Bharat Rakshak

Acharya wrote:It has been 60 years. Another 20-40 years to go

If we compare ourselves with a declining power, then time is on our side, but if we compare ourselves to another rising power which has a considerable head-start, then time is not necessarily our friend. One needs a game changer, a quantum leap, a hedge against the other rising power!

Acharya wrote:It has been 60 years. Another 20-40 years to go

Yesh, jusht like fushion energy onlee

RajeshA wrote: but if we compare ourselves to another rising power which has a considerable head-start, then time is not necessarily our friend. One needs a game changer, a quantum leap, a hedge against the other rising power!

Only catastrophic events will change it and it will be for good.
Survival is an inducer.

Sanjay M wrote:

Acharya wrote:It has been 60 years. Another 20-40 years to go

Yesh, jusht like fushion energy onlee

Acharya wrote:

RajeshA wrote: but if we compare ourselves to another rising power which has a considerable head-start, then time is not necessarily our friend. One needs a game changer, a quantum leap, a hedge against the other rising power!

Only catastrophic events will change it and it will be for good.
Survival is an inducer.

Acharya garu,
Kshama karna!

I think there are other teachers just as good as 'catastrophic events', and other inducers/motivators just as good as 'fight for survival', and cause less damage to a nation! IMVHO, if such teachers and motivators are the last hope of a nation, then the nation can be considered a gone case! Don't think, India is such a nation!

RajeshA wrote:
I think there are other teachers just as good as 'catastrophic events', and other inducers/motivators just as good as 'fight for survival', and cause less damage to a nation! IMVHO, if such teachers and motivators are the last hope of a nation, then the nation can be considered a gone case! Don't think, India is such a nation!

India is such a large nation it may need such stimulus to wake up the sleeping people

RajeshA wrote:

Acharya wrote:It has been 60 years. Another 20-40 years to go

If we compare ourselves with a declining power, then time is on our side, but if we compare ourselves to another rising power which has a considerable head-start, then time is not necessarily our friend. One needs a game changer, a quantum leap, a hedge against the other rising power!

Time is on our side too. No big or major authoratarian or single-party state has made the transition to a multi-party state, without some disruption to it and its integrity. Look at examples of Yougosaliva, Soviet Union, Indonesia, etc. The only states which have avoided serious disruptions have been small states like South-Korea, Taiwan and Japan. If china changes from its current ccp rule to a multi-party rule or to another dictator ship it will stumble.
Most of the time you win against your opponents, when your opponents make a mistake or they stumble.

It would be interesting to speculate, whether a multi-party china would be less nationalistic or less threatening to its neighbors. It would also be interesting to know how would the other democracies of Asia react to this development.

Christopher Sidor wrote:Time is on our side too. No big or major authoratarian or single-party state has made the transition to a multi-party state, without some disruption to it and its integrity. Look at examples of Yougosaliva, Soviet Union, Indonesia, etc. The only states which have avoided serious disruptions have been small states like South-Korea, Taiwan and Japan. If china changes from its current ccp rule to a multi-party rule or to another dictator ship it will stumble.
Most of the time you win against your opponents, when your opponents make a mistake or they stumble.

It would be interesting to speculate, whether a multi-party china would be less nationalistic or less threatening to its neighbors. It would also be interesting to know how would the other democracies of Asia react to this development.

I think there is a mistake we make. We assume that multi-party democratic system is the destiny and salvation of each country. There is simply no basis for such assumption. For that matter, there have been a quasi-multi-party-democratic set up in Pakistan, and the country has gone to the dogs.

If China has made a transition to an almost-superpower in the last 60 years, all under the political umbrella of CPC, why is there a sudden need to change a functioning system. They have got all the mutinies under control. Any way, I wouldn't advise anybody to hold his breath or even expect in his lifetime. China can take an infinity to change its political system to whatever it wishes, and there is no need of a sudden trip-up on democracy.

