首页 >> 网友热帖 >> 不丹文章《印度洞郎入侵的背后:肮脏的一面》


          来源:www.5619.cc | 2017-08-12 10:10:16 | 人气:34 次    




  来源:龙腾网 整理:五毛网 http://www.wumaow.com

  本博客作者Wangcha Sangey是位不丹人。常年从不丹人的观点写博。

  On 29th July 2017, an article on Doklam Standoff was publishedin OneIndia News. The writer Vicky Nanjappa a senior Correspondentquoting " highly placed sources" wrote.

  OneIndia News于2017年7月29日发表一篇关于洞郎僵局的文章。资深记者VickyNanjappa引述“高层来源”写道:

  To quote :

  (以下有冒号的都是本文作者引述Vicky Nanjappa在OneIndiaNews发表的文章,下面是本文作者的反驳。)

  1. " For Bhutan, India guarantees its security through the2007 Friendship Treaty."


  This statement is a reiteration of the recent IndianGovernment stand that Bhutan is a " Protectorate state " ofIndia.

  Not at all acceptable to Bhutan and far from groundrealities.


  2 " Bhutan has allowed access to Indians on itsterritory."


  This statement alludes to the forceful encampment of Indiantroops on the Bhutanese side of disputed Doklam Plateau afterconfrontation with Chinese construction party.


  Now one can understand why India claimed first that they "were requested by Bhutan Army"  and later changed to " incoordination with Bhutan Army " and possibly after my blog whichrubbished such ludicrous claims, India declared that they were "protecting the security of their so called chicken neck". India hasno right of whatsoever to station Indian Army combat troops onBhutanese side of Doklam or the disputed area.


  Actually India's real goal was to engulf  Bhutan becausethey used the Doklam intrusion to declare:


  1. That Bhutan is a " Indian protectorate state ." That's whatIndia said of Sikkim before submerging her.


  2. India chose to brandish the 1949 Indo- Bhutan Treatywherein it was stated that Bhutan's foreign affairs was to beguided by India. That clause was removed in the 2007 revised 1949Indo- Bhutan Treaty. Bhutan opted to conduct her foreign affairsindependently and had never sought Indian guidance.  However,this time during Doklam crisis, India refused to recognise Bhutan's right to her own independent foreign policy.


  3. India made claims about a "security pact" with Bhutan.Thereis no such pact. Nothing in the knowledge of the BhutaneseParliament or the people.


  The Royal Bhutan Government or the Royal Bhutan Army whoseSupreme Commander is His Majesty the King would never have agreedto India's interference  into the Bhutan- China Border Talksespecially by use of military force. Bhutan is a small nation. Wehave to find peaceful means. Involving Indian Government or IndianArmy is the shortest route to national suicide.


  Let me relate following historical decisions of the Kings ofBhutan to demonstrate how wary Bhutan had always been of silenttakeover by the  powerful neighbourly friend called India.


  1. In 1962 during Sino- India war, the 3rd King of Bhutangranted safe passage to Indian soldiers fleeing Arunachal throughEastern Bhutan to India only after the soldiers surrendered theirrifles at Tashigang Dzong. This demonstrates that Bhutan does notwelcome armed combat troops even that of India. .


  2. In 2003, India offered combat troops to Bhutan to fightIndian militant groups.  There is already IMTRAT the trainingwing of Indian Army in Bhutan.They are supposed to be unarmed andtherefore, not in the category of regular fighting force.


  His Majesty the 4th King was not sure whether his own forcecould expel the militant groups. After all, the greater numberedmilitants were also battle hardened and well armed.  But HisMajesty was sure of one reality. That was if he accepted combattroops of Indian Army into the Kingdom, that would be the end ofsovereign Bhutan. So the King took the less evil option. The offerof Indian Army was declined. And His Majesty decided to lead inperson the Royal Bhutan Army to expel the various groups  likeULFA ,  BODO and  KLO Indian militants camped in thethick jungles of Southern Bhutan.


  The People and the Government of Bhutan was fearful for thepersonal safety of the royal being and tried to dissuade the King.But His Majesty's response revealed how deeply he had pondered. TheKing said, " If I am not there in the field to look after my bravesoldiers, the slim chance that we have in defeating the militantsis lost. And a defeat in the battle field means the lost of Bhutan.Therefore, the danger to the Bhutanese nation and the throne ismore imminent if I stay behind."  Thus began the " OperationAll Clear " under His Majesty's personal command.  And allmilitant groups were successfully cleared out from Bhutan by theBhutan Army. The defeat of the Indian militant groups by theBhutanese Army stunned the Indian Army to silent reverence.The featsurpassed all dictates of art of army war- fares.

