the 1962 India – China War. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru is seen with His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, the Head of Tibetan Government-in-Exile. India firmly stands behind Tibet and along with the United States wants to find solution to the problem of military occupation of Tibet.
Special Frontier Force as a multinational military organization expresses the solidarity of the views shared by the United States, India, and Tibet in confronting the problem of Communist China’s expansionism. This policy has become less transparent when the United States began trade and commerce relationships with People’s Republic of China and had established full diplomatic relationships. India has also joined other nations seeking increased trade and commerce with Communist China while the issue of Tibet remains unsettled. India will never be able to resolve the border dispute with Communist China for we have taken a stand to defend the rights of Tibetan people to establish Freedom, Democracy, and Justice in the occupied territories of Tibet. During 1962, India paid a heavy price when China retaliated across the Himalayan frontier during October 1962. We must remember that China was forced to declare unilateral ceasefire on November 21, 1962 and withdrew from captured territory while holding Aksai Chin area of Ladakh region. China is now trying to capture the same territory that it had gained during its 1962 attack on India. China was forced to vacate its aggression because of a firm threat delivered by President John F. Kennedy and that threat is still a valid threat. China is taking a calculated risk to verify the strength of the US-India-Tibet military alliance/pact. India is able to show a sense of self-restraint as it knows that the frontier issue cannot be resolved without evicting the military occupier from Tibet. China has acquired great military capabilities. We have to remember as to how the Soviets had failed in Afghanistan despite their military power. To put China in its place, both India, the United States, and Europe must review their trade and commerce relationships with China and tell China that trade and commerce relationships will not continue without resolving the problem of Tibet’s future.
R. Rudra Narasimham, B.Sc., M.B.B.S., Personal Numbers:MS-8466/MR-03277K. Rank:Lieutenant/Captain/Major. Branch:Army Medical Corps/Short Service Regular Commission(1969-1972); Direct Permanent Commission(1973-1984). Designation:Medical Officer. Unit:Establishment No.22(1971-1974)/South Column,Operation Eagle(1971-1972). Organization: Special Frontier Force.
Living in denial is not how India should deal with China’s incursion
by Venky Vembu Apr 30, 2013 Any prospect of an early resolution of the stand-off in the high Himalayas between India and China may have been dashed by symptoms that suggest that the Chinese troops appear to be digging deeper into their trenches in the areas in Ladakh’s Depsang Valley, deep inside what India considers its territory. The latest such provocation, in the form of a new tent that the Chinese troops have put up in Depsang Valley, puts paid to publicly articulated statements from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that the tension was a “local issue” and would be resolved soon. External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid too claimed that the tension will likely have been resolved even before he leaves for Beijing to prepare for Chinese Premier Li Keqiang’s upcoming visit to India. Hope, as has been famously said, isn’t a strategy, and the Indian leaders’ pronouncements only accentuate the sense that they are in public denial. According to media reports, however, the Chinese troops have put up five tents so far, which suggests that they – and the military leadership under whose orders the troops on the ground are acting – are not making any effort to dial back the tension, and on the contrary are actively escalating it.
