Testing dataSKSKSKYYYYY

test test test test  Test story create By shakti

Test test test test test

Ethnic dissidence is a worldwide phenomenon and Sri Lanka is no exception to it with her multiplicity of ethnic composition. Within the ethnic frame lies the religious societal subdivisions also with its cognitive diversity impacting on internal political dynamics. Sri Lanka, a nation of immigrants alongside minuscule aboriginals, has been fighting within to secure political spaces in regional geographical spreads of their settlements. As a young Major in Indian Army, I do have reflections of Sri Lankan societal milieu, characterised by an extremely low threshold for violence based on ethnic sensitivities. The religion mattered but was not a reason for a conflict situation. What is happening in Kandy was waiting to happen with Sinhala chauvinism and their deep-set antagonist attitude towards minority ethnic groups.

At one level there is an ethnic divide between Sinhala majority and Tamil minority which saw three decades violent mayhem culminating in literally a genocide in North and Eastern region. The second level is the religious ingredient of the larger ethnic frame which has a politically strong Sinhala Buddhist lobby and deprived South Indian migrants comprising Hindu, Christians and Muslim minorities under the Tamil political umbrella. Overbearing conduct of Sinhalas with their unchallenged political power has been the main cause of socio-political turmoil in the island nation. It continues even today despite fair progress in the grant of regional autonomy.

Kandy, the scene of current disturbances, is the gateway to economically vibrant western coastal areas and dominating central high lands famous for its tea plantations. It also happens to be the frontier bastion of Buddhist culture in the face of other religious entities who dominate the north and eastern regions. Accordingly, Kandy is the cultural centre of gravity of Sri Lanka which has been the focus of umpteen number of ethnic, religious and military forays in the known historical accounts including Indian mythological beliefs. Therefore, Kandy is treated as a symbol of Buddhist pride and Sinhala assertiveness in the island nation. Hence, needs to be nurtured and protected from negative cultural afflictions.

On the face of it, there doesn&rsquo;t seem to be such a grave situation when looked at from Indian perspective as such religious riots are routine affairs here. The district administration is good enough to take care of such social disturbances in normal circumstances. Imposing emergency and sacking the Prime Minister&nbsp;after reported police inaction speaks of something more serious and sinister than what meets the eye. The Buddhist and Islamists have been reported to be at loggers head for quite some time in the central region where both are reasonably well entrenched. Minor religious confrontations are obvious in such a situation.

The decimation of majority Hindu insurgents fighting for a separate Tamil Elam has created a political space on the cusp of central and eastern regions. What probably is happening in Sri Lanka is an expression of the partial shift from ethnic-centric opposition to religious aggressiveness in a typical pattern of emergence of political Islam as seen in other parts of the world. What, probably, is worrying the political establishment, are the inroads of religiously indoctrinated radical elements as an added point of friction disturbing the socio-political synergies achieved after a military purge of LTTE and its affiliates.

With social media blackout, it is not clear if it is only an innocuous religious outburst, or a deliberate politically surcharged movement likely to impact on the political fabric of the island nation. There are telltale signs of high handedness of Sinhala majority across the island as seen earlier in the mid-80s which led to the emergence of Tamil insurgency. Is the cycle of antagonist political opposition starting once again, albeit in a different format wherein Islamic forces would be in the forefront with other Tamil minorities in back up support? After all the terrain, demographic composition and sense of political deprivation in face of Sinhala chauvinism continue to be the same.

Maybe it is a passing phase which happens in any multi-ethnic, multi-religious society and will get resolved after some time. The government in power needs to resolve the matter through cooperative approach taking all the stakeholders on board. Suppression of politico-religious opposition through imposing emergency and one-sided police actions may further alienate the minorities. The silver lining is that there is no indication of organised armed clashes making it a case of a disturbed public order requiring a mature socio-political treatment, lest it translates into a politico-military problem as it has happened in the past. Sri Lanka has to take a call.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Crisis in Sri-Lanka is a passing phase which happens in any multi-ethnic, multi-religious society. The government in power needs to resolve the matter through cooperative approach taking all the stakeholders on board.

Ethnic dissidence is a worldwide phenomenon and Sri Lanka is no exception to it with her multiplicity of ethnic composition. Within the ethnic frame lies the religious societal subdivisions also with its cognitive diversity impacting on internal political dynamics. Sri Lanka, a nation of immigrants alongside minuscule aboriginals, has been fighting within to secure political spaces in regional geographical spreads of their settlements. As a young Major in Indian Army, I do have reflections of Sri Lankan societal milieu, characterised by an extremely low threshold for violence based on ethnic sensitivities. The religion mattered but was not a reason for a conflict situation. What is happening in Kandy was waiting to happen with Sinhala chauvinism and their deep-set antagonist attitude towards minority ethnic groups. At one level there is an ethnic divide between Sinhala majority and Tamil minority which saw three decades violent mayhem culminating in literally a genocide in North and Eastern region. The second level is the religious ingredient of the larger ethnic frame which has a politically strong Sinhala Buddhist lobby and deprived South Indian migrants comprising Hindu, Christians and Muslim minorities under the Tamil political umbrella. Overbearing conduct of Sinhalas with their unchallenged political power has been the main cause of socio-political turmoil in the island nation. It continues even today despite fair progress in the grant of regional autonomy. Kandy, the scene of current disturbances, is the gateway to economically vibrant western coastal areas and dominating central high lands famous for its tea plantations. It also happens to be the frontier bastion of Buddhist culture in the face of other religious entities who dominate the north and eastern regions. Accordingly, Kandy is the cultural centre of gravity of Sri Lanka which has been the focus of umpteen number of ethnic, religious and military forays in the known historical accounts including Indian mythological beliefs. Therefore, Kandy is treated as a symbol of Buddhist pride and Sinhala assertiveness in the island nation. Hence, needs to be nurtured and protected from negative cultural afflictions. On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be such a grave situation when looked at from Indian perspective as such religious riots are routine affairs here. The district administration is good enough to take care of such social disturbances in normal circumstances. Imposing emergency and sacking the Prime Minister after reported police inaction speaks of something more serious and sinister than what meets the eye. The Buddhist and Islamists have been reported to be at loggers head for quite some time in the central region where both are reasonably well entrenched. Minor religious confrontations are obvious in such a situation. The decimation of majority Hindu insurgents fighting for a separate Tamil Elam has created a political space on the cusp of central and eastern regions. What probably is happening in Sri Lanka is an expression of the partial shift from ethnic-centric opposition to religious aggressiveness in a typical pattern of emergence of political Islam as seen in other parts of the world. What, probably, is worrying the political establishment, are the inroads of religiously indoctrinated radical elements as an added point of friction disturbing the socio-political synergies achieved after a military purge of LTTE and its affiliates. With social media blackout, it is not clear if it is only an innocuous religious outburst, or a deliberate politically surcharged movement likely to impact on the political fabric of the island nation. There are telltale signs of high handedness of Sinhala majority across the island as seen earlier in the mid-80s which led to the emergence of Tamil insurgency. Is the cycle of antagonist political opposition starting once again, albeit in a different format wherein Islamic forces would be in the forefront with other Tamil minorities in back up support? After all the terrain, demographic composition and sense of political deprivation in face of Sinhala chauvinism continue to be the same. Maybe it is a passing phase which happens in any multi-ethnic, multi-religious society and will get resolved after some time. The government in power needs to resolve the matter through cooperative approach taking all the stakeholders on board. Suppression of politico-religious opposition through imposing emergency and one-sided police actions may further alienate the minorities. The silver lining is that there is no indication of organised armed clashes making it a case of a disturbed public order requiring a mature socio-political treatment, lest it translates into a politico-military problem as it has happened in the past. Sri Lanka has to take a call. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Sri Lankan crisis can be resolved if government takes cooperative approach

