Many of us already know about the spectrum auction curruption case in India. A year back we did a post on the lessons we can learn from the case India. Now when the PTA are all set to kick the specturm launch in March end the Supreme Court accros the border has given its rulling, cancelling 122 Telecom Licenses of worlds second larget mobile subscirber market.

This is a big setback for international investers, let’s see how this will effect the upcoming license auctions in Pakistan.

More from Reuters below:

India’s Supreme Court on Thursday revoked all 122 telecoms licences issued under a scandal-tainted 2008 sale, a fresh embarrassment for the government and plunging the mobile network market of Asia’s third-largest economy into uncertainty.

The ruling is a setback for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government, which oversaw the sale of the licenses at below-market prices, costing the exchequer up to $36 billion in lost revenues.

The licences affected by Thursday’s ruling include all of those held by Unitech Wireless, the Indian joint venture of Norway’s Telenor and Unitech.

“We have been unfairly treated as we simply followed the government process we were asked to,” the Telenor joint venture said in a statement. “We are shocked to see that Uninor is being penalised for faults the court has found in the government process.”

The telecoms scandal is the biggest of several that have emerged during Singh’s second term and triggered massive street protests last year. Two ministers, including former telecoms minister Andimuthu Raja, who presided over the 2008 grant process, have resigned. Raja is in jail awaiting trial.

“This country is no longer willing to allow these corrupt corporations and these corrupt public officials to retain the benefits of their illegal and corrupt actions,” said Prashant Bhushan, a lawyer and petitioner in the case.

India is the second-largest cellular market in the world by subscribers, with 894 million at the end of December, although the market is crowded with more than a dozen operators, making call rates among the lowest in the world and squeezing margins.

Investors and operators have long been calling for consolidation in the crowded industry, and Thursday’s ruling stands to benefit the country’s biggest operators, including Bharti Airtel and Vodafone.

“Players like Bharti Airtel and Idea Cellular with popular brands and strong balance sheets will be clear beneficiaries because they can take advantage of this situation and increase market share,” said Jagannadham Thunuguntla, Head of Research, SMC Investments and Advisors, Mumbai.

Stocks in telecoms companies including Reliance Communications and Unitech fell after the verdict, but shares in Bharti Airtel jumped.

“For foreign investors, it is a very bad news. What mistake did they do? They partnered with Indian companies, invested lots of money and followed the process of that time,” said Rishi Sahai, director at consultancy firm Cogence Advisors in New Delhi.

The Supreme Court said the current licenses will remain in place for four months, in which time the government should decide fresh norms for issuing licenses, a lawyer involved in the case said.

India’s image as an investment destination was dented over the past year as the economy slowed, government reforms stalled and the telecoms scandals along with other high profile graft cases heightened concerns about government policies.

“This is a collective failure of the government of India, said S ubramanian Swamy, an opposition politician who brought the petition to revoke the license. ” The court has said that the government must now get the market value of these licenses .”

Loop Telecom Pvt Ltd and Videcon Telecommunications, part of India’s Videocon group are also affected, along with Etisalat DB, the joint venture between Abu Dhabi’s Etisalat and India’s DB group; and S-Tel.

Thirteen licences held by Idea Cellular and three held by Tata Teleservices are also affected.

via Reuters

Indian Army Chief General VK Singh in a report has expressed his
grave concern over Pakistan-China atomic cooperation and joint military
preparations. 

In a detailed report submitted to Indian Prime
Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and President Pratibha Patil, Gen VK Singh
has made a special mention of Pakistan Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez
Kayani’s recent visit to China. This confidential report, pertaining to
Afghanistan, says that Pakistan’s spy network is well-rooted and working
efficiently in the neighbouring war-torn country. This network is also
enjoying a strong support of local Taliban, due to which, India facing
great difficulties in getting a foothold in the area.