The Himalayas are no longer a high hurdle. Reuters More provocatively, according to these reports, the Chinese troops are also waving banners establishing Chinese territorial rights to the area. “You are in (the) Chinese side,” proclaim these banners, which are evidently directed at the Indian troops that have set up camp nearby to keep watch on the Chinese soldiers. The Indian government’s response to the crisis so far has been one of restraint in the face of public dares from the opposition to stand up for India’s territorial integrity. On Monday, Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav, who served as Defence Minister, called the UPA government an assortment of colourful names to draw attention to its placidity in the face of the grave Chinese provocation. His characterisation of China – not Pakistan – as India’s real enemy may have been overly simplistic, and made with political calculations in mind. Opposition leaders, of course, have the luxury of shooting off their mouths with blustery talk, without bearing any of the responsibility that comes with actual decision-making. And yet the perception that the UPA government has been less than robust in protecting national interests, and not just vis-a-vis China, is of course more widely shared. Evidently, the Indian Army has provided the political leadership with a range of options that are open to it if the Chinese don’t fold up their tents and leave anytime soon. Presumably these options would involve cutting off the supply lines to these troops, which would put a cap on the number of days they can hold out here. More extreme options – of forcibly evicting the 30-or-so Chinese troops – would also have been considered, perhaps as part of a scenario-building exercise to draw up contingency plans. But that would truly be the option of the last resort, given the very real risk of a heightened conflict that it comes with. There’s very little percentage for the Indian side in being drawn by the nose into a border conflict with a much stronger China. After all, it was an adventurist ‘forward policy’ that Jawaharlal Nehru embraced that led to the 1962 war. At that time too, Nehru was at the receiving end of much pillorying in Parliament by the opposition for his government’s naive “bhai-bhai” approach to China despite ample evidence that brotherly sentiment was not reciprocated. And although both countries have come a long way away from 1962, the irony of today’s situation is that it is the Chinese troops that are testing Indian resolve with their own unstated “forward policy’. But having considered all of the options that the Army put on the table, the political leadership appears to have opted to go out of its way to signal to the Chinese that they are keen to avoid an escalation in the level of tension. Key interlocutors, including national security advisor Shivshankar Menon, who knows a thing or two about dealing with the Chinese and has invested much effort in building up goodwill in Beijing, are also counselling restraint. There isn’t much to be said in favour of public posturing and drawing a line in the Himalayan heights from which one might soon have to scurry back. But there’s more than ample space for conveying to the Chinese side in private that the case for an early resolution of the border dispute – which Chinese President Xi Jinping said China is keen to see – isn’t exactly advanced by China inflaming public sentiment in India by changing the de facto arrangement that has been faithfully adhered to for decades now. Perhaps this incursion was intended by the new Chinese leadership to signal Chinese frustration at the lack of progress in the talks on the border dispute despite years of negotiations. If that is so, it reflects raw power, not sagacity, and is insensitive to the consideration that this brinkmanship game actually makes it harder for the Indian side to make any concession, even if it is on a reciprocal basis.
The real issue is that of Communist China’s military occupation of Tibet since 1950s. To resolve this problem, India has joined hands with the United States and has been consistently trying to provide a platform to the Tibetan exiles and help them to establish Freedom, Democracy, and Justice in Tibet. This military cooperation between the United States, India, and Tibet paved the way to a National Uprising Day in Tibet on March 10, 1959. This Movement to demand Freedom was crushed by the Chinese Communists and Tibet’s Head of State and the Spiritual Leader, His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama was forced to leave Tibet and live in exile. Further, People’s Republic of China retaliated against India for helping the Tibetan Resistance Movement. China launched a massive military attack on India along its entire Himalayan frontier. There can never be border settlement between India and China without resolving the problem of military occupation of Tibet.
Rudra N Rebbapragada, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA,
Organization: The Spirits of Special Frontier Force.
Special Frontier Force – Freedom in Tibet: Chinese incursions in Ladakh are a manifestation of the disease called military occupation of Tibet.
Special Frontier Force – Freedom in Tibet: The real issue between China and India is not that of demarcation of international boundary or recognition of a Line of Actual Control. This Himalayan frontier will remain undefined until Freedom, Democracy, and Justice are established in the occupied Land of Tibet.
Ladakh incursion: Is China taking advantage of India’s leadership deficit & political disarray? –
ECONOMIC TIMES
28 Apr, 2013, 07.21AM IST
Ladakh incursion: China taking advantage of India’s leadership deficit & political disarray
By Brahma Chellaney.
With China’s “peaceful rise” giving way to a more muscular approach, Beijing has broadened its “core interests” and exhibited a growing readiness to take risks. As if to highlight its new multi directional assertiveness, China’s occupation of a 19-km deep Indian border area close to the strategic Karakoram Pass has coincided with its escalating challenge to Japan’s decades-old control of the Senkaku Islands. China is aggressively conducting regular patrols to solidify its sovereignty claims in the South and East China seas and to furtively enlarge its footprint in the Himalayan borderlands.
In this light, it will be a mistake to view the Chinese intrusion in Ladakh in isolation of the larger pattern of increasing Chinese assertiveness that began when Beijing revived its long-dormant claim to Arunachal Pradesh just before the 2006 India visit by its president, Hu Jintao. The resurrection of that claim, which was followed by its provoking territorial spats with several other neighbours, was the first pointer to China staking out a more domineering role in Asia. It was as if China had decided that its moment has finally arrived.