Expectation of a stumble or mistake by one's rival cannot be the basis for a strategic vision of India.

A far better strategy is to set ourselves up as the crown prince in an Empire ruled by America, without giving America too much leverage over our decisions. The High Table of P-5, N-5, Bretton-Woods II, needs to be shaken a bit, but otherwise India can live with the system established by USA, and can work upwards to assimilate more power. I am certainly not proposing that India submits ourselves to an American veto over our place in the world, but rather an understanding with USA that India does not intend to challenge American position in the world and America can retire from preeminence in the knowledge that India would support their legacy - a smooth passing of the torch.

Now all this sounds quite American-Dhimmi, but a stable fusion of a Dharmic India and Pax Americana at various levels of interaction - strategic, political, business, and people-to-people can establish the confidence that America needs to support India's natural rise.

No. India can't be a second fiddle to any one, any longer.
By being second fiddle India has lost out. In WWII India contributed the largest volunteer force and yet as it fought under British flag it did not get the gains commensurate with the pains endured. And Tata Steel waas the largest steel producer in the Empire. Yet no mention of that.

Had MKG pursued Poorna Swaraj in the late 1920s as he started out it would have been quite different outcome.

RajeshA wrote:
A far better strategy is to set ourselves up as the crown prince in an Empire ruled by America, without giving America too much leverage over our decisions.
Now all this sounds quite American-Dhimmi, but a stable fusion of a Dharmic India and Pax Americana at various levels of interaction - strategic, political, business, and people-to-people can establish the confidence that America needs to support India's natural rise.

There is no free lunch in the world and there is no fake dhimmi concept
India has to build its own relationship with the rest of the world - strategic, political, business, and people-to-people outside of another country. Indian population has suffered too long in colonial oppression to take it anymore. Indian leadership which will try to create any such arrangement do not represent Indians.

I believe the people were destined to misunderstand this thinking, as often the nuance gets lost in the translation from thought to language.

In 1971 USA and PRC reached an understanding regarding Soviet Union. I am not aware that PRC played Dhimmi. One example of their cooperation is, that they have given USA a free reign in the UNSC regarding all issues where PRC's interests are not threatened, so yes there are no free lunches.
n
Of course, there is a point where a so-called 'junior' partner simply snubs the so-called 'senior' partner and the relationship changes for ever.

To be honest, I don't see any contradiction in being an independent minded country with our own agenda and having a strategic understanding with USA. If we talk of a strategic understanding, then why is there an automatic suspicion, that our interests would not be heeded. That is a paradox.

RajeshA wrote:
To be honest, I don't see any contradiction in being an independent minded country with our own agenda and having a strategic understanding with USA. If we talk of a strategic understanding, then why is there an automatic suspicion, that our interests would not be heeded. That is a paradox.

Because there is long historical experience of colonization in India. There is still a colonized elite which behaves like the west and does not talk about the Interest of India


PRC went through a different experience and its geo political location suited the prevailing anglo American needs. They came to PRC for help.
Here we have Indian elite falling over Anglo elite.

Add;
USA should be understood as a power under British pedigree and as a civilization identity(I do not consider that)
dependent on British values and Anglo values.

India as an old preeminent civilization in Asia has had civilizational influence in its neighborhood and in wider Asia. As a twist of fate it fell victim to Islamic onslaught in its weaker moments when it was at a fragmented state and also due to the military effectiveness of Steppe nomadic societies in upper Asia that suddenly became united under Islam. With the advent of gun-powder and its effective use developed by Europe along with the technological revolution that followed Renaissance, the Nomadic military machine quickly lost its relevance. As India was just getting out of Muslim yoke, it fell under the British. On the one hand, this was kind of inevitable, as this was the going global trend, the European colonial domination, but I wonder if India could have fared better, if India did not fall under the Muslim armies. Perhaps it would not have fallen so easily under the British and the situation would have been more like Qing and post-Qing China, where China was fallen but not taken over and ruled by a foreign Western Colonial power.