The talks of extension of Chinese president Xi Jinping&rsquo;s tenure beyond the stipulated limit of two terms as per their 1982 constitution is generating reasonable interest in the diplomatic circles. We Indians, from an open democracy with no such restrictions, have no case to comment on the political philosophies, structures and processes that China wants to adopt. It is purely their call, albeit it has exposed an inherent flaw in their constitutional design.

The sensibility of this proposed change is under scrutiny as President Xi is currently the head of all three apex level decision making bodies, including the communist party, national people&rsquo;s congress and the military commission. In absence of political opposition in the one-party political system, a division of power amongst these three institutions has some modicum of conceptual debate on national issues, if not an elbow space for a &nbsp;dissent in a communist structure. With the proposed changes, however, the possibility of prompting by the all-powerful president himself cannot be ruled out. The change is symbolic of giving higher credence to a perceived successful personality over the proven institutional strength of existing governance structures.

What concerns the international community most are the political connotations; China is seen as transitioning to quasi-dictatorial political structures. There are fair chances of enhanced political hubris of China in the absence of internal political opposition. This can get worse with President Xi&rsquo;s penchant for the conduct of aggressive diplomacy as observed so far.&nbsp;

Closer home, one cannot forget the Chinese duplicity and high handedness in orchestrating a major incursion across the Line of Actual Control (LAC) into Indian territory while President Xi was on a state visit to India, conveying a coercive politico- military message. Soon, thereafter, the Doklam happened as a sequel. The timings of the Doklam face-off was apparently linked to the domestic political compulsion of President Xi who intended to showcase his firm handling of territorial issues with an aim of enhancing his central position in Chinese polity in the forthcoming 19th Congress meet and the 90th anniversary of PLA.&nbsp;

However, the Chinese bluff was exposed with firm political handling and Indian military resolve. A repeat of such military incursions cannot be ruled out in the future once Xi is firmly in the saddle for a longer tenure. Open threats of using military force and anti-India rhetoric from their foreign office on trivial issues are part of Chinese psychological warfare to keep India on the back foot.&nbsp;

Looking at the pattern of political aggressiveness during his tenure so far, Xi seems to have used anti-India quotient in a deft manner, thereby, rallying national sentiments in his favour besides similar other international politically significant initiatives with military signatures.&nbsp;

It also appears that China is getting worried due to the refusal of India to join CPEC bandwagon which is the key to its success, their biggest political investment in recent times. Fearing an adverse impact on their politico-economic ambitions, they seem to be desperate to tame India through a show of force, a sure shot recipe in their medieval mindset. &nbsp;Whereas, with the increased political clout and strategic pull of India as well as with the help from the US has put the Chinese under pressure to introspect their conduct. &nbsp;

Chinese stand down from supporting Pakistan in FAFT and their reported outreach to the ASEAN countries in working out a code of conduct in the South China Sea are indicative of scaling down of their obstinate political posturing. These changes are due to their political compulsions to push through their national agenda as of now. However, their underlying confrontationist tendencies are likely to continue under Xi in order to retain Chinese political position of strength.

Xi happens to be the tallest Chinese leader in the current strategically transitory situation. Moreover, he has developed a working equation and personal rapport with the current world political leaders who are going to be around for some time. From the Chinese perspective, it certainly is a sensible idea to perpetuate the vision of president Xi instead of bringing in a new incumbent in order to ensure political stability. Hence, a case for his continuation as an exception in the Chinese national interests.

While the Chinese proposal has its merits, it is also fraught with negatives that are detrimental not only to China but also to the world in general. Given the current Chinese politico-economic outreach and subtle military signatures beyond their borders. Since human mind has limited cognitive capabilities, depending on one individual as an ultimate arbitrator becomes counterproductive in the longer run.&nbsp;

Moreover, anti-incumbency is a known phenomenon in any political system which would have no room for catharsis in a single point closed Chinese system, unlike a democracy where there is an option for change. One man show at times may fail to keep pace with the contemporary geopolitical changes due to a rigidity of perceptions, thereby, losing out on political flexibility to adapt to requisite environmental synergies. In the proposed system perception of an individual would have the power to overrule the institutional decision-making mechanism which may manifest into inappropriate synergies.

Now that President Xi is likely to continue in the office beyond the stipulated two terms, he would serve the Chinese interests better if he accords priority to cooperation instead of confrontation. It is &nbsp;President Xi, who has to take a call with added faith and concomitant responsibilities bestowed upon him by the Chinese people.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Xi Jinping would serve the Chinese interests better if he accords priority to Cooperation instead of confrontation.