Deep Betrayal
Playing a game of chicken, China has been posing major new challenges to India, ratcheting up strategic pressure on multiple flanks, including stepping up cross-border military forays and shortening the length of the Sino-Indian border so as to question India’s territorial sovereignty in the eastern and western sectors. It has repeatedly attempted to breach the Himalayan border through incursions by taking advantage of the fact that the frontier is vast and forbidding and thus difficult to effectively patrol by Indian forces, who are located in many sections on the lower heights. When an incursion is discovered, Beijing’s refrain — as in the present episode — is that its troops are on “Chinese land”.
Still, the intrusion into a highly strategic area shows India’s political and army leadership in poor light and exposes the country’s floundering China policy.
Along with the subsequent violation of Indian airspace by Chinese helicopters in Ladakh, it brings out how China is seeking to alter the realities on the ground by exploiting India’s leadership deficit and political disarray, which have crimped military modernisation and undermined national security. The question the Indian army leadership must answer is how it was caught napping in a militarily critical area where, in the recent past, China repeatedly had made attempts to encroach on Indian land.
Indian Lethargy
Instead of regular Indian army troops patrolling the line of control, border police have been deployed. The Indo-Tibetan Border Police personnel, with their defensive training and mindset, are no match to the aggressive designs of the People’s Liberation Army and thus continue to be outwitted by them. Even in response to the incursion, the government has sent ITBP and Ladakh Scouts, not regular army troops, to pitch tents at a safe distance from the intruders’ camp.
Worse yet, India remains focused on the process than on the substance of diplomacy, even as China steps up its belligerence. Process is important but only if it buys you time to build countervailing leverage. Unfortunately, a rudderless India has made little effort to craft such leverage. Rather, New Delhi is playing right into Chinese hands by merely flaunting the process of engagement and thereby aiding Beijing’s strategy to use this process as cover to further change the status quo on the ground.
India’s defensive and diffident mindset has been on full display in the latest episode. Not only has it publicly downplayed an act of naked aggression — the worst Chinese intrusion since the 1986 Sumdorong Chu incursion brought the two countries to the brink of war — but India also insists on going with an outstretched hand to an adversary still engaged in hostile actions, unconcerned that it could get the short end of the stick yet again.Missing Political Will
India should be under no illusion that diplomacy alone will persuade China to withdraw its soldiers. One way to force China’s hand would be for the Indian army to intrude and occupy a highly strategic area elsewhere across the line of control and use that gain as a trade-off.
More fundamentally, India can maintain border peace only by leaving China in no doubt that it has the capability and political will to defend peace. If the Chinese see an opportunity to nibble at Indian land, they will seize it. It is for India to ensure that such opportunities do not arise. In other words, the Himalayan peace ball is very much in India’s court. India must have a clear counter-strategy to tame Chinese aggressiveness. Tibet remains at the core of the Sino-Indian divide, with India’s growing strategic ties with the US rankling China. Even as old rifts persist, new issues are roiling the ties.
Booming bilateral trade, including a widening trade surplus in China’s favour, has failed to subdue Chinese belligerence. Although in 1962 China set out, in the words of premier, Zhou Enlai, to “teach India a lesson”, it has frittered away the political gains it made by decisively defeating India on the battleground. Indeed, as military tensions rise and border incidents increase, the relationship risks coming full circle.
Vajpayee’s Cut
To build countervailing leverage, India has little choice but to slowly reopen the central issue of Tibet — a card New Delhi wholly surrendered at the altar of diplomacy during the time Atal Bihari Vajpayee was prime minister. Of course, the process of surrendering the card began under Jawaharlal Nehru when India in 1954 recognised the “Tibet region of China” without any quid pro quo — not even Beijing’s acceptance of the then prevailing Indo-Tibetan border.
Vajpayee’s recognition of full Chinese sovereignty over Tibet was based on Beijing’s acknowledgement that Tibet is an “autonomous region” in China. The fact that China has squashed Tibet’s autonomy creates an opening for India to take a more nuanced position.