As per
Western media, the report reveals that with the practical cooperation of
the American CIA, Indian spy agency RAW and Israeli secret agency
Mossad planning to set up a joint army base in the country. Indian civil
and military leadership, in this connection, have also held several
meetings at the presidency. Indian Defence Minister AK Anthony, RAW
chief and other high-ranking officials of the Indian nuclear command
have been in constant consultations with Indian PM Manmohan Singh in
this regard. Moreover, Afghan security chief, who has completed his
training in India, regularly visits New Delhi. Sources say the US, while
keeping a firm grip of the Afghan region, also wants India to play a
dominant role in the area.

READ MORE

LONDON – Indian Army Chief General VK Singh in a report has expressed his grave concern over Pakistan-China atomic cooperation and joint military preparations.

In a detailed report submitted to Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and President Pratibha Patil, Gen VK Singh has made a special mention of Pakistan Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s recent visit to China. This

Foremost among these is the raging controversy surrounding Salman Rushdie’s scheduled appearance at the Jaipur Literature Festival, a saga that neatly encapsulates both the virtues and vices of the Indian polity. The gathering has fast emerged as the largest and most prestigious literary event in Asia, and it is a fine example of the soft power strengths India brings to the competition with China for influence in the region. This year’s installment attracted some 250 writers from South Asia and beyond (including talk show maven Oprah Winfrey, new age guru Deepak Chopra and Joseph Lelyveld, whose book on Mahatma Gandhi was greeted with a blast of invective from the Indian political class last year) as well as 70,000 visitors. Yet the imbroglio over Rushdie, who was supposed to be the main attraction at this year’s festival, has tarnished India’s credentials as emerging Asia’s brightest exemplar of democratic freedoms.

Rushdie, who was born in Mumbai to a Muslim family of Kashmiri descent, is the author of the 1988 novel, The Satanic Verses, which inflamed Muslim sentiment throughout the world and lead Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran’s supreme leader, to issue a notorious fatwa against his life. Concerned about the potential for upheaval among its sizeable Muslim population, the Indian government quickly banned the book, part of its familiar but disgraceful ritual of proscribing books that touch on sensitive issues or arouse passions in certain quarters. Rushdie, who continues to live under the threat of death, has traveled to India without incident numerous times in the years since, including an unannounced 2007 visit to the Jaipur gathering that is credited with putting it on the world’s cultural map.

But his headline participation at this year’s event brought forth a torrent of umbrage and threats. Muslim clerics started things off, including those at Darul Uloom Deoband, an influential Islamic seminary in Uttar Predesh, India’s most populous state which will hold legislative elections next month that many believe are critical to the survival of the Congress Party-led national government in New Delhi. Another seminary issued a fatwa calling for protests against the visit and a number of Muslim groups warned of “unprecedented protests” and burned Rushdie’s effigy.

Predictably enough, politicians soon took up the cudgels, many of them Congress Party leaders fearful of losing the allegiance of Uttar Pradesh’s large bloc of Muslim voters, who formed about a fifth of the state’s electorate. Ashok Gehlot, chief minister of Rajasthan, the northwestern state where the festival takes place, and a former general secretary of the All India Congress Committee, reportedly pressed the organizers to rescind their invitation to Rushdie and appeared indifferent to the threats being made against Rushdie’s safety. Chandrabhan Singh, head of the Congress Party’s Rajasthan unit, declared that “Rushdie has hurt the sentiments of many Indians. He must not be allowed to come to India.” Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi, the party’s national leader, maintained a studious silence, while one of Singh’s Cabinet members pronounced that Rushdie’s “presence is not desirable.”

In contrast to the poltroon instincts of the political class, India’s boisterous media leapt to Rushdie’s defense. The Times of India accused the Congress Party of playing identity politics and argued that “by catering to such intolerance, the Congress has further contributed to creating an increasingly illiberal atmosphere in the country.” The Hindu called the affair “a national shame” and charged that “India has again betrayed its heritage of providing sanctuary to persecuted individuals and ideas, not to speak of its Constitution.”

