Abhijit Bhattacharyya

Commentator and Author

LAHORE was the capital of the empire of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, that rare strategic visionary and victor in the midst of falling, failing, vanquished, vassal and semi-vassal rulers of South Asia. It was a success needing neither corroboration nor endorsement from anyone. No Western foreign trader or aspiring ruler dared to mess with his realm. He lost a few tactical battles but invariably emerged victorious in war, and ended unconquered, a feat achieved neither by any indigenous ruler before him nor those who succeeded him.

Ranjit Singh (1780-1839), whose 181st death anniversary falls today, was a victor because of a rare geo-strategic vision of security, intrusion and recurring foreign invasions of Indian territory. Another unpleasant reality, it may look to some. None of the numerous indigenous rulers of his time, or those in succeeding generations, across South Asia, could effectively stop the British juggernaut during their rule or unite the subjects or neighbours in vicinity to effectively counter the outsiders like the French and the Portuguese.

The astute Ranjit Singh certainly learnt the lessons of history fast— the magnetic attraction of the Indian soil to suppress the simple subjects, marked by loot, pillage, plunder and occupation by the foreign invaders. Understandably, going on the offensive was the best defence for Ranjit Singh, Misldar of the Sukerchakia Misl.

Being a landlocked state, the threat to his realm loomed large from the south (Delhi), west (Kabul-Kandahar) and north-east (Kashmir and beyond, from Kashgarh). Hence, to stop the British advance to the Punjab from south, the Treaty of Amritsar was concluded on April 25, 1809, thereby making Sutlej the river border. The British remained still, till the Maharaja’s death. Thereafter, followed Kangra, Multan, Kashmir, Attock, Afghan territory and Sindh, one by one. What’s important is that Ranjit Singh rose from nowhere to establish a “kingdom large in extent and rich in fame”, a ruler who checked foreign invasions and traditional, aggressive ruler-cum-looters. In the process, however, Ranjit Singh attracted criticism from several quarters. Indeed, he can be criticised because warfare and conquest were his forte.

But, one has to recall that the first half of the 19th century was an era of war and bloodshed across South Asia, wherein everybody was fighting everybody. There were regional rulers galore, all in disarray, facing the Western foreign ‘trader rulers’ and the Delhi Durbar was in veritable decline. The subjects were on the verge of ruin and subalterns were on the run, from region to region.

The choice for Ranjit Singh, therefore, was limited. Either stand, fight and perform or retreat, escape and perish. Ranjit Singh chose to fight and, therefore, stood out in the chapters of post-Mughal history as one indigenous ruler who died unconquered. He stopped the foreign invasions and took the battle to the enemy camp — from Punjab to Kashmir and beyond; from the Sutlej to Sindh; Kandahar to the borders of Persia (Iran). The lion’s reign constituted a glorious, inimitable period, of the sole indigenous ruler of South Asia.

The question is: how and why did Ranjit Singh die unconquered? Not humiliated, disgraced or vanquished? It’s owing to the ruler’s fair-mindedness, objectivity, impartiality and the ability to rise above narrow clan, community, caste, communal or other negative characteristics which usually afflicted the numerous princely rulers of Hindustan. A glowing tribute to Ranjit Singh came from a German, Baron Carl von Hugel: “Never perhaps was so large an empire founded by one man with so little criminality.” However, there was another serious criticism against him, that “he created a Sikh kingdom but took no steps to prevent British dominion.” Yes, theoretically correct but not practically. History shows that no landlocked country can aggressively take on a naval power with an army. Afghanistan is an exception, though it too cannot go on the offensive, except for defence or a counter-attack.

Now, what would have been Ranjit Singh’s take on the 73-year-long road traversed by India? A job the Lion of Lahore is best remembered for? Defending the country and stopping foreign invasions? Surely, Ranjit Singh would have been sorely disappointed to see a complete reversal of his deeds, a recurring Indian failure to protect its own acclaimed territory from foreign invaders, owing to the weak, vacillating, compromising policy of the ruling class.

In 1965, the Haji Pir pass was re-taken by India from the enemy after a bitter, bloody battle. Since J&K acceded to India on October 26, 1947, Haji Pir, being part thereof, belonged to India. Yet, whereas India was the owner, Pakistan was the forced occupant thereof. Hence, post-1965, the ‘return’ of Haji Pir to Pakistan constituted a submission of one’s own land to the foreign invader by India’s ruling class. Would Ranjit Singh have accepted it? Anybody else, not him surely.