The talks of extension of Chinese president Xi Jinping’s tenure beyond the stipulated limit of two terms as per their 1982 constitution is generating reasonable interest in the diplomatic circles. We Indians, from an open democracy with no such restrictions, have no case to comment on the political philosophies, structures and processes that China wants to adopt. It is purely their call, albeit it has exposed an inherent flaw in their constitutional design. The sensibility of this proposed change is under scrutiny as President Xi is currently the head of all three apex level decision making bodies, including the communist party, national people’s congress and the military commission. In absence of political opposition in the one-party political system, a division of power amongst these three institutions has some modicum of conceptual debate on national issues, if not an elbow space for a dissent in a communist structure. With the proposed changes, however, the possibility of prompting by the all-powerful president himself cannot be ruled out. The change is symbolic of giving higher credence to a perceived successful personality over the proven institutional strength of existing governance structures. What concerns the international community most are the political connotations; China is seen as transitioning to quasi-dictatorial political structures. There are fair chances of enhanced political hubris of China in the absence of internal political opposition. This can get worse with President Xi’s penchant for the conduct of aggressive diplomacy as observed so far. Closer home, one cannot forget the Chinese duplicity and high handedness in orchestrating a major incursion across the Line of Actual Control (LAC) into Indian territory while President Xi was on a state visit to India, conveying a coercive politico- military message. Soon, thereafter, the Doklam happened as a sequel. The timings of the Doklam face-off was apparently linked to the domestic political compulsion of President Xi who intended to showcase his firm handling of territorial issues with an aim of enhancing his central position in Chinese polity in the forthcoming 19th Congress meet and the 90th anniversary of PLA. However, the Chinese bluff was exposed with firm political handling and Indian military resolve. A repeat of such military incursions cannot be ruled out in the future once Xi is firmly in the saddle for a longer tenure. Open threats of using military force and anti-India rhetoric from their foreign office on trivial issues are part of Chinese psychological warfare to keep India on the back foot. Looking at the pattern of political aggressiveness during his tenure so far, Xi seems to have used anti-India quotient in a deft manner, thereby, rallying national sentiments in his favour besides similar other international politically significant initiatives with military signatures. It also appears that China is getting worried due to the refusal of India to join CPEC bandwagon which is the key to its success, their biggest political investment in recent times. Fearing an adverse impact on their politico-economic ambitions, they seem to be desperate to tame India through a show of force, a sure shot recipe in their medieval mindset. Whereas, with the increased political clout and strategic pull of India as well as with the help from the US has put the Chinese under pressure to introspect their conduct. Chinese stand down from supporting Pakistan in FAFT and their reported outreach to the ASEAN countries in working out a code of conduct in the South China Sea are indicative of scaling down of their obstinate political posturing. These changes are due to their political compulsions to push through their national agenda as of now. However, their underlying confrontationist tendencies are likely to continue under Xi in order to retain Chinese political position of strength. Xi happens to be the tallest Chinese leader in the current strategically transitory situation. Moreover, he has developed a working equation and personal rapport with the current world political leaders who are going to be around for some time. From the Chinese perspective, it certainly is a sensible idea to perpetuate the vision of president Xi instead of bringing in a new incumbent in order to ensure political stability. Hence, a case for his continuation as an exception in the Chinese national interests. While the Chinese proposal has its merits, it is also fraught with negatives that are detrimental not only to China but also to the world in general. Given the current Chinese politico-economic outreach and subtle military signatures beyond their borders. Since human mind has limited cognitive capabilities, depending on one individual as an ultimate arbitrator becomes counterproductive in the longer run. Moreover, anti-incumbency is a known phenomenon in any political system which would have no room for catharsis in a single point closed Chinese system, unlike a democracy where there is an option for change. One man show at times may fail to keep pace with the contemporary geopolitical changes due to a rigidity of perceptions, thereby, losing out on political flexibility to adapt to requisite environmental synergies. In the proposed system perception of an individual would have the power to overrule the institutional decision-making mechanism which may manifest into inappropriate synergies. Now that President Xi is likely to continue in the office beyond the stipulated two terms, he would serve the Chinese interests better if he accords priority to cooperation instead of confrontation. It is President Xi, who has to take a call with added faith and concomitant responsibilities bestowed upon him by the Chinese people. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: China is giving Xi Jinping unprecedented power

There seems a euphoria amongst Indians on the reported indications of Pakistan being put on the watch list on terror financing by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) at Paris on February 23. The Pakistani establishment in their typical deceit and denial mode has rubbished the report with a caveat that let it come officially. The significance of this report does not lie in what India or Pakistan are saying, but it distinctly reflects the hard geopolitics of external players in the South Asian region and signs of shifting strategic paradigms. &nbsp;What happened in Paris was waiting to come sooner or later as Pakistan refuses to see reason in the futility of their policies to use terrorism as a strategic weapon.

China, for the first time, has not supported Pakistan which is the biggest strategic take in the entire episode.&nbsp;Assertive prompting by the Trump administration has probably done the trick as they obviously are not happy with the double game being played by Pakistan when it comes to affairs in Afghanistan. Currently, China&nbsp;is primarily concerned about the success of their CPEC scheme, their biggest political investment in recent times. If Pakistan is not bailed out of the situation, then the&nbsp;politico-economic dreams of China would be doomed forever. Hence, Chinese were compelled to review the consistent support it has given to Pakistan all these years despite Pakistani political irrationalities.&nbsp;

The US needs Pakistan for sustaining their forces in Afghanistan. Accordingly, substantial financial grants have been given to Pakistan since the 1980s when Afghanistan came under US strategic radar to push out Russians and, now, for control of the Central Asian Region. Pakistan has been indulging in duplicity; on the one hand, giving support to the US in their GWOT and, at the same time, continuing with their complicity in propping up Taliban affiliates in Afghanistan and ferment insurgency in Kashmir. Trump administration has seen through the Pakistani bluff and suspended financial aid till Pakistan shows improvement. US warning to Pakistan is, No More- Do More.