If the saga had ended at this point, it would have amounted to an embarassment to the country’s reputation. Instead it unexpectedly morphed into an outrage against free expression. On the eve of the festival’s opening, Rushdie suddenly withdrew when the Rajasthan police warned him of an assassination plot being hatched by a Mumbai underworld boss who has close ties to the Pakistani security establishment. Media outlets, however, soon reported that the death threat was concocted by authorities to scare him away. When Rushdie made plans to address the gathering via video link, Rajasthan officials attempted to throw up new impediments. In the end, the video conference was abruptly cancelled by the venue’s owner following police warnings about violent protests.

In solidarity with Rushdie, four Indian writers at the gathering staged an impromptu reading of passages from The Satanic Verses, a prohibited act that drew quick police notice. Advised by legal counsel that they had unwittingly opened themselves up to criminal charges, the writers hastily departed Jaipur and, in some cases, the country.

Unfortunately, the Rushdie affair stands out for its prominence but not its singularity. Currently, the Delhi High Court is considering a petition that seeks to hold Google and Facebook liable for not censoring content that might offend the sensibilities of Hindus, Muslims and Christians. The judge overseeing the matter ominously warned that if the companies could not police their own sites, “like China we may be forced to pass orders banning all such websites.” Prime Minister Singh’s government has lent its imprimatur to the petitioner’s cause.

Late last year, Kapil Sibal, a Harvard-educated lawyer who serves as Mr. Singh’s telecommunications minister, likewise threatened to censor social networking sites for objectionable content (here and here).  Similar to the rhetoric directed at Rushdie, he argued that “religious sentiments of many communities and of any reasonable person is [sic] being hurt because of content which is on the sites.” Last June’s death of M. F. Husain, the most acclaimed painter of modern India, also recalled how he had been hounded into self-exile by Hindu nationalist groups incensed at his nude depictions of Hindu deities. Prime Minister Singh called Husain’s passing in a London hospital “a national loss” but he did nothing to dampen the mob culture that caused Husain to spend the last years of his life outside of India.

Indeed, over the last two years, India’s illiberal tendencies have been in particular bloom:

• A fictionalized biography of Congress Party supreme Sonia Gandhi was banned;
• Government officials helped put the kibosh on plans to make a movie based on Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire, a non-fiction book that sheds light on Jawaharlal Nehru’s furtive relationship with the wife of the British Raj’s last viceroy;
• An outcry organized by the family of Bal Thackeray, a Hindu nationalist politician, forced the University of Mumbai to drop Rohinton Mistry’s novel, Such a Long Journey, a finalist for the prestigious Man Booker Prize, from its English-language syllabus;
• And Arundhati Roy, a perennial bete noire to the political establishment and a Man Booker Prize-winner for her 1997 novel, The God of Small Things, was charged with sedition for her remarks on the Kashmir dispute.

All democracies are continuous works in progress. But this year’s Republic Day reveals just how far India still remains from the ideals of free expression.

by Sunil Sharan

CELEBRATED Prussian military analyst Carl von Clausewitz described how the `fog of war` causes facts to be fudged. Indian army chief Gen V.K. Singh has surely studied von Clausewitz.

How then has he allowed himself and his force to become embroiled in fuzzy mathematics over the churlish matter of his age, that too in peacetime? V.K.`s predicament stems from three sources: (a) the contentious circumstances of his appointment as chief in 2010, (b) the resentment that many army personnel feel towards the neta-babu nexus, and perhaps most significantly, (c) V.K.`s tendency to shoot from the lip.

V.K. became chief against the wish of his immediate predecessor, Gen Deepak Kapoor. As Kapoor`s subordinate, he had recommended probing the alleged corruption of one of Kapoor`s pet staff officers, effrontery that would have stymied most military careers. Fortunately for him, Defence Minister A.K. Antony took his side, and what is more, got him the top job.