Influence and alliance is always a double edged sword, it can hurt and help at the same time. So one needs to be careful about consequences. I think India cares greatly for the technological prowess of the West, but it does not care for the civilizational influence. The West, as it is declining now in its influence in the world, is fast trying to convert as many poor disadvantaged people as possible using its still abundant wealth, rather clandestinely to its core beliefs (Joshua project), so it can have a sympathetic population of influence in different corners of the world, specially among the resurging influential civilizations of India and China.

The Chinese have old systems of thought such as Taoism and Confucianism, but they lacked a certain spiritual element and this gap was fulfilled apparently by Indian Buddhism which became part of its core ethos in Neo-confucianism, which is a mixture of Confucianism and Buddhism. Unfortunately it fell victim to soul-less and god-less Marxism (a rather disruptive idea imported from the West) at its weak moment. As PRC becomes more prosperous, my prediction is that Neo-confucianism and ethnic nationalism of Han Chinese will re-assert and take the place of communism, but they need to do move fast, before RoL conversion gains momentum, as there are already more than 100 million converts according to unofficial figures. So this may have long term adverse effect on the Chinese state in the future. Perhaps a boosting of traditional Buddhism with help from India can help China to fight this spiritual attack from the West. Perhaps Buddhism can also cement the relationship of India and China and ensure avoidance of any large scale conflicts between two neighboring power.

The dynamics of G3 (US/West, PRC and India) mutual relationship will be complicated in the next half a century as there is a process of realignment of power underway on the global landscape. A re-surging and militarily powerful PRC will make US/West realize the fallacy of their approach of engagement with PRC, because no rise to the top can ever be peaceful, its an oxymoron. The West is still drunk with the intoxication of being the pre-eminent global power and continues to drive under the influence, it needs some good slapping and cold showers to wake up, which may happen at the hand of PRC. The US/West will try to back-track, make efforts to control PRC resurgence and in this effort out of desperation, they will definitely come to India's door. I think this is inevitable in the next 5-10 year time frame.

India's challenge would be to ensure that it accepts the good effects of this relationship with the West, namely Wealth and technology transfer but resolutely refuses any room for further growth of RoL (as well as RoP ) among its vulnerable and poor (the remnants of Brown Shahibs among Indian elite are a phenomenon in decline IMHO and they are probably in their last throes, and will hopefully loose their relevance in a decade). At the same time, for both India and China, it is important not to jeopardize the long term prospect of good relationship with any significant mutually damaging blood-letting, as I believe in the very long run, in about 50-70 years time, when India and PRC both individually surpass the collective GDP of the West (US/EU/Oceania), then India and PRC, as immediate neighbors, will be much closer to each other and the declining West in faraway lands will become relatively unimportant for both as it will have nothing of value (wealth or technology) to offer to either India or China. It may remain an alternative source of high technology, minerals and farmland, as Russia is today, and a significant market, and as the third most important power in the world stage, but not much more.

AKalam wrote:
The Chinese have old systems of thought such as Taoism and Confucianism, but they lacked a certain spiritual element and this gap was fulfilled apparently by Indian Buddhism which became part of its core ethos in Neo-confucianism, which is a mixture of Confucianism and Buddhism.

Great analysis. I would also like to point out that the "Buddism" have been influenced greatly by traditional Chinese folk mysticism. It's very different to the brand of Buddhism practiced in India and Sri Lanka.

AKalam wrote: Perhaps a boosting of traditional Buddhism with help from India can help China to fight this spiritual attack from the West. Perhaps Buddhism can also cement the relationship of India and China and ensure avoidance of any large scale conflicts between two neighboring power.

One of the most enduring Chinese tales is the Journey to the West. You know, the one with the Monkey King. Chinese are well aware that their Buddhist roots are in India. However, that being said, the "Buddhism with Chinese Characteristics" are very much ingrained in Chinese Culture. It is in my opinion, unlikely that the Chinese will readopt "Indian Buddhism".