  不丹人民和政府出于担心陛下的安危,企图劝阻国王。但深思后的国王陛下说道:“如果我不上前线鼓舞士气,我们将难以抗拒那些武装组织。而战场上的失败将意味着不丹的亡国。因此,不丹国和王室的安危甚于我个人的。”在国王陛下亲领下,“肃清行动(OperationAll Clear)”开始了。全部武装组织被不丹军队清除。不丹的成功震惊了印度军方。这项行动超越了所有兵书上的智慧。

  Considering such super human sacrifices made by the people andKings of Bhutan, it would be crazy to seek Indian intervention atDoklam. Indian Army had simply bull dozed in  unannounced. Aninvasion at Doklam happened.


  Initially it seemed that Bhutan was duped by Indian action atDoklam. Maybe Bhutan just  meekly succumbed to Indianaggression on the border front and diplomatic arm twisting on theforeign affairs front. Bhutan complained to China and even issued aPress Release that were in line with political ploy ofIndia.Thankfully Bhutan, ultimately, recognised betrayal signs anddecided to stand her ground. Bhutan refused to condone Indiantransgression at Doklam. If she had , next thing Thimphu, Paro andHaa would have been flooded with Indian combat troops and warmachinaries on the pretext of enevitability of Chinese invasion.From the day one of transgression at Doklam, vociferous Indians andeven few treacherous pro-Indian Bhutanese voices were crying aloudabout the danger posed by China from Doklam to the  northernValleys of Haa, Paro and Thimphu. Doklam is actually part of SamtseDzongkhag in the South.  Most Bhutanese did not even hear ofname of the remote mountsin Plateau till then. And ironically ifsuch evil people had their ways, before China or even mostBhutanese woke up, Bhutan could have been another Sikkim.


  Bhutan is weak and small to physically  challenge themight of India.  However, by all international standard,Bhutan should have cried " foul" against India for thetransgression into Bhutanese controlled Doklam territory by armedtroops of India.


  This is the reason why China has been  demanding thatIndian Army withdraw from the present positions or there will be anall out war. China had declared in no uncertain term that thistransgression was very different in nature and intent from allother China- India border skirmishes. India was defying China froma third country territory. Therefore, China is threatening toattack wherever Indian Army is. Which means all of Indian land, seaand even Bhutan the unwilling host of Indian Army at the TriJunction. I feel that any nation not just China, has the sovereignand moral rights  to take firm and effective retaliatoryaction against such treacherous conduct.


  But even in her deep humiliating state of silent distress andperhaps in dismayed betrayal confusion, Bhutan found the politicalsanity not to cower down to the level of condoning Indiantransgression into Bhutan as well as into the Chinese Doklam. Andthat stumped the Indian touted position " protecting Bhutan fromChina "  that India tried hard selling to the internationalcommunity. India is not protecting Bhutan. India is trying toengulf Bhutan on premeditated pretext.


  I had earlier said that Doklam incident may be the working ofour Deities. And strangely it might turn out to be  just that.India did not bargain upon China's determination for an all out warin 5 fronts for this Indian act of treachery at Doklam. India itseems was planning for a limitted war.  However, to theChinese, a limitted war restricted to Doklam only, would in anycase sabotage the Chinese goal of One Belt Road Initiative andfurther compromise the buffer status of Bhutan in India's favour.If a war must happen with India, it made more sense for China tohave a full scale war at all 5 fronts ( Bhutan-Sikkim, Arunachal,Kashmir, Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal).  That would be adecisive war worth risking.


  It seems that both America and Japan have no appetite for sucha large scale war stretching from the Himalayas to the IndianOcean. During the recent Malabar naval and air war exercisesconducted concurrently with Doklam crisis by America, India andJapan, China sent 13 war ships plus submarines to convey adefinitive message to the tiresome three. In addition the newaircraft carrier of China was docked at Hong Kong to get Japaneseattention. Personally, I hope Japan had nothing to do, evenremotely, with Doklam venture. Bhutan and Japan enjoy the highestof regards between people and the Royal Houses.