At this time, the discrepancy in his age records was noticed, but the matter was seemingly laid to rest. Kapoor`s tenure had been controversial enough, and the government wanted to move on. The handing-taking over ceremony between Kapoor and V.K. Singh, normally a bear-hugging affair between an outgoing chief and an incoming one, was so frigid, it might as well have occurred on the Siachen glacier. `War of the generals` shrieked the headlines.

Shortly afterwards, Kapoor was accused of misappropriating prime property in Mumbai when he was still chief. V.K. proclaimed on national television that Kapoor`s behaviour had shamed the army. Quick to implicate, V.K. forgot about the principle of presumption of innocence. Another cardinal rule, of a serving chief refraining from publicly condemning his predecessors, too was violated. Kapoor met Antony to clear his name, and while V.K. threatened to court-martial Kapoor, the government let the matter die.

If 2010 was bad for Manmohan Singh, 2011 was annus horribilis. Anna Hazare galvanised the nation`s anti-corruption rage into a gale, leaving Manmohan Singh teetering. Anna became afour-letter word for the government. V.K., unable to contain himself, came out in public support of Anna. Little did he realise then that he had just cooked his own goose.

If Indira Gandhi had been prime minister, loose lips as his would have been sealed quickly. Manmohan Singh is more deliberate. Behind wispy facial hair though, there are some fangs for sure, to be bared only every few years, as he did while pushing for India`s nuclear deal, or when he thwarted a nation baying for Pakistani blood after 26/11.

After becoming chief, V.K. sought a correction, from 1950 to 1951, to his date of birth. If granted, he would have secured an additional 10 months of service. But even his benefactor, A.K. Antony, was becoming wary. V.K.`s request was turned down.

He filed a formal complaint, which too was rejected. By now, the soap opera of age, starring birth certificates, enrolment forms, claims, counter-claims, had become all the rage.

Two camps pitted heads. On the one side were the retired army officers, who, almost to a man, supported V.K. A question of izzat, they fumed through their handlebar moustaches.

Ranged against them were the pot-bellied politicians and Indian Administrative Service bureaucrats, who cited chapter and verse ofrules andlines of succession.

Many in India`s military chafe at what they consider as shackles imposed upon them by the `bloody civilians`. It galls them that the army chief, head of the world`s second-largest army, is ranked 12 in the order of precedence of Indian officialdom, all the way down from two in pre-Independence India.

It rankles them when they see the coveted privileges enjoyed by armies to their west (Pakistan), north (China), east (Bangladesh, Myanmar), or south (Sri Lanka). Pakistan`s `womb to tomb` army culture is markedly absent in India, with officers often put to pasture in the prime of their lives, ill-equipped to cope with civilian life`s wheeling and dealing. So unattractive has the career become that India`s army faces a lacuna of over 10,000 officers, almost a quarter of the desired strength.

Since Nehru`s time, the government, fearful of a coup, has kept the army on a tight leash. Once in a while a charismatic army chief comes along, as was the case with K. Sundarji. His over-exuberance though almost precipitated a war with Pakistan, as well as nudged Rajiv Gandhi into a catastrophic misadventure in Sri Lanka, for which the latter paid for with his life subsequently. Even as India`s military seeks to break free, many abroad hail how assiduously the civilian government has tethered it.

`Don`t treat me as if I am Pakistan`s army chief,` V.K. has reportedly wailed to his government. Rumours abound that Manmohan Singh talks directly to Gen Kayani. Surely he accords him due courtesy! Jokes apart, Manmohan Singh promises a makeover this year. He has issued an unprecedented New Year`s resolution, and has visited the Golden Temple to steel himself.

Neither he, nor his patron, Sonia Gandhi, will allow an uppity general to waylay their plan for 2012, which is to ensure an orderly ascension to premiership for Rahul Gandhi. Successors to V.K. have already been short-listed, five months before his tenure is to end, rendering him a virtual lame duck.

Instead of making veiled threats of going to court, which step would in all likelihood invite the sack, or resigning in a huff, it would be best if he were to declare the matter as closed, and treat it as so. And if, to sweeten the pill, the government offers him an ambassadorship or state governorship, he should decline. He took charge promising to restore the army’s morale.