More broadly, China’s “string of pearls” strategy can be countered by forming a “string of rapiers” with like-minded Asian-Pacific countries. At the root of the growing tensions and insecurity in Asia is China’s ongoing strategy to subvert the status quo. Only mutually beneficial cooperation can shield Asian peace and economic renaissance, not muscle flexing and furtive moves.
(The writer is a geostrategist and author. His book “Water: Asia’s New Battleground” won the 2012 Bernard Schwartz Book Award)
Special Frontier Force – The War on Communism: Chinese military incursion into India demands a response. Expel Chinese nationals visiting India.
Special Frontier Force-The War on Communism: There can be no friendship between India, and China without Freedom and Democracy in Tibet.(Bumla Pass-Arunachal Pradesh)
Special Frontier Force-The War on Communism: Chinese incursion into Ladakh is a symptom of the military occupation of Tibet. The cure of this disease demands establishment of Freedom and Democracy in Tibet.
Special Frontier Force-The War on Communism: Chinese presence in Ladakh must not be tolerated.
Special Frontier Force-The War on Communism: Chinese attack on Ladakh demands a military, diplomatic, trade, and commerce retaliation.
Special Frontier Force-The War on Communism: Evidence of Red Dragon’s military attack inside Ladakh-India.
Special Frontier Force also known as Establishment No. 22 is a military alliance/pact between the United States, India, and Tibet. Its primary mission is that of using military force and tactics to fight the threat posed by the Communist Expansion in Southeast Asia. This multinational military organization intends to defend Freedom, Democracy, and Justice in the occupied Land of Tibet and resist the Communist Expansion into India. It is not a relic of Cold War era. The military threat posed by Communist China is well-recognized and there is no choice other than that of meeting this challenge. To respond to the challenge posed by Communist China’s military incursion into the Ladakh area of India, I would recommend the following actions:
1. Expel all Chinese nationals who are currently in India for travel, and business.
2. Cancel all planned official meetings, visits, and exchanges.
3. Reduce the size of diplomatic staff and other support personnel at all Chinese diplomatic missions and posts in India.
4. Review all trade and commerce agreements and place immediate restrictions on further expansion of these business activities.
5. Hold joint military training exercises in Ladakh region with members drawn from the United States, India, and Tibet.
R. Rudra Narasimham, B.Sc., M.B.B.S., Personal Numbers:MS-8466/MR-03277K. Rank:Lieutenant/Captain/Major. Branch:Army Medical Corps/Short Service Regular Commission(1969-1972); Direct Permanent Commission(1973-1984). Designation:Medical Officer. Unit:Establishment No.22(1971-1974)/South Column,Operation Eagle(1971-1972). Organization: Special Frontier Force.
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE – US-INDIA-TIBET MILITARY ALLIANCE:
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE – THE US-INDIA-TIBET MILITARY ALLIANCE MUST RESPOND TO CHINESE INTRUSION BY CONDUCTING JOINT MILITARY TRAINING EXERCISES IN THIS AREA. Chinese Communists are trying to depict their military intrusion as an innocent play of cricket deep inside Indian territory. These Chinese soldiers are not in uniform and are not holding weapons and yet this is a clear military challenge that the Alliance must accept and respond with vigor.
India must firmly respond to Chinese intrusion in the Ladakh Sector and must hold joint military training exercises with US Army to defend peace and security in Southeast Asia. Major General Vinod Saighal(Retd) has shared his view and is of the opinion that waiting may irreversibly compromise India’s Security Interests.
R. Rudra Narasimham, B.Sc., M.B.B.S., Personal Numbers:MS-8466/MR-03277K. Rank:Lieutenant/Captain/Major. Branch:Army Medical Corps/Short Service Regular Commission(1969-1972); Direct Permanent Commission(1973-1984). Designation:Medical Officer. Unit:Establishment No.22(1971-1974)/South Column,Operation Eagle(1971-1972). Organization: Special Frontier Force.