Again, when India, in 1999, retreated from J&K’s Kargil highland, only to find it being promptly captured by the enemy and thereafter counter-attacking to re-capture it at the expense of hundreds of soldiers’ lives, what would have Ranjit Singh said?

And what about June this year when the Indian Army lost 20 soldiers in Ladakh’s Galwan valley? What can one say about the fall of Indians deep inside their own territory before the criminal, cunning, congenitally lying invaders of the Communist Party of China’s ruling class?

Fairly and squarely, therefore, India’s successive ruling class is culpable for repeated catastrophes during the past 73 years. Regrettably, one has to confess that faulty border management, failure to preserve territorial integrity and ceaseless appeasement to foreign invaders constitute the hallmark of Indian history. Post-1947 India makes Ranjit Singh’s empire look greater and more heroic than ever before. Ranjit Singh would have enjoyed his glorious numero uno status in the eyes of the common Indians, including one hailing from the homeland of Subhas Chandra Bose, who must have taken a cue from the one and only Maharaja to fight foreign invaders.

G Parthasarathy

Chancellor, Jammu Central University & Former High Commissioner to Pakistan

Passions are running high in India after 20 Indian Army personnel were martyred in a face-off with Chinese soldiers in the Galwan valley. China has been strengthening its presence in this region and has also laid claim to sections of the adjacent Pangong Tso area. The slopes of eight of the adjacent mountains, which are described as ‘fingers’, extend into the Pangong lake. China has claimed four of these slopes.

There have been violent exchanges in the past between the Chinese and not just our soldiers, but also the local Buddhist population, which deeply resents Chinese presence in the Galwan river area. India had a military presence in the Galwan valley in 1962, which was overrun during the Sino-Indian conflict on October 19-20, 1962. There is, therefore, no legal or historical basis for Chinese territorial claims across the Pangong lake and Galwan valley, which are integral parts of India. But there are predictable expressions of Chinese concerns over Home Minister Amit Shah’s statement last year, declaring Aksai Chin, which links Tibet and Xinjiang, as being a part of Ladakh.

While the Galwan valley has been a location for battles in the past, the Partition of India did create a new situation, when J&K was also partitioned, with Pakistan getting control of the northwestern part of the state. Pakistan, thereafter, illegally ceded the Shaksgam valley in J&K to China in 1963, giving China access through Aksai Chin and Shaksgam to its Muslim majority, Xinjiang province. China, however, also has concerns about India’s presence in Daulat Beg Oldie, which is located close to the strategic road linking Aksai Chin to restive Xinjiang, where Beijing holds over a million Muslims in custody today. China is also concerned about the road India is building, which traverses across the Pangong Tso and the Galwan river to Daulat Beg Oldie, where India has built an airport, capable of accommodating even heavy transport aircraft.

Even as tensions were rising in Galwan, it was agreed at a meeting of senior commanders of the two armies on June 5, that there would be moves to de-escalate tensions. There was an understanding that China would pull back. Hence, the killing of the Indian Battalion Commander, who went to the Galwan valley on June 16, to ascertain how the disengagement was proceeding, enraged people across India. This escalated into a no-holds-barred attack in which 20 Indian soldiers and an estimated 30-40 Chinese were killed.

New Delhi is set to comprehensively restructure its economic relationship with China. An adverse balance of $54 billion on trade with China is neither desirable nor sustainable. China now dominates the electronics sector in India. Its companies assemble 70% of our mobile telephones. China is also seeking to dominate the coming 5G services in India through its Huawei conglomerate. One abiding feature of all Chinese electronic telecommunication services in India is that its products have little value added. Virtually every component is imported from China. Moreover, the entire technical management is in the hands of the Chinese. There is no technology transfer. Given recent developments, Huawei will not have any significant role in the 5G services in India. Moreover, Taiwan is now emerging as a major partner, even in the US, in electronics and other industries. It is time for India to undertake major projects with Taiwan. India sent an unambiguous message to China, when two senior MPs participated in the swearing-in of the re-elected and gutsy President of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen.

The US is planning to use Taiwan Superconductor Manufacturing Company, the main chipmaker for Apple Inc, to shift its high-tech manufacturing to Arizona to exclude Huawei from any major global role. The UK and other European countries would likely follow suit. It would only be appropriate if Indian companies sign agreements for large projects in areas like computers, communications and other electronics industries, including facilities for manufacturing key strategic items like semiconductors and computer chips, with companies in Taiwan. China’s objections can be rejected. Beijing has, after all, been investing heavily in infrastructure projects in the POK. China has even welcomed high-level politicians from the POK in Beijing.