Climbing down and bowing to his political masters is the only way out now.

sunil_sharan@yahoo.com

Part 3 – The Innate Stalemate

Also Read -

Part 1: Many Barrels of a Gun
Part 2: Mood on the Ground

Another SAARC Summit, Another Round of Nothingness

Amid a general socio-political churning brought about by rising expectations of people in many South Asian nations, the 17th SAARC Summit in Maldives in November culminated with the ‘Addu Declaration’ (named after Addu city, the second most populated region of the country) that proposed to build further and better maritime and rail linkages among member-nations, with tangible goals set for the present.

The declaration is seen as a step in the direction of the long-discussed idea of integrating the South Asian economies on the lines of the European Union.

Aiming at that, the ‘Addu Declaration’ dwelt primarily on speedy implementation of the South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) and reduction of ‘sensitive lists’, of items that are kept away from bi or multilateral trading because of the dependence of local traders on those items for their livelihoods. The more the items of the sensitive lists between two trading nations, the lesser is the free movement of goods and services between the two markets.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in his address on November 10, suggested India’s intent on the subject by declaring that “the government of India has issued a notification to reduce the sensitive list for the least developed countries under the South Asian Free Trade Area Agreement from 480 tariff lines to 25 tariff lines. Zero basic customs duty access will be given for all items removed with immediate effect.”

Echoing Singh, the ‘Addu Declaration’ outlines the provision of directing the SAFTA Ministerial Council to intensify efforts to fully and effectively implement SAFTA, while seeking an early resolution of non-tariff barriers and hasten the process of harmonising standards and customs procedures.

Currently, the intra-trade between SAARC nations is clipped at 5 per cent of their gross domestic product.

Unfortunately, neither the ‘Addu Declaration’ nor the verbal intent of India stood for anything more than oft-repeated desires that SAARC, the organisation, has been airing since its inception 26 years ago.

Moreover, as ever, the 17th Summit too chose to ignore any radically new suggestion – irrespective of passing a judgement on the merits of the same here – that may have been proposed by the leadership of any SAARC nation.

For instance, the ‘Addu Declaration’ chose not even to mention a forward-looking suggestion by the Sri Lankan President, Mahinda Rajapaksa, for a ‘South Asian currency’ – inspite the fact that Maldives, for one, has discussed with India and Sri Lanka about direct exchange of its rufiyaa against currencies of the two nations.

Apart from the trade issues, the summit talked of resolving operational issues related to the SAARC Food Bank, which was mooted in the August 2008 Summit in Sri Lanka towards building a stock of food grains to help nations facing food shortage in emergency situations, working on climate change and rooting out terrorism from the region.

In other words, the summit said everything that all summits have been saying over the years!

The collective stagnancy of the region also reflected in the practices of individual administrations in 2011.

Nepal, which has been struggling to draft a new constitution for more than two years continued to move around in circles, even as the people in the Himalayan nation, one of the poorest country in the world, watched in disbelief the bickering politicians of all hues.

Just as the year was about to bid goodbye to the sameness, the Nepali government and the judiciary looked set to lock horns over another extension to the Constituent Assembly (the Nepalese legislature) term.

The Supreme Court of Nepal mooted three options if the Constituent Assembly failed to draft a new Constitution before May 28, 2012: Holding a referendum, conduct fresh polls to elect a new body to draft the constitution, or seek some other alternative.

The court rejected petitions for another extension should a draft of the new constitution fails to emerge in May 2012.
In 2008, the legislative body was given two years to draft Nepal’s new constitution, but despite four extensions, the task is no closer to completion than it was when the CA was given its mandate.

The bright spot in an otherwise despondent year was provided by the beginning of the process of rehabilitation of Maoist cadres into the Nepali mainstream. Called ‘regrouping’, the process marked the beginning of the armed cadre of Maoists choosing between voluntary retirement and integration with the national army. The armed fighters have been lodged in 19 camps across the nation since the signing of peace treaty between the Maoists and the mainstream political parties.