Waiting for the long haul may irreversibly compromise India’s Security Interests It is amazing that while a potentially strategic vulnerability is being created with each passing day on the DBO front in Ladakh and possibly elsewhere as well the Foreign Minister of India in his wisdom chooses to call it a minor blip, an acne that will soon disappear. Disappear it will not and by the time the Foreign Minister returns from Beijing an element of irreversibility and potential future untenability of positions in Siachen could conceivably have been created. It would hardly be an exaggeration to say that every hour that a well-thought out military response by top commanders on the ground is delayed the situation becomes more and more difficult. In the process the government through its vacillation is leaving everybody confused. Leaving senior military commanders tasked with the defence of Ladakh or for that matter any other sector bereft of initiative is an invitation to disaster; minute-to-minute micro-management from the top not being the answer. That the present incursion does not fall into the category of routine Chinese incursions is clear to all military commanders and defence analysts. It is a given that Chinese incursions have been increasing, sometime on a daily basis, in direct proportion to the government’s response of playing them down or denying that they have taken place. Lack of condemnation and allowing even minimal freedom of action to military commanders only emboldens the other side who have taken the full measure of the government and its functioning. It is nobody’s contention that an asymmetrically enfeebled army should not exercise extreme caution; the army commanders being more than aware of their vulnerability due to gaps in infrastructure and the delay in critical military acquisitions that should have been in place by now or even the lack of a riposte capability that should have been in place ages ago. More importantly, what the government and its strategic planners do not appreciate is the impression that is being made on the rest of the world by its flip-flop policies in the face of continued Chinese aggravations. They have seen that India has already ceded control on its periphery on the subcontinent in several countries of SAARC. A few years earlier under pressure from the US and the West it had jeopardized its most advantageous relationship with Iran by unnecessarily and unprovoked voting against it in Vienna. Other decisions that indicated to the world that the government may not be in control of its foreign policy followed. Having ceded strategic space to China on its West, what exactly is the government’s response to the latest provocation by China indicating to its strategic partners in East Asia; with whom strategic defence agreements should have been taken to greater heights by now. A policy of keeping all options open simply means that when the crunch comes no option is available to be exercised. Specifically, Japan, Vietnam and several other potential strategic partners to India’s east are watching and waiting; wondering whether it has the resolve to protect its own interest in the first instance, before calculating its ability to come to their assistance should the need arise. From day one instead of dithering and hamstringing military commanders on the ground the incursion in DBO to a depth of 19 kms demanded an immediate and robust response. It is akin to fire fighting. A blaze can be put out by the effort of a single man or few people in the first few minutes; after more than 10 to 15 minutes it would require far greater fire fighting resources to get it under control; and after about thirty minutes or so it can often become completely uncontrollable. The government cannot be pardoned for disallowing the immediate fire fighting actions to remove the Chinese incursion. Instead of leaving it to the military commanders to deal with the situation it took it upon itself to show its diplomatic consummate-ness. It will send its foreign minister who has actually pushed off in the reverse direction for the time being to Beijing after another 10 or 12 days, thereby allowing the aggressors time to consolidate their incursion and dig in deeper. Meanwhile asking the army to take up positions opposite them in its own territory and do nothing to evict them while it would be possible to do so with minimal force. To the armed forces, to the people of India, and to the world the foreign minister of India is not going to the Chinese capital to demand a pull-back. He is seen to be going to Beijing as a supplicant. As in the days of yore the imperial power may graciously oblige its vassal. The country will not know as to what concessions the minister would have been authorised to concede that would further undermine India’s capability in the future. Flowing from it, it could be well on the cards that during the Chinese Prime Minister’s visit some public pronouncements that the country can live with would be made. Nobody would be deceived that once again India would have been humiliated. India still has a range of options to make China see reason without losing face. It hardly matters that India loses face, the country having been inured to it, used to it and reconciled to it by now. If these options are not exercised early enough – timing always being of the essence – India’s humiliation would have been compounded and its military position further degraded. What is worse the status quo might conceivably turn out to be freezing of positions as obtaining on the date of the agreement; meaning thereby the new LAC on the DBO sector would be 19 kms within Indian Territory. Major General Vinod Saighal (Retd) is the author of Revitalising Indian Democracy, Restructuring Pakistan and Third millenium Equipoise. This article first appeared in The Statesman of Apr 28.