India has now shed its earlier inhibitions about security partnerships with countries in its Indo-Pacific and Indian Ocean neighbourhood. China has serious differences on its maritime boundaries, with virtually all its neighbours, including Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines and Malaysia. India has not yet been able to respond in any appropriate, or meaningful manner to the continuous supply of weapons, nuclear weapons designs, ballistic missiles, fighter aircraft and warships by China to Pakistan. There is a strong feeling in India that the time has come for India to respond positively to requests from Vietnam, a good friend, with a remarkably fast-growing economy, with the supply of weapon systems like Brahmos missiles, to enable Vietnam to counter Chinese maritime threats. India would, hopefully, shed old inhibitions by expanding military cooperation with friendly regional countries. Most importantly, however, doors should be kept open for a serious and continuing dialogue with China, while eschewing rhetoric.

One cannot but appreciate the role of Russia and its Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who stressed the importance of peace and cooperation, in his tripartite meeting, earlier this week, with the foreign ministers of India and China. His remarks came after prolonged negotiations between senior military commanders of India and China led to an agreement on ‘verifiable disengagement’ of forces. One should, however, be under no illusion that this process of phased withdrawal is going to be smooth. But it is a move towards peace. Finally, a grateful nation can never forget the valour and sacrifices of those who laid down their lives defending our country, in hand-to-hand combat, far from their homes, in the high mountains, astride the banks of the Galwan river.

Tribune News Service
Patiala, June 26

Punjab Cabinet Minister Sadhu Singh Dharamsot today gave away a check for Rs5 lakh out of the announced Rs50 lakh to the family of slain Naib Subedar Mandeep Singh on his bhog ceremony in Patiala. The Naib Subedar was killed during a recent face-off with Chinese troops near Ladakh.

Dharamsot, representing the Chief Minister, said the state government would upgrade the village primary school and name it after the slain soldier.

He said Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh had increased the compensation amount to be given to the families of soldiers killed on the frontlines from Rs12 lakh to Rs50 lakh. The state government will revamp the family’s house and reconstruct the ‘kuchha road’ connecting the village to the main road. He said the country was proud of the warrior.

SAD leader Prem Singh Chandumajra said a memorial would be constructed in the name of Mandeep Singh with help of area MLAs.

MLA Madan Lal Jalalpur said the government would spend more than Rs1 crore on the village, including Rs50 lakh on the memorial, Rs10 lakh on cemetery, Rs10 lakh on the village school and Rs10 lakh on a stadium in the village.

Tribune News Service

Hisar, June 26

The mortal remains of BSF head constable Om Prakash from Samain village in Fatehabad district were consigned to flames with state honours today. Recently, the BSF jawan died on duty in Jammu and Kashmir. Tohana MLA Devender Singh Babli, BJP state president Subhash Barala and SDM Naveen Kumar were among others who paid tributes to the martyr.

Chandigarh/New Delhi, June 26

An Indian Air Force helicopter made an emergency landing on an expressway in Haryana after it developed a technical snag on Friday, officials said.

There was no injury to anyone or damage to any property, they said.

“A Cheetah helicopter was proceeding from Hindan to Halwara for a routine Air Force task. Approximately 14NM (nautical mile) out of Hindan, the helicopter developed technical snag and carried out precautionary landing on Eastern Peripheral Expressway,” the Defence Ministry said in a statement in Delhi.

“The actions taken by the pilots were prompt and correct. No damage to any property has been reported. Recovery helicopter was launched immediately from Hindan. The helicopter was rectified and recovered back promptly and safely at Hindan,” it added.

The helicopter landed on the Kundli-Ghaziabad-Palwal or the Eastern Peripheral Expressway, about 10-12 km from Sonepat.

“The IAF helicopter made an emergency landing due to some technical snag. All police control room vehicles and police personnel were rushed to the spot. Later, IAF engineers repaired the chopper and it took off after two hours,” Assistant Sub-Inspector of Sonipat Police Sandeep Kumar told PTI over the phone.

Kumar said the police reached the spot and stopped the vehicular traffic on the stretch of the road, where the chopper had landed.

“No one was allowed to go near the chopper. The vehicular traffic was restored after the chopper took off,” he said. PTI