  A short limitted war between India and China suited Westernarmament industries and American policy of containing China. Or atthe least distracting China from One Belt Road Initiative and SouthChina Sea.  But an all out global war where even Russia couldget involved was a No No. Thus it appears that India left on herown, has been forced to capitulate after the sneakytransgression.

  India had quietly amassed huge forces at Sikkim and SiliguriChicken neck in preparation for a limitted war at Doklam to quotean Indian writer, " to give a bloody nose to China " who was caughtoff guard at Doklam. India wanted to establish full and completehegemony over  Bhutan through a short brief war atDoklam.  Not a full scale five front war.

  中印之间短暂有限的战争符合西方军火商的利益,也符合美国围堵中国的政策。至少它将使中国从一带一路建设和南海问题上分心。但是,一个可能拖入俄罗斯的全面性世界大战是不行的。所以,印度只能靠自己,因此它被迫采取如此卑鄙的入侵方式。印度静悄悄地在锡金和西里古里走廊地区大量集军以便在洞郎地区展开一场有限战争。用位印度人的说法,那就是“教训一下(Togive a bloody nose toChina)”在洞郎事件上猝不及防的中国。印度要借此对不丹展现其全面的霸权,要的是一个简短洞郎战争,而不是全面五方位战争。

  The same correspondent Vicky Nanjappa also revealed how Indiawas now going about to resolve the Standoff at Doklam. To quote him:

  该位记者Vicky Nanjappa也透露印度将如何解决洞郎僵局。引述他的话:

  " It is a complex situation and India at best would withdrawtroops on the pre-condition that it is replaced by the forces fromBhutan."  Similar political view has been again repeated inThe Indian Express by Sushant Singh on 4th August ( today) .


  What this means is that the Indian Security Advisor Ajit Dovalhad conveyed to Beijing the willingness of Indian Army to withdrawfrom Bhutan and China Doklam.

  这说明印度国家安全顾问Ajit Doval已对北京表达出从不丹和中国洞郎撤军的意愿。

  Nanjappa's above statement is couched in diplomatic facesaving graceful language.


  China would never accept Bhutanese Army in place of IndianArmy in the Chinese controlled Doklam territory. So it had to be areference to Indian Army vacating Bhutan controlled Doklamterritory which would subsequently leave only Bhutanese patrollingcontigent behind. Naturally that would suit Bhutan.


  But simple withdrawl from Doklam would not have appeased themost infuriated Chinese PLA. So the offer had to be accompanied bythe  commitment not to interfere into the Sino- Bhutan BorderTalks as well as never again encroach into Chinese controlledDoklam or attempt to station Indian combat troops on Bhutaneseterritory at the Tri- Junction or other Sino- Bhutan Borders. Somehints are already reflected in The Indian Express articletoday.


  I just hope and pray that Bhutan signs the Border Agreementwith China and establish diplomatic relation, too. That would be afitting Majestic response from Bhutan to the blatant Indianarrogance and aggression.  I do not care for China but forBhutan such an Agreement would elevate Bhutan amongst theinternational community. And Bhutan will never be so readilytrampled over and alleged to be a " Protectorate State" underIndia.


  India twisted the friendship language of  the 2007 Treatythat distanced Bhutan from India to that of further subjugation andproclaimed Bhutan as her " Protectorate state". Such stands havewounded both Bhutanese national status and caused lasting damage tothe golden Throne. In one single stroke, India callously blackenedthe legacy of the 4th King who got the 1949 Indo-BhutanTreaty  revised in 2007 and the reigning King who signed theTreaty. In doing so, India explicitly implied that the Kings ofBhutan are her surrogates reigning Bhutan under the Indianguarantees. Not as sovereign Kings of a sovereign Kingdom.


  The established historical fact is that Wangchuck Dynasty ofBhutan was established in 1907 exactly 40 years before India evengot her independence from the British Raj. Now Bhutan has to find adignified way to stand up and regain lost honour. No need to askIMTRAT AND DANTAK to leave. We hold genuine friendship for Indianpeople and real  appreations for economic aids and transitpassages.  Let's simply elevate Bhutan to equal neighbourlystatus and realistic friendship terms with both India and China.Time and events are calling upon Bhutanese leadership to act withcourage and speed. Bhutan needs to sign the Sino- Bhutan BorderAgreement and open embassies with China. All can then rest easierwith recovered dignity.

关于我们 - 广告服务 - 诚聘英才 - 网站地图 - 手机站 -
Copyright 2011 5619CC lnc. ALL Rights Reserved