AKalam wrote:
At the same time, for both India and China, it is important not to jeopardize the long term prospect of good relationship with any significant mutually damaging blood-letting, as I believe in the very long run, in about 50-70 years time, when India and PRC both individually surpass the collective GDP of the West (US/EU/Oceania), then India and PRC, as immediate neighbors, will be much closer to each other and the declining West in faraway lands will become relatively unimportant for both as it will have nothing of value (wealth or technology) to offer to either India or China.

This is very true. I still believe that China does not have terriorial ambition in Indian Spheres of Influence. Traditionally, they were never interested. I don't see why they suddenly want to dominate the Indics. The Han Chinese are a traditionally defensive nation. Their Biggest land grabs were done by their Northern Cousins. I think they are more interested in East Asian domination, as that is their traditional sphere of influence. Not counting the nationalists in both camps, I forsee a tenative but mostly peaceful future.

Yesh, yesh, Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai - vee've seen it all before, onlee.

In CCCP-ruled China the political leadership are disproportionately dependent upon army generals for support. Thus the hawkish generals get a wide latitude to influence foreign policy. All authoritarian govts are this way, and China is no exception.

They see us primarily in terms of the border dispute, and they're not going to compromise on that. Do you plan to give them our land to maintain the "civilizational" bhai-bhai harmony?

Sanjay M wrote:In CCCP-ruled China the political leadership are disproportionately dependent upon army generals for support. Thus the hawkish generals get a wide latitude to influence foreign policy. All authoritarian govts are this way, and China is no exception.

Why do you believe that the Chinese military has a greater influence on the Party? My experiences are quite the opposite. The Army generals need the political leadership more for fund allocation and better business access for their Army run factories. That is where the money lies. Follow the money.

I believe it's a mistake to view the current Chinese government through the lenses of other dictatorships. The Chinese have a nack of adding "chinese charateristics" to things. In my opinion, the Chinese government more closely resembles their historical imperial government than any military juntas such as Burma or North Korea.

I'll say again:

They see us primarily in terms of the border dispute, and they're not going to compromise on that. Do you plan to give them our land to maintain the "civilizational" bhai-bhai harmony?

Sanjay M wrote:I'll say again:

They see us primarily in terms of the border dispute, and they're not going to compromise on that. Do you plan to give them our land to maintain the "civilizational" bhai-bhai harmony?

Of cause not. No land should be given. But that is the point. It's a dispute. It's not their "manifest destiny", such as East Asian Domination. When the dispute is out weighted by other factors, they can be solved in India's favor. When trade between India and China out weights the risk of confrontation, it will be resolved. The Chinese are pragmatic if anything else.

The Chinese will not compromise on one inch of land. Neither their political leadership nor their disproportionately influential generals will agree to that. On the contrary, they feel that the dispute must be resolved in their favour, and they see us as chaotic perpetually bickering people who are all bark, little bite. (They may not be wrong in that respect)

Sanjay M wrote:The Chinese will not compromise on one inch of land. Neither their political leadership nor their disproportionately influential generals will agree to that. On the contrary, they feel that the dispute must be resolved in their favour, and they see us as chaotic perpetually bickering people who are all bark, little bite. (They may not be wrong in that respect)

That's like, your opinion, man. China compromised on land with Russia not that long ago. That's proof of concept. Why do you think their generals have disproportional influence? Have you seen evidence or is that how you want them to behave? Chinese politics are a lot more complex than most people believe. There's factions and cliches that compete for power. To simplify and misunderstand them is detrimental to Indian Interests.

That's different - they know Russia is stronger with its nuclear and conventional superiority, and they also covet Russian military technology. They understand that the Russian political leadership is staunchly nationalist, and cannot be hoodwinked. They also see Russians as a fellow rival to the US.
India is not seen in the same way, and there is no desire to give up any land claims against India.