Improvement in the security situation in Afghanistan is a common compulsion both for the US as well as China, &nbsp;albeit for different reasons. The US is looking at bringing about national reconciliation to evolve a political dispensation which would be loyal to them and take care of their strategic interests. While it has not happened despite their 15 years of politico-military investment and financial incentives to proponents of violence in Afghanistan, hence, there is a need for tougher alternate measures. As regards to China, they are looking at the safe passage of goods and services of Central Asian and landlocked Eurasian countries who want to be part of CPEC bandwagon. Unless Afghanistan is politically stable there would be no economies of scale for Chinese plans. Therefore, it is a strategic call for China.

Besides above, the US and China are the biggest trade partners and their prosperity and national powers are dependent on their mutual support. The Chinese economy is also dependent on outsourcing the manufacturings of the western world which they, obviously, cannot afford to ignore. Hence, US and China seem to be on the same page in FATF confabulations and an apparent shift in Chinese stance in their strategic interests.

One can understand the compulsion of China in adopting a neutral stance instead of voting against Pakistan in FATF. This policy deviation is symbiotic of Chinese concern as regards to Pakistani complicity in terrorism in the areas of their geopolitical interests. China also realises that Pakistan has nuisance value to jeopardise the CPEC scheme with their jihadi mechanism at their time and place of choosing. It may well include the start point of CPEC at Xinjiang itself, &nbsp;or anywhere else astride the envisaged economic corridor. Therefore, they have chosen to be neutral, a diplomatic stance with elbow space to revert, thereby, retaining their political flexibility.

China, with their surplus funds, is also aspiring to play a dominant role in global financial institutions and control mechanisms. FATF is one such body which has influence over fund allocations by IMF, World Bank and other such international financial institutions.The US and India are reported to have assured support to China for the higher slot in FATF in return for showing their neutrality to Pakistan on the issue of terrorism. China obviously has taken the bait, signalling their intentions to contribute towards neutralising terrorism.

The other traditional supporters of Pakistan from the Islamic world also seem to be changing their political tracks with emerging threat to West Asian economies in the face of changing the geopolitics of oil and gas world over. Saudi Arabia, GCC members and Turkey were persuaded to stand down on the issue of continuation of their support to Pakistani dispensation. They have seen the reason lest they are isolated in emerging opportunities with the economic centre of gravity shifting to Asia.

The writing on the walls is quite clear, the world is concerned over Pakistani involvement in the spread of terrorism. In that, even the longtime confidants of Pakistan seem to be prompting Pakistan to mend their ways and review political priorities. These are signs of changing strategic paradigms probably a step towards an emerging world order in which China is trying to be a significant contributor. Politics of strategic compulsions is in play which is projecting new possibilities of political synergies in the region. A positive beginning has been made which needs to be encouraged and nurtured.&nbsp;

 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The writing on the walls is quite clear, the world is concerned over Pakistani involvement in the spread of terrorism.

There seems a euphoria amongst Indians on the reported indications of Pakistan being put on the watch list on terror financing by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) at Paris on February 23. The Pakistani establishment in their typical deceit and denial mode has rubbished the report with a caveat that let it come officially. The significance of this report does not lie in what India or Pakistan are saying, but it distinctly reflects the hard geopolitics of external players in the South Asian region and signs of shifting strategic paradigms. What happened in Paris was waiting to come sooner or later as Pakistan refuses to see reason in the futility of their policies to use terrorism as a strategic weapon. China, for the first time, has not supported Pakistan which is the biggest strategic take in the entire episode. Assertive prompting by the Trump administration has probably done the trick as they obviously are not happy with the double game being played by Pakistan when it comes to affairs in Afghanistan. Currently, China is primarily concerned about the success of their CPEC scheme, their biggest political investment in recent times. If Pakistan is not bailed out of the situation, then the politico-economic dreams of China would be doomed forever. Hence, Chinese were compelled to review the consistent support it has given to Pakistan all these years despite Pakistani political irrationalities. The US needs Pakistan for sustaining their forces in Afghanistan. Accordingly, substantial financial grants have been given to Pakistan since the 1980s when Afghanistan came under US strategic radar to push out Russians and, now, for control of the Central Asian Region. Pakistan has been indulging in duplicity; on the one hand, giving support to the US in their GWOT and, at the same time, continuing with their complicity in propping up Taliban affiliates in Afghanistan and ferment insurgency in Kashmir. Trump administration has seen through the Pakistani bluff and suspended financial aid till Pakistan shows improvement. US warning to Pakistan is, No More- Do More. Improvement in the security situation in Afghanistan is a common compulsion both for the US as well as China, albeit for different reasons. The US is looking at bringing about national reconciliation to evolve a political dispensation which would be loyal to them and take care of their strategic interests. While it has not happened despite their 15 years of politico-military investment and financial incentives to proponents of violence in Afghanistan, hence, there is a need for tougher alternate measures. As regards to China, they are looking at the safe passage of goods and services of Central Asian and landlocked Eurasian countries who want to be part of CPEC bandwagon. Unless Afghanistan is politically stable there would be no economies of scale for Chinese plans. Therefore, it is a strategic call for China. Besides above, the US and China are the biggest trade partners and their prosperity and national powers are dependent on their mutual support. The Chinese economy is also dependent on outsourcing the manufacturings of the western world which they, obviously, cannot afford to ignore. Hence, US and China seem to be on the same page in FATF confabulations and an apparent shift in Chinese stance in their strategic interests. One can understand the compulsion of China in adopting a neutral stance instead of voting against Pakistan in FATF. This policy deviation is symbiotic of Chinese concern as regards to Pakistani complicity in terrorism in the areas of their geopolitical interests. China also realises that Pakistan has nuisance value to jeopardise the CPEC scheme with their jihadi mechanism at their time and place of choosing. It may well include the start point of CPEC at Xinjiang itself, or anywhere else astride the envisaged economic corridor. Therefore, they have chosen to be neutral, a diplomatic stance with elbow space to revert, thereby, retaining their political flexibility. China, with their surplus funds, is also aspiring to play a dominant role in global financial institutions and control mechanisms. FATF is one such body which has influence over fund allocations by IMF, World Bank and other such international financial institutions.The US and India are reported to have assured support to China for the higher slot in FATF in return for showing their neutrality to Pakistan on the issue of terrorism. China obviously has taken the bait, signalling their intentions to contribute towards neutralising terrorism. The other traditional supporters of Pakistan from the Islamic world also seem to be changing their political tracks with emerging threat to West Asian economies in the face of changing the geopolitics of oil and gas world over. Saudi Arabia, GCC members and Turkey were persuaded to stand down on the issue of continuation of their support to Pakistani dispensation. They have seen the reason lest they are isolated in emerging opportunities with the economic centre of gravity shifting to Asia. The writing on the walls is quite clear, the world is concerned over Pakistani involvement in the spread of terrorism. In that, even the longtime confidants of Pakistan seem to be prompting Pakistan to mend their ways and review political priorities. These are signs of changing strategic paradigms probably a step towards an emerging world order in which China is trying to be a significant contributor. Politics of strategic compulsions is in play which is projecting new possibilities of political synergies in the region. A positive beginning has been made which needs to be encouraged and nurtured. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Why China did not support Pakistan on terror financing list