But if international analysts were looking for a better promise from Sri Lanka, they found none in 2011. President Rajapaksa Mahinda’s ruling coalition, which has been offering fire for fire on charges of war crimes committed by it in the final days of the civil war in May 2009, finally got ‘its own document’ when the government-backed Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Council (LLRC) submitted its report on the subject and exonerated the government of any wrong-doing.

The LLRC had long been rejected by almost all international observers and hence is seen as a body that would merely speak the stated.

The government’s firm stand on the issue has been met by an equally resolute – and typical – stand by its opponents. The Tamil National Alliance (TNA), an umbrella group of parties that are said to represent the Tamil community in the island nation, called for an ‘international inquiry’ on the conduct of government forces in the civil war.

Further, the TNA also asked for police powers to provincial governments, amid decentralisation talks in a bid to find a political settlement to the grievances of the minority ethnic community. It was, predictably, soundly rejected by the government.

The present discourse can be seen as the non-armed conflict between the nation’s two largest ethnic communities, the Sinhalas and the Tamils, of the kind that the nation had experienced during the 26 year insurgency. And quite like that period, the two sides seem to be feeding of each other even now.

Again, one may talk of individual nations or go for the entire region, the year 2011 illustrated all over again that there seems to be a certain innate stalemate about the SAARC region.

And we aren’t even talking about the India-Pakistan relations.

No sane person can understand the animosity that India and Pakistan have harboured against each other for several years now, says Ghazi Salahuddin.

Events last week illustrated that the true fault line in India-China relations remains the 60 year-old acrimony over the Tibetan frontier.

From India’s increasing presence in the disputed waters of the South China Sea to the duel over diplomatic influence in Myanmar, developments in recent months amply illustrate how India and China will bump into each other as they grow in power and aspiration. But events last week illustrate that the true fault line in bilateral relations remains the 60 year-old acrimony over the Indo-Tibetan frontier. The border area was the site for the month-long war between the countries in 1962, as well as serious military crises in 1967 and 1987. It is the only place where the outbreak of armed conflict is a realistic possibility, as well as the focus for much of India’s expansive plans for military modernization. And the chances are good that the frictions here will only intensify in the years ahead.

The border was to be the stage for an act of India-China cooperation last week, when high-level talks were to convene in New Delhi aimed at managing the increasing quarrels along the Himalayan boundary. The meeting was also intended to prepare the way for a visit to India early next year by Xi Jinping, China’s vice president who is heir apparent to Hu Jintao. But the Chinese side abruptly pulled out of the talks after failing to persuade New Delhi to prevent the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader who is much reviled in Beijing as a separatist, from giving the valedictory address at an international Buddhist conclave that was meeting in the Indian capital at the same time.

The border talks will likely be rescheduled in the coming weeks. Both governments were circumspect in their official comments about the postponement. Notably, the Global Times, a Beijing-based tabloid that is an unfailing tribune of bemusing jingoism including recent fulminations aimed at New Delhi, reacted cautiously. In an editorial titled “China and India mustn’t go for the throat,” it counseled that:

“Both sides must keep the border issue from worsening by focusing on keeping good will talks alive and being mindful of the consequences of a sudden breakdown.”

A high-level defense dialogue between the two countries will also go ahead as scheduled in New Delhi this week. With the United States becoming more strategically assertive in East Asia – punctuated by President Barack Obama’s tour in the region last month – Beijing has high incentive to stabilize relations with India while it turns its attention to the challenges raised by Washington. The Global Times underscored this priority when it noted that even though India “appears to be highly interested in facing off with China,” the rivalry with New Delhi “is not the primary focus of Chinese society.”

With its own plate piled high with economic and governance challenges, not to mention the multiple insurgencies underway in its northeastern region, India also is keen to tamp down border ructions. Indeed, in deference to Chinese sensitivities, Pratibha Patil, India’s president who was supposed to inaugurate the Buddhist assembly, cancelled her participation, while Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, also scheduled to make an appearance, likewise stayed away.