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE – MILITARY CONFLICT WITH CHINA:
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE – THE MILITARY CONFLICT WITH CHINA: India cannot reconcile with People’s Republic of China’s military occupation of Tibet. On April 15, 2013 Indians have discovered evidence of China’s military expansionism in the sector called Daulat Beg Oldi of India’s Ladakh region.
India has no official boundary with People’s Republic of China. The Red Dragon wants to legalize its military occupation of Tibet and other territories taking full advantage of its military and economic strength. China’s military expansionism is a bubble and it will burst as China attempts to further increase its size.
I am pleased to share the essay,’Lesson from an Unsettled Boundary’, written by Manoj Joshi (a Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi) that is published in India’s national newspaper ‘The Hindu’ in its edition dated April 27, 2013 with my readers. It is not a big surprise that the boundary between India and China is not settled. It should remain undecided as India cannot reconcile with People’s Republic of China’s military occupation of Tibet. India has no border with China. There is a border dispute between Tibet and China and that is an issue that could be resolved when Special Frontier Force, the military alliance/pact between the United States, India, and Tibet accomplishes its primary mission of evicting the occupier from the Land and territories of Tibet.
R. Rudra Narasimham, B.Sc., M.B.B.S., Personal Numbers:MS-8466/MR-03277K. Rank:Lieutenant/Captain/Major. Branch:Army Medical Corps/Short Service Regular Commission(1969-1972); Direct Permanent Commission(1973-1984). Designation:Medical Officer. Unit:Establishment No.22(1971-1974)/South Column,Operation Eagle(1971-1972). Organization: Special Frontier Force
Lesson from an unsettled boundary
Manoj Joshi – The Hindu April 27, 2013
The reality is that the Line of Actual Control between India and China is notional and has not been put down on any mutually agreed map (The writer is a Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi) In 1950, the Survey of India issued a map of India showing the political divisions of the new republic. While the border with Pakistan was defined as it is now, including the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir area, the borders with China were depicted differently. In the east, the McMahon Line was shown as the border, except in its eastern extremity, the Tirap subdivision, where the border was shown as “undefined.” In the Central sector of what is now Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh and the eastern part of Jammu & Kashmir, including Aksai Chin, the boundary was depicted merely by a colour wash and denoted as “boundary undefined.” Unilateral act In March 1954, the Union Cabinet met and decided to unilaterally define the border of India with China. The colour wash was replaced by a hard-line, and the Survey of India issued a new map, which depicts the borders as we know them today. All the old maps were withdrawn and the depiction of Indian boundaries in the old way became illegal. Indeed, if you seek out the White Paper on Indian States of 1948 and 1950 in the Parliament library, you will find that the maps have been removed because they too showed the border as being “undefined” in the Central and Western sectors. What was the government up to? Did it seriously think it could get away with such a sleight of hand? Or was there a design that will become apparent when the papers of the period are declassified? Not surprisingly, the other party, the People’s Republic of China, was not amused and, in any case, there are enough copies of the old documents and maps across the world today to bring out the uncomfortable truth that the boundaries of India in these regions were unilaterally defined by the Government of India, rather than through negotiation and discussions with China. It is not as though the Chinese have a particularly good case when it comes to their western boundary in Tibet. The record shows that the Chinese empire was unclear as to its western extremities, and rejected repeated British attempts to settle the border. The problem in the Aksai Chin region was further compounded by the fact that this was an uninhabited high-altitude desert, with few markers that could decide the case in favour of one country or the other. But there was cause for the two countries to sit down and negotiate a mutually acceptable boundary. This as we know was not to be and, since then, the process has gone through needless tension and conflict. In the initial period, India’s focus was on the McMahon Line which defines the boundary with China in what is now Arunachal Pradesh. It tended to play down the issue of Aksai Chin because it was a remote area and of little strategic interest to India. But for China, the area was vital. Indeed, according to John W. Garver, it was “essential to Chinese control of western Tibet and very important to its control of all of Tibet.” In other words, in contrast to India’s legalistic and nationalistic claims over the region, for China, control over Aksai Chin had a geopolitical imperative. For this reason, it entered the area, built a road through it and undertook a policy to expand westward to ensure that the road was secure. India woke up to the issue late and when it sought to confront the Chinese through its forward policy in 1961, it