As China should work towards reducing tension in the Indian Ocean Region and put pressure on Pakistan to accept India&#39;s position over Kashmir, an improved Sino-Indian relationship can only be possible if India, in response, should agree to facilitate the unhindered utilisation of Chinese-built road through Aksai Chin. The Chinese built this road to serve some very crucial logistical purposes, particularly, to connect with the Xin Jiang province, the raison de etre for the occupation of Aksai Chin in 1962. Further, India should also agree to transit facilities to China for CPEC infrastructure, passing through the Indian territory in POK.&nbsp;&nbsp;

China needs to persuade Pakistan to see reason in revisiting their political priorities. Pakistan&#39;s Kashmir obsession has catapulted it into a political cauldron of the economic mess, governance deficit and slanderous afflictions associated with terrorism. It has been amply proved in Pakistan&#39;s case that the religion alone is not the binding force to sustain the viability of a nation-state. Pakistan needs to introspect their politico-religious concepts as they have failed to keep East Pakistan based on it and there are dissident movements continuing within Pakistan, indicating flaws in theological overreach which Pakistan propagates in Kashmir.

Moreover, looking at current US strategic interests, Russian assertiveness, and Chinese aggressiveness in the Asian landscape,&nbsp; it has the potential to impact on political autonomy and security of Pakistan itself.&nbsp; Reconciliation with India would bestow higher political buoyancy to absorb the negative influences of extra-regional manipulations which is a bigger threat to them as on date. Pakistani civil society and think tanks are abuzz with such fears and have been vocal in favour of an urgent need of a reality check by the ruling establishment.&nbsp;

Post reconciliation, if it happens, Pakistan would no longer require strategic depth against India which has been the primary motive of their complicity in fostering insurgency in Afghanistan. As a cascading effect, it would pave the way for reconciliation amongst the warring factions of Afghanistan as Pakistan have substantial influence over Taliban and their affiliates. It will help in bringing about political stability in the Af-Pak region, leading to a gradual reduction in terrorism, a matter of grave international concern. It would also deny any excuse for extra-regional powers to meddle in their internal affairs to an extent they do it as of now.&nbsp;&nbsp;

With security situation improving in Afghanistan, the success of CPEC would get a further boost with the participation of Central Asian Republics and Eurasian countries. Besides this, Pakistan would have much needed higher economic synergies with a friendly India and its&nbsp; MFN status for trade and commerce. As a consequence, Pakistan would have fair chances to bring about their economic turnaround. It is time for Pakistan to realise that their political vibrancy is a function of regional cohesiveness and not extra-regional political surrogacy.&nbsp;

The&nbsp; spectre of ten ASEAN heads of states on 69th republic day of India, Quad sponsored mil exercises in Indo- Pacific, suspension&nbsp; of US aid to Pakistan,&nbsp; Indian&nbsp; concern on illegality of CPEC alignment through POK, Chabahar port as an alternate linkage to Afghanistan and Eurasia are all links to a subtle&nbsp; political message to China and Pakistan combine signaling them to revisit their priority matrix . India is central to this diplomatic push being the dominant power in IOR and South Asian landscape, hence need be taken seriously.&nbsp;

Unlike Chinese self-seeking exclusivity, India has aspirations of peaceful growth including everyone as per their ancient philosophy of &ldquo;Vasudeva Kutumbam&rdquo;(the world is one family). The key to Chinese aspirations and Pakistani politico-economic stability lies in recognising the legally correct status of J&amp;K as it existed at the time of accession with India, and restoring forced occupation of its territories to India. Yes, it is difficult to change the subversive political narratives propagated by both China and Pakistan for their vested interests all these years. But, given the current national interests of all parties, reconciliation is the only sensible way forward, and it is bound to happen sooner or later. Therefore, it is time to move away from the designed manipulative discourses by the Chinese as well as Pakistani leaders.&nbsp;

India as an economically vibrant, militarily strong, politically mature nation with strong strategic pull is a beacon to be rallied around to bring in positive political synergies in the South Asian landscape.&nbsp; Marching together with India will bring about higher strategic dividends to both China as well as Pakistan, a win-win situation for all.&nbsp;

To do all these, the Chinese political tango needs a paradigm shift in the orchestration of her steps in sync with contemporary global strategic outlook and keeping in rhythm with regional compatriots to achieve their ambitions of world leadership role. The ball is in China&rsquo;s court. Take it, or leave it.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

China needs to persuade Pakistan to see reason in revisiting their political priorities in Kashmir.