Furthermore, haven't you noticed that PLA soldiers are now directly stationed inside of Nepal these days, to police the Tibetans over there? Nepal seems to have conceded certain privileges to China, in order to appease it.

Your naivete sounds like it's going to give us another Himalayan blunder. Rather than turning the other cheek to China, we're going to have to partition Nepal, in order to keep China's influence in check.

^ There is the defeatist mentality on display. You should not even be thinking about partitioning Nepal. How about rescuing entire Nepal?

^^That's longer-term. In the nearer term it has to be partitioned, so that a Naxalite-free zone can be created. Then afterward the Naxalite-controlled half can be purged with heavy loss of their lives.

We have more intimate ethnic knowledge of the people there than the Chinese do. The Chinese simply have the crude blunt force approach. I think we could outmaneuver them on the ground, if we put our minds to it. If the Chinese were to try and shore up their half with their own troops, then we could give them their Afghanistan.

Sanjay M wrote:^^That's longer-term. In the nearer term it has to be partitioned, so that a Naxalite-free zone can be created. Then afterward the Naxalite-controlled half can be purged with heavy loss of their lives.

We have more intimate ethnic knowledge of the people there than the Chinese do. The Chinese simply have the crude blunt force approach. I think we could outmaneuver them on the ground, if we put our minds to it. If the Chinese were to try and shore up their half with their own troops, then we could give them their Afghanistan.

Any use of force against the Chinese is against India's interest. Why play their game when they have a head start? Take a leaf from the Chinese's book. How do you defeat the Chinese without resorting to force? How can the India economy entangle with the Chinese econmony so that open warfare and the continue encirclement of India by China is no longer profitable?

You need to acknowledge that war is their game. That means we need to be militarily strong enough to deter them. And we need their little proxy Pak out of the way.

Sanjay M wrote:You need to acknowledge that war is their game. That means we need to be militarily strong enough to deter them. And we need their little proxy Pak out of the way.

Deterrence is the only game here. Large countries like India and China do not fight just like that. Global condition have to be good before China will start a war. With its proxy help to Pak it has already set the stage.

India has only started the deterrence game recently from 1998 but it has long way to go. Unless some more test and some more hardware/missiles - but may not be equal to China but enough to deter the military in China - things will be the same.

TonyMontana wrote:

AKalam wrote:
The Chinese have old systems of thought such as Taoism and Confucianism, but they lacked a certain spiritual element and this gap was fulfilled apparently by Indian Buddhism which became part of its core ethos in Neo-confucianism, which is a mixture of Confucianism and Buddhism.

Great analysis. I would also like to point out that the "Buddism" have been influenced greatly by traditional Chinese folk mysticism. It's very different to the brand of Buddhism practiced in India and Sri Lanka.

AKalam wrote: Perhaps a boosting of traditional Buddhism with help from India can help China to fight this spiritual attack from the West. Perhaps Buddhism can also cement the relationship of India and China and ensure avoidance of any large scale conflicts between two neighboring power.

One of the most enduring Chinese tales is the Journey to the West. You know, the one with the Monkey King. Chinese are well aware that their Buddhist roots are in India. However, that being said, the "Buddhism with Chinese Characteristics" are very much ingrained in Chinese Culture. It is in my opinion, unlikely that the Chinese will readopt "Indian Buddhism".

AKalam wrote:
At the same time, for both India and China, it is important not to jeopardize the long term prospect of good relationship with any significant mutually damaging blood-letting, as I believe in the very long run, in about 50-70 years time, when India and PRC both individually surpass the collective GDP of the West (US/EU/Oceania), then India and PRC, as immediate neighbors, will be much closer to each other and the declining West in faraway lands will become relatively unimportant for both as it will have nothing of value (wealth or technology) to offer to either India or China.