was already too late. And the 1962 war only saw a further Chinese advance westward which led to almost the entire Galwan River coming under the Chinese control. We can only speculate on the causes of their present westward shift in the Daulat Beg Oldi area. But one thing is clear: the central locomotive of Chinese policy remains Tibet. Despite massive investments in the region, large numbers of Tibetans remain disaffected. No country in the world, including India, recognises Tibet as being a disputed territory yet, for two reasons. The Chinese constantly seek reassurance from New Delhi about its intentions. First, because of the past support that Tibetan separatist guerrillas got from the U.S. and India, and second, because of the presence of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile in India. Despite the massive growth of Chinese power, their insecurities remain high. In great measure, they are due to Beijing’s own heavy-handed policies and only China can resolve the issues through accommodation and compromise with its own people. But typical of governments, Beijing seeks to deflect the blame of its own shortcomings on outsiders. There could be other drivers of the tension as well. In the past five years, the Chinese have been generally assertive across their periphery and this could well be an outcome of policy decisions taken by the top military and political leadership of the country or, as some speculate, because of an inner-party conflict. Exaggerated Chinese maritime boundary claims have brought them into conflict with the ASEAN countries, principally the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia. A separate order of tension has arisen with Japan over the Senkaku islands in the East China Sea. In the case of India, an important initiative to resolve the border dispute through Special Representatives has been allowed to run aground. Another possible explanation for the Chinese behaviour could be the steps India is taking with regard to its military on its borders with China. India’s border infrastructure and military modernisation schemes have been delayed by decades. But in recent years, there have been signs that New Delhi may be getting its act together. In any case, the cumulative impact of the huge defence expenditures since 2000 is beginning to show in terms of better border connectivity and modernisation programmes. This momentum could see Indian forces’ confrontation with China become even stronger when you take into account new manpower and equipment such as mountain artillery, attack helicopters, missiles and rocket artillery. Overlapping claims Even so, it would be hazardous to speak definitively about Chinese motivations. After being lambasted by the Indian media for occupying “Indian territory,” the Chinese might be concerned about losing face with a hasty retreat. The fact of the matter is that the boundary in the region is defined merely by a notional Line of Actual Control, which is neither put down on mutually agreed maps, let alone defined in a document through clearly laid out geographical features. While both sides accept most of the LAC and respect it, there are some nine points where there are overlapping claims and both sides patrol up to the LAC, as they understand it. In such circumstances, the Chinese could well withdraw after a decent interval. This more benign interpretation of Chinese behaviour is also in tune with the statements that the new leadership in Beijing has been making. As has been noted, following his meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the sidelines of the BRICS conference in Durban, the new supremo of China, Xi Jinping, was quoted in the Chinese media as saying that Beijing regarded its ties with New Delhi as “one of the most important bilateral relationships.” Belying the belief that the Chinese were dragging their feet on the border issue, Mr. Xi declared that the Special Representative mechanism should strive for “a fair, rational solution framework acceptable to both sides as soon as possible.” This last sentence is significant because a week earlier, he was quoted as making the standard formulation that the border problem “is a complex issue left from history and solving the issue won’t be easy.” 2013 is not 1962 and the Indian media and politicians should not behave as though it was, by needlessly raising the decibel level and trying to push the government to adopt a hawkish course on the border. But what the recent controversy does tell us is unsettled borders are not good for two neighbours because they can so easily become the cause of a conflict that neither may be seeking. (The writer is a Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi)
Whole Dude-Whole Agency: Allen Dulles reveals the secrets of World War II, but remained silent about the secret operation in Tibet(1958-1964) which was supported by the US President, Indian Prime Minister, and His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, the spiritual and temporal leader of the autonomous State of Tibet.
Whole Dude-Whole Agency: During World War II, Allen Dulles served as the Chief of the OSS Office in Bern from October 1942 to May 1945. He played a role in the surrender of German troops in northern Italy.
Whole Dude-Whole Agency: Interesting account of the role of Office of Strategic Services in Europe during World War II. Fortunately, now we have interesting accounts of the CIA’s Secret War in Tibet. The credit goes to the Director of the CIA.