As China should work towards reducing tension in the Indian Ocean Region and put pressure on Pakistan to accept India's position over Kashmir, an improved Sino-Indian relationship can only be possible if India, in response, should agree to facilitate the unhindered utilisation of Chinese-built road through Aksai Chin. The Chinese built this road to serve some very crucial logistical purposes, particularly, to connect with the Xin Jiang province, the raison de etre for the occupation of Aksai Chin in 1962. Further, India should also agree to transit facilities to China for CPEC infrastructure, passing through the Indian territory in POK. China needs to persuade Pakistan to see reason in revisiting their political priorities. Pakistan's Kashmir obsession has catapulted it into a political cauldron of the economic mess, governance deficit and slanderous afflictions associated with terrorism. It has been amply proved in Pakistan's case that the religion alone is not the binding force to sustain the viability of a nation-state. Pakistan needs to introspect their politico-religious concepts as they have failed to keep East Pakistan based on it and there are dissident movements continuing within Pakistan, indicating flaws in theological overreach which Pakistan propagates in Kashmir. Moreover, looking at current US strategic interests, Russian assertiveness, and Chinese aggressiveness in the Asian landscape, it has the potential to impact on political autonomy and security of Pakistan itself. Reconciliation with India would bestow higher political buoyancy to absorb the negative influences of extra-regional manipulations which is a bigger threat to them as on date. Pakistani civil society and think tanks are abuzz with such fears and have been vocal in favour of an urgent need of a reality check by the ruling establishment. Post reconciliation, if it happens, Pakistan would no longer require strategic depth against India which has been the primary motive of their complicity in fostering insurgency in Afghanistan. As a cascading effect, it would pave the way for reconciliation amongst the warring factions of Afghanistan as Pakistan have substantial influence over Taliban and their affiliates. It will help in bringing about political stability in the Af-Pak region, leading to a gradual reduction in terrorism, a matter of grave international concern. It would also deny any excuse for extra-regional powers to meddle in their internal affairs to an extent they do it as of now. With security situation improving in Afghanistan, the success of CPEC would get a further boost with the participation of Central Asian Republics and Eurasian countries. Besides this, Pakistan would have much needed higher economic synergies with a friendly India and its MFN status for trade and commerce. As a consequence, Pakistan would have fair chances to bring about their economic turnaround. It is time for Pakistan to realise that their political vibrancy is a function of regional cohesiveness and not extra-regional political surrogacy. The spectre of ten ASEAN heads of states on 69th republic day of India, Quad sponsored mil exercises in Indo- Pacific, suspension of US aid to Pakistan, Indian concern on illegality of CPEC alignment through POK, Chabahar port as an alternate linkage to Afghanistan and Eurasia are all links to a subtle political message to China and Pakistan combine signaling them to revisit their priority matrix . India is central to this diplomatic push being the dominant power in IOR and South Asian landscape, hence need be taken seriously. Unlike Chinese self-seeking exclusivity, India has aspirations of peaceful growth including everyone as per their ancient philosophy of “Vasudeva Kutumbam”(the world is one family). The key to Chinese aspirations and Pakistani politico-economic stability lies in recognising the legally correct status of J&K as it existed at the time of accession with India, and restoring forced occupation of its territories to India. Yes, it is difficult to change the subversive political narratives propagated by both China and Pakistan for their vested interests all these years. But, given the current national interests of all parties, reconciliation is the only sensible way forward, and it is bound to happen sooner or later. Therefore, it is time to move away from the designed manipulative discourses by the Chinese as well as Pakistani leaders. India as an economically vibrant, militarily strong, politically mature nation with strong strategic pull is a beacon to be rallied around to bring in positive political synergies in the South Asian landscape. Marching together with India will bring about higher strategic dividends to both China as well as Pakistan, a win-win situation for all. To do all these, the Chinese political tango needs a paradigm shift in the orchestration of her steps in sync with contemporary global strategic outlook and keeping in rhythm with regional compatriots to achieve their ambitions of world leadership role. The ball is in China’s court. Take it, or leave it. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Kashmir is key to political reconciliation between India, Pakistan, China

The probable way out for China from the policy impasse it has imposed upon itself is to break the glass ceiling first; they have to patch up with their perceived regional rivals before embarking on global outreach. In that, China needs to move away from their strategy of manipulating their unsubstantiated history and territorial claims without corroborative evidence. In order to rebuild their image, China needs to reach out to both global as well as regional bigwigs by showing genuine cooperative approach, shedding their confrontationist attitude.

&nbsp;

In the South China Sea, the international court had found no proper evidence of historical sovereignty of China over disputed island territories as claimed by them. Hence, China should gracefully accept the verdict in order to reduce the existing political friction with the US and her neighbours in Indo-Pacific. China would be the biggest beneficiary as it would facilitate the transit of their energy supplies and trade without any military threats, reducing their insecurity syndrome which happens to be the main factor of their political irrationalities.

&nbsp;

China should also not forget that success of their economic model is contingent on continued patronage of western countries who use China as their manufacturing hub and operate as markets for Chinese finished goods. In the recently held world economic forum at Davos, the president of US has already conveyed their plans of a protectionist regime. If the US decides to manufacture their own goods, it will have a tremendous effect on China. The Chinese &lsquo;position of strength&rsquo; lies in the continuation of her robust economy, and it is certainly not a good idea to undo their hard-earned achievements by indulging in futile self-defeating aggressive politics. China has to be a part of the team first, so as to be a team leader at an appropriate time.

&nbsp;

Closer home India, with her politico-economic buoyancy and strategic strength, is not a pushover anymore as China perceives. The Doklam episode has not only clearly exposed the Chinese bluff, it has thrown light on India&#39;s political will and military capabilities to neutralise such coercive attempts.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

China cannot ignore India. Their economic agenda would be severely impacted as India dominates Chinese logistics network both on western as well as southern flanks. Therefore, unless India is on board, Chinese outreach to rest of the world would always suffer from insecurity syndrome.

&nbsp;

Moreover, commissioning of Chabahar port as an alternate safer and economical route for Eurasian countries and CARs has potential to make a dent in the viability of CPEC scheme. Therefore, it would be most sensible for China to come around the Indian point of view if they want to ensure the success of CPEC, their biggest political investment in recent times. Hence, there is a need to revisit the strategic priorities based on professional logic and rationale instead of typical Chinese egoist emotional hype in their political forays.

&nbsp;

A pragmatic solution lies in the recognition of the legitimacy of J&amp;K as an integral part of India, as agreed by the Maharaja. It would be in Chinese interests to persuade Pakistan to accept the correct legal position of J&amp;K.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

A reconciliation between China and India will reduce Chinese security concerns over land as well as in the Indian Ocean, a big strategic take away which China desperately needs. It would resolve most of the contentious political issues, restricting peace and prosperity in the region.

&nbsp;

Such a statesmanship on part of China would catapult her on a high moral pedestal and set precedence for others to follow.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

A reconciliation between China and India will reduce Chinese security concerns over land as well as in the Indian Ocean, a big strategic take away which China desperately needs.