This is very true. I still believe that China does not have terriorial ambition in Indian Spheres of Influence. Traditionally, they were never interested. I don't see why they suddenly want to dominate the Indics. The Han Chinese are a traditionally defensive nation. Their Biggest land grabs were done by their Northern Cousins. I think they are more interested in East Asian domination, as that is their traditional sphere of influence. Not counting the nationalists in both camps, I forsee a tenative but mostly peaceful future.

Chinese current impression of Indic people will change with time, as for now they look down on Indic people. To them White people are massa (the reason for popularity of Christianity there, if I am not mistaken and reason for popularity of Gucci, Louis Vuitton etc., as whites are the people to be followed and emulated), then comes Japan, Korea, Arab/Iran/CA, ASEAN, South American etc. and then Indics and of course Black Africans are last on their list. Buddhism origin is in India, so even Chinese Buddhism must recognize that. Ancient Chinese scholars came to India to study in Nalanda Vihara I think.

China's current behavior is not confidence inspiring. What I mentioned in my post is for the longer term, for the near and medium term, PRC is and will continue to be a hostile entity for India. They have occupied Indian territory in Aksai Chin and are claiming Arunachal as theirs. Dams are being set up on Yarlung Tsangpo river to divert Brahmaputra water. They have tried to setup Pakistan kind of as a balancer in South Asia, helped them with Nukes, and are trying to undermine Indian interest in every state in India's neighborhood. If they care about a future good relation with India, they should act accordingly, but their actions prove different intentions. I am not hopeful they will, because the current Chinese CPC leadership is inherited from the partymen, who killed all intellectuals since the communist party won the war, so essentially like any good communist regime they have decapitated themselves and are trying to grow a new head, unfortunately a head for a human society takes many generation to grow, that is the reality we are looking at.

Asymmetric deterrence or MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is an absolute must for India, as Chinese will continue to hold an upper hand for some time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_relations

i think the white worshipping is a colonial hangover, previously they detested the whites as just another barbarian race

AKalam wrote:

Chinese current impression of Indic people will change with time, as for now they look down on Indic people.

When did the Chinese impression of Indians change. was in 1930s before the communism or later in 1962.
There is a lot of history when one of their Chinese intellectuals in 1930s blamed their conditions on Buddhism and Hindu philosophy

Lalmohan wrote:i think the white worshipping is a colonial hangover, previously they detested the whites as just another barbarian race

It's a combination of their fear+hatred+inferiority complex manifesting itself as 'respect/worship' of the goras.

China and India - Contest of the century

http://www.economist.com/node/16846256? ... 6&fsrc=rss

As China and India rise in tandem, their relationship will shape world politics. Shame they do not get on better

Ameet wrote:China and India - Contest of the century

http://www.economist.com/node/16846256? ... 6&fsrc=rss

As China and India rise in tandem, their relationship will shape world politics. Shame they do not get on better

There is a comment here

Shame should be on the Western political elite that drives a wedge between them.

Shame should be on the Western political elite that edges india on as a "Counter" to China.

Shame should really be on the brits who drew the original MacMahon Line.

Now he does not say -
Shame on the Chinese leadership to give WMD to Pakistan and rogue states.

Acharya wrote:Now he does not say -
Shame on the Chinese leadership to give WMD to Pakistan and rogue states.

Why? They are just doing it for their national interests. Should India not do what's in her national interest because of the opinion of others?

Purush wrote:

Lalmohan wrote:i think the white worshipping is a colonial hangover, previously they detested the whites as just another barbarian race

It's a combination of their fear+hatred+inferiority complex manifesting itself as 'respect/worship' of the goras.

The Chinese does not worship the whites, they in fact still see whites as barbarians. Allow me to explain, in Chinese classes at school, your result is posted by ranking on the wall for everyone to see. People with low scores are rediculed and inspired to do better. The Chinese have no problem in subjectively ranking themselves. They realise that white is "number rne!" in the world today. So like any good chinese teacher will say, do what "number rne" is doing. So you be "number rne". This can be seen as worship. But I can assure you that the Chinese are very racist against whites in private.