Whole Dude-Whole Agency: Allen Dulles described the ‘Craft of Intelligence’ but kept the CIA Operation in Tibet as a Secret.
Whole Dude – Whole Agency: Allen Welsh Dulles shaped the history of the Central Intelligence Agency. During World War II, he had served in the Office of Strategic Services(1942-1945), and when CIA formed in 1951, he served as Deputy Director under General Walter Bedell Smith. He was appointed the Director by President Dwight D. Eisenhower during January 1953.
The Spirits of Special Frontier Force are pleased to pay this special tribute to Allen Welsh Dulles(b. April 7, 1893, Watertown, NY – d. January 29, 1969, Washington, DC), US diplomat, intelligence expert who was the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency during its period of growth. Dulles received M.A. from Princeton in 1916. His service to the nation started during the administration of Woodrow Thomas Wilson(28th President of the US 1913-1921). He served in various diplomatic posts until 1922, and was named chief of the State Department’s Near Eastern Division. He obtained Law degree in 1926, and served as counsellor to the US delegation in Peking. He returned to the US and joined the New York law firm in which his brother John Foster Dulles was a partner. During World War II, Dulles joined the office of Strategic Services(OSS). From October 1942 to May 1945, Dulles served as Chief of OSS office in Bern, Switzerland. He played a critical role in the surrender of German troops in northern Italy. He received the Medal of Merit and Medal of Freedom for his service during the War. In 1948, Dulles served as the Chairman of a three-man committee that surveyed the US intelligence system. After the Central Intelligence Agency was established in 1951, he served as deputy director under General Walter Bedell Smith. In 1953, he was appointed Director of CIA by President Dwight D. Eisenhower(34th President of the US, 1953-1961). He was the first Chairman of U.S. Intelligence Board. Dulles carried out a number of major operations, notably the overthrow of the governments of Mohammad Mossadeq in Iran in 1953, and Jacob Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954. He was reappointed by President John F. Kennedy. Unfortunately, he had to shoulder the blame for the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in April 1961. He was forced to resign to defend the reputation of the presidency. He was awarded the National Security Medal on November 28, 1961(and the citation for granting this Medal is attached as a pdf file). President Lyndon B Johnson had appointed him as one of seven commissioners of the Warren Commission to investigate the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. He authored several books, notably Germany’s Underground(1947), The Craft of Intelligence(1963), and The Secret Surrender(1963).
Whole Dude – Whole Agency: Allen Welsh Dulles rendered remarkable service to the nation and won the admiration of President John F. Kennedy even though he had to accept the blame for the failed mission in Cuba. I salute him for his support to defend Freedom and Democracy in Tibet. The CIA operation in Tibet had also failed during March 1959, but I would not blame CIA for that failure.
Whole Dude – Whole Agency: On November 28, 1961, Allen Welsh Dulles, the outgoing CIA Director received the National Security Medal from President John F. Kennedy.
Whole Dude – Whole Agency: President Lyndon B. Johnson demonstrated his confidence in the former CIA Director Allen Welsh Dulles by appointing him to the Warren Commission that investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. It was indeed a great honor and speaks of the trust in personal integrity earned by Dulles as the CIA Director.
Whole Dude-Whole Agency: A special tribute to Allen Welsh Dulles, the Director of CIA who organized training of Tibetans at Camp Hale, Colorado(May 1958 to November 1964).
Both US Government and the Central Intelligence Agency maintain their silence about the support given to the Tibetan Resistance Movement and the eventual creation of a military alliance/pact between the US, Tibet, and India to fight the military threat posed by Communist China when it occupied Tibet in 1950 and had forced His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama to lead a life in exile. However, the US had finally acknowledged the CIA operation with the Tibetans and India by installing a Commemoration Plaque at the Camp Hale, Colorado training site on September 10, 2010. The Director of CIA was not present at the ceremony to honor the memory of people who were involved in this covert operation. It is my duty and privilege to pay this special tribute to Allen Welsh Dulles in due recognition of the services he had rendered to defend Freedom, Democracy, and Justice in the occupied Land of Tibet.
Whole Dude - Whole Spirituality 