The probable way out for China from the policy impasse it has imposed upon itself is to break the glass ceiling first; they have to patch up with their perceived regional rivals before embarking on global outreach. In that, China needs to move away from their strategy of manipulating their unsubstantiated history and territorial claims without corroborative evidence. In order to rebuild their image, China needs to reach out to both global as well as regional bigwigs by showing genuine cooperative approach, shedding their confrontationist attitude. In the South China Sea, the international court had found no proper evidence of historical sovereignty of China over disputed island territories as claimed by them. Hence, China should gracefully accept the verdict in order to reduce the existing political friction with the US and her neighbours in Indo-Pacific. China would be the biggest beneficiary as it would facilitate the transit of their energy supplies and trade without any military threats, reducing their insecurity syndrome which happens to be the main factor of their political irrationalities. China should also not forget that success of their economic model is contingent on continued patronage of western countries who use China as their manufacturing hub and operate as markets for Chinese finished goods. In the recently held world economic forum at Davos, the president of US has already conveyed their plans of a protectionist regime. If the US decides to manufacture their own goods, it will have a tremendous effect on China. The Chinese ‘position of strength’ lies in the continuation of her robust economy, and it is certainly not a good idea to undo their hard-earned achievements by indulging in futile self-defeating aggressive politics. China has to be a part of the team first, so as to be a team leader at an appropriate time. Closer home India, with her politico-economic buoyancy and strategic strength, is not a pushover anymore as China perceives. The Doklam episode has not only clearly exposed the Chinese bluff, it has thrown light on India's political will and military capabilities to neutralise such coercive attempts. China cannot ignore India. Their economic agenda would be severely impacted as India dominates Chinese logistics network both on western as well as southern flanks. Therefore, unless India is on board, Chinese outreach to rest of the world would always suffer from insecurity syndrome. Moreover, commissioning of Chabahar port as an alternate safer and economical route for Eurasian countries and CARs has potential to make a dent in the viability of CPEC scheme. Therefore, it would be most sensible for China to come around the Indian point of view if they want to ensure the success of CPEC, their biggest political investment in recent times. Hence, there is a need to revisit the strategic priorities based on professional logic and rationale instead of typical Chinese egoist emotional hype in their political forays. A pragmatic solution lies in the recognition of the legitimacy of J&K as an integral part of India, as agreed by the Maharaja. It would be in Chinese interests to persuade Pakistan to accept the correct legal position of J&K. A reconciliation between China and India will reduce Chinese security concerns over land as well as in the Indian Ocean, a big strategic take away which China desperately needs. It would resolve most of the contentious political issues, restricting peace and prosperity in the region. Such a statesmanship on part of China would catapult her on a high moral pedestal and set precedence for others to follow. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: China needs to reconcile with India to be a superpower

The story of China starts with economies of scale offered by the country to the western industrial world so that they could outsource their manufacturing to China. With consequent exponential economic rise, came the conceit and hubris, particularly, in absence of political opposition, prompting the Chinese polity to nurture ambitions of acquiring a status of a world power.&nbsp;

While the Chinese are known for visualisation of their plans looking beyond hundreds of years, they apparently have set their eyes on world leadership role in the seemingly impractical short time span. The current Chinese leadership is obviously in hurry, prompting them to use the military to push their politico-economic agenda. As a result, they have disturbed the global geopolitical canvas, spreading negative political synergies all around.

A country like China, which is thriving on industrial production has a compulsion to seek and nurture the markets for her goods and services. In that, Chinese vulnerabilities lie in her geographical location on a distant flank with a limited communication network, energy inadequacy, and external political linkages to their manufacturing sector. Therefore, it essentially requires a secure and viable communication network for ease of logistics, cooperative approach to market competition, and mutual respect and accommodation to interests of other stakeholders. However, there is an apparent conceptual deficit as regards to all these parameters, when it comes to China.

China happens to be literally a landlocked entity with exception of the eastern flank, which opens to the high seas. Then there are a number of contentious political issues with her neighbours, primarily due to Chinese political manipulations and cultural hubris. As a result, China has to transit through circuitous and not so friendly Indo-Pacific region. Hence, they nurture deep-seated insecurities and apprehensions which have shaped Chinese political conduct. In that, they seem to have chosen to use selective coercive diplomacy and confrontationist attitude instead of cooperative accommodation to achieve their national objectives.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Such a political brinkmanship, however, have no place in current globalised corporate culture. Somewhere in their political psyche China continues to nurture a medieval mindset, which may turn out to be a probable cause of nemesis for their ambitions.

China has embarked upon BRI scheme to take care of their economic insecurities and increase their political influence world over. Chinese military overtures in the South China Sea and &ldquo;Strings of Pearls&rdquo; in the&nbsp;Indian Ocean are operative part of their expansionist strategy.&nbsp; China, in pursuit of their economic colonisation, intends investing in the improvement of logistics infrastructure as well as establish industrial and power corridors in impoverished countries of Chinese interests.&nbsp;

On the Western flank, the CPEC scheme seems to be running into rough weather due to Chinese insensitivity in trespassing Indian sovereignty and security situation in Af-Pak region which happens to be the most disturbed areas as on date. Geopolitical interests coupled with the physical presence of extra-regional powers in Afghanistan have further complicated the political situation which is unlikely to be resolved in near future. Within Pakistan also, there is a political dissent in face of Chinese hegemonic tendencies. Rebellious Baluchistan and Northern Areas add to the friction areas for smooth operation of the scheme.&nbsp;&nbsp;

On the Eastern flank, China has chosen to use military overtures in staking their claims over the South China Sea(SNS) based on unsubstantiated historical linkages. They have also refused to obey directives of international court on the law of seas at Hague. It has led to militarisation of the South China Sea with an occasional show of force and coercive military diplomacy. It surely has increased political opposition amongst the larger part of international community impinging on Chinese credibility as a responsible emerging power.&nbsp;

There have been scathing diplomatic statements targeting China from various world forums in favour of a free flow of trade in international waters. Naval exercises the Malabar and Quad consisting of US, India, Australia and Japan are part of military diplomacy to convey coercive political signals to China.&nbsp;&nbsp;

On Southern flank, though much away from their mainland, Chinese expansionist pattern is reflective in the desire to come up with a &ldquo;Strings of Pearls&rdquo; in the Indian Ocean region, the latest one being reported to be on&nbsp; Pakistani coastline. In that, China has been exploiting small countries with a lure of economic goodies in return for permitting the establishment of Chinese military bases to safeguard their maritime interests. It has increased the military ante in the IOR as the region happens to be the link between two most frequented oceans for international trade and commerce.&nbsp;&nbsp;

India, with her domination of the IOR, is a matter of concern for China. They see India as an impediment to their hegemonic intent of pushing their economic agenda.&nbsp; Hence, a deep set of insecurities have shaped Sino-Indian relations wherein China sees India as a rival who needs to be given a punch and not a handshake.