But events are conspiring to upend each side’s preferences. As last week’s contretemps demonstrate, the border dispute is not simply a matter of contested claims over real estate. It also is bound up with the increasingly volatile issue of Tibetan nationalism. It is no coincidence that Beijing in recent years has turned up the volume about its territorial claims on the northeastern Indian states of Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh (the latter of which China has taken to calling “South Tibet”) at the same moment that the ethnic Tibetan population inside China has become more restive. Beijing views the agitations as the handiwork of the Dalai Lama, who has been especially effective in making Tibet an international cause célèbre, as well as the Tibetan government-in-exile. Both the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan exile core are based in Dharamsala in northern India.

Adding to the combustible mix is the location of Tawang Monastery, a revered site in Tibetan Buddhism that is just inside the Indian side of the contested border. The monastery is close to the birthplace of a 17th-century Dalai Lama who remains an immensely popular historical figure among Tibetans. Its significance has greatly increased after the current Dalai Lama stated that he might be reincarnated outside of Chinese-controlled territory and that the selection process for his successor might break with precedent, such as being hand-picked by him or chosen by popular acclaim. With Tawang likely to play an important role in the selection, Beijing is keen to assert control over it.

Beijing’s apoplexy over the Dalai Lama, once again on display last week in New Delhi, is a measure of its insecurity on the Tibet issue. This hypersensitivity has impelled the People’s Republic, officially an atheistic party-state, to entangle itself in deeply into the affairs of Tibetan religious institutions, including absurdly banning the current Dalai Lama from being reborn anywhere but inside China and insisting that it alone has the definitive word on the selection of his successor. It drove Beijing in 1995 to kidnap a six year-old Tibetan boy who the Dalai Lama proclaimed as the Panchen Lama, the second-ranking figure in Tibetan Buddhism. The boy’s fate remains unknown; Beijing has promoted its own candidate as the true Panchen Lama. While many Tibetans see this person as a pretender, he provides Beijing a key opening to manipulate the selection for the next Dalai Lama, since the Panchen Lama traditionally has a central part in the process.

China has also embarked on a charm offensive (here and here) to win the hearts and minds of the international Buddhist community, including plans to build a multi-billion dollar pilgrimage and tourism complex at the Buddha’s birthplace in Lumbini, Nepal, which is right on the border with India. New Delhi is counter-punching by sponsoring Buddhist gatherings, including the one last week that raised Beijing’s ire and which in one of its final acts decided to create an International Buddhist Confederation that will be headquartered in the Indian capital.

Given the volatility of the Tibetan issue, one could envision without much imagination scenarios that result in a military confrontation along the frontier. One might involve the outbreak of serious unrest within Tibet, leading to a Chinese crackdown that spills into India. Beijing could bring military pressure on New Delhi to clamp down on the Dalai Lama and his compatriots in Dharamsala, setting off a dangerous spiral of misperception and miscalculation. Alternatively, the passing of the Dalai Lama, who is now 76, could spark a tumultuous search for his successor, leading China to seize Tawang so it can control the outcome.

Unfortunately, there is ample historical precedent for such scenarios. Indian support of the abortive Tibetan uprising in 1959, for example, colored Beijing’s perceptions in the lead-up to the 1962 border war. And in the mid-1980s, an isolated incident in the Sumdurong Chu Valley in Arunachal Pradesh led to a serious military stand-off in early 1987. As one of the WikiLeaks dispatches from the U.S. embassy in Beijing reported, some Chinese observers believe that policy on Tibet is even more inflexible than toward Taiwan, where Beijing at least tolerates some U.S. interference. And concern among Chinese leaders over internal discontent is rising.

A New York Times article has called Tawang “the biggest tinderbox” in relations between India and China. Expect to hear more about it in the coming years.

(An earlier version of this post appeared at http://www.usinpac.com)