Consequently, China has been indulging in military overtures against their regional rivals so to make them submit to their political dictates. The Doklam standoff followed by an increase in military incursions along the Sino-Indian LAC is part of their high handedness and coercive diplomacy. They keep issuing similar coercive warnings to countries in regions of the South China Sea and South East Asia.&nbsp; China, obviously, wants to keep the water warm but not boiling through such a politico-military psychological warfare.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Overall the strategic audit is indicative of Chinese failure in &ldquo;team building&rdquo; due to their self-centered exclusivity, insensitive conduct and absence of political social grace expected of a responsible leader in making. Therefore, the&nbsp; Chinese vision does not seem to be in sync with appropriate strategic outlook. The rhythm of their ongoing political tango is not conducive towards achieving their aspirations. Hence, China needs an urgent mid-course correction.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

China seems to have chosen to use coercive diplomacy and confrontationist attitude instead of cooperative accommodation to achieve their national objectives.

The story of China starts with economies of scale offered by the country to the western industrial world so that they could outsource their manufacturing to China. With consequent exponential economic rise, came the conceit and hubris, particularly, in absence of political opposition, prompting the Chinese polity to nurture ambitions of acquiring a status of a world power. While the Chinese are known for visualisation of their plans looking beyond hundreds of years, they apparently have set their eyes on world leadership role in the seemingly impractical short time span. The current Chinese leadership is obviously in hurry, prompting them to use the military to push their politico-economic agenda. As a result, they have disturbed the global geopolitical canvas, spreading negative political synergies all around. A country like China, which is thriving on industrial production has a compulsion to seek and nurture the markets for her goods and services. In that, Chinese vulnerabilities lie in her geographical location on a distant flank with a limited communication network, energy inadequacy, and external political linkages to their manufacturing sector. Therefore, it essentially requires a secure and viable communication network for ease of logistics, cooperative approach to market competition, and mutual respect and accommodation to interests of other stakeholders. However, there is an apparent conceptual deficit as regards to all these parameters, when it comes to China. China happens to be literally a landlocked entity with exception of the eastern flank, which opens to the high seas. Then there are a number of contentious political issues with her neighbours, primarily due to Chinese political manipulations and cultural hubris. As a result, China has to transit through circuitous and not so friendly Indo-Pacific region. Hence, they nurture deep-seated insecurities and apprehensions which have shaped Chinese political conduct. In that, they seem to have chosen to use selective coercive diplomacy and confrontationist attitude instead of cooperative accommodation to achieve their national objectives. Such a political brinkmanship, however, have no place in current globalised corporate culture. Somewhere in their political psyche China continues to nurture a medieval mindset, which may turn out to be a probable cause of nemesis for their ambitions. China has embarked upon BRI scheme to take care of their economic insecurities and increase their political influence world over. Chinese military overtures in the South China Sea and “Strings of Pearls” in the Indian Ocean are operative part of their expansionist strategy. China, in pursuit of their economic colonisation, intends investing in the improvement of logistics infrastructure as well as establish industrial and power corridors in impoverished countries of Chinese interests. On the Western flank, the CPEC scheme seems to be running into rough weather due to Chinese insensitivity in trespassing Indian sovereignty and security situation in Af-Pak region which happens to be the most disturbed areas as on date. Geopolitical interests coupled with the physical presence of extra-regional powers in Afghanistan have further complicated the political situation which is unlikely to be resolved in near future. Within Pakistan also, there is a political dissent in face of Chinese hegemonic tendencies. Rebellious Baluchistan and Northern Areas add to the friction areas for smooth operation of the scheme. On the Eastern flank, China has chosen to use military overtures in staking their claims over the South China Sea(SNS) based on unsubstantiated historical linkages. They have also refused to obey directives of international court on the law of seas at Hague. It has led to militarisation of the South China Sea with an occasional show of force and coercive military diplomacy. It surely has increased political opposition amongst the larger part of international community impinging on Chinese credibility as a responsible emerging power. There have been scathing diplomatic statements targeting China from various world forums in favour of a free flow of trade in international waters. Naval exercises the Malabar and Quad consisting of US, India, Australia and Japan are part of military diplomacy to convey coercive political signals to China. On Southern flank, though much away from their mainland, Chinese expansionist pattern is reflective in the desire to come up with a “Strings of Pearls” in the Indian Ocean region, the latest one being reported to be on Pakistani coastline. In that, China has been exploiting small countries with a lure of economic goodies in return for permitting the establishment of Chinese military bases to safeguard their maritime interests. It has increased the military ante in the IOR as the region happens to be the link between two most frequented oceans for international trade and commerce. India, with her domination of the IOR, is a matter of concern for China. They see India as an impediment to their hegemonic intent of pushing their economic agenda. Hence, a deep set of insecurities have shaped Sino-Indian relations wherein China sees India as a rival who needs to be given a punch and not a handshake. Consequently, China has been indulging in military overtures against their regional rivals so to make them submit to their political dictates. The Doklam standoff followed by an increase in military incursions along the Sino-Indian LAC is part of their high handedness and coercive diplomacy. They keep issuing similar coercive warnings to countries in regions of the South China Sea and South East Asia. China, obviously, wants to keep the water warm but not boiling through such a politico-military psychological warfare. Overall the strategic audit is indicative of Chinese failure in “team building” due to their self-centered exclusivity, insensitive conduct and absence of political social grace expected of a responsible leader in making. Therefore, the Chinese vision does not seem to be in sync with appropriate strategic outlook. The rhythm of their ongoing political tango is not conducive towards achieving their aspirations. Hence, China needs an urgent mid-course correction. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: China's military adventures are not in sync with its political ambition

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Lt Gen Rameshwar Yadav

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.