Acharya wrote: When did the Chinese impression of Indians change. was in 1930s before the communism or later in 1962.

The question should be directed at the Chinese leadership. The average Chinese knows very little about modern India.

The same lesson applies to us also.

China's Deficit in American Studies
http://chronicle.com/article/Chinas-Def ... _medium=en

Is this the first time The Economist has put India in the same category as China? In the past they have been very contemptuous of India and going gaga over China. Wonder what prompted the change.

This is a positive psy-ops from the Economist. Possibiliy the leading edge of change in the thinking of western hacks.

Let's not read too much psy ops. It is possible that the old farts who worked for Economist are retiring and a new generation, with no imperial hangovers, is taking over and that is reflected in the quality of articles.

<<Edited spelling error of possible>>

Regardless, it is still a positive article form the Economist. That cant be dinied.

Sanjay M wrote:I'll say again:

They see us primarily in terms of the border dispute, and they're not going to compromise on that. Do you plan to give them our land to maintain the "civilizational" bhai-bhai harmony?

I believe this is incorrect, they are after power and don't want us in any way in the same neighborhood(power wise) as them. Their dream is to see a weak India broken into its constituent pieces.

My reasoning follows:

- The current dispute between India/China is over land but this is not the root cause.
- The root cause is that the PRC is controlled by a secret society, the Communist Party of China, which has set it's goal to become a superpower at least the equal of the US if not greater.
- To this end China needs proper conditions for this to happen:
1. Economic growth

2. Strategic Depth

3. Unconstrained projection of power

And they are working on these objectives by:

1. The reforms from Deng Xiao Peng(sp?) in 1978 set them on the proper economic path.

2. There were/are multiple aspects of this:

a) Taking over Xinjiang and Tibet early on.
b) The next was the Korean war and establishment of NK.
c) Aksai Chin/PoK land in '70s.
d) 1962 war with India put India on the back foot and allowed China space for #1 while keeping India occupied with Pakistan.

3. They are feeling pretty confident about the fruits from #1 now and for them to project their power they need to reduce any local challenges and push the bubble out farther. Hence:

a) Helped Nuclearise Pakistan and then NK through AQ network(while keeping hands clean). Keeps India and SK occupied and eat up their energies.
b) Establish ports for blue-water navy in SL, Pak, Bangla
c) Make south China Sea a 'core issue' and show ASEAN who's boss
d) Counter India's Look East policy by fomenting Maoists in Nepal, culminating in Nepal as a client state similar to Pak. This forces India to deal with insurgencies/terrorism on two fronts.. sapping energy and economic growth and removing it as a regional challenger.

(From WSJ source)

China's Investing Turns to Neighbors
BEIJING—As China takes steps to reduce its reliance on the U.S. dollar, it is increasingly looking toward its Asian neighbors instead.

Data already shows China has stepped up its buying of Japanese government bonds, and evidence has emerged that the country is also buying more South Korean debt. And on Thursday, China added the Malaysian ringgit to a small group of currencies it allows to be traded directly against the yuan.

Analysts say the shift toward emerging Asian currencies, albeit incremental, is significant. With China's $2.5 trillion of reserves, it would only take relatively small purchases to have a big impact on currencies like the ringgit.

But even gradual moves such as those seen with Thursday's news are negative for the U.S. dollar, said Douglas Borthwick, head of trading at Faros Trading.

Most of China's buying of debt aside from the U.S. is likely to be confined to the deepest bond markets, namely those denominated in yen, sterling or euros. However, "this is proof that they're getting more involved in emerging markets," Mr. Borthwick said.

China, the largest holder of U.S. debt, has long said it plans to move its foreign-exchange reserve holdings away from dollars, but it has moved slowly. And the secrecy with which China acts—it doesn't detail the composition of its currency holdings—has limited traders to a guessing game.

Mr. Borthwick says China's buying of other emerging Asian debt at this time is an especially savvy move that allows it to earn much higher yields than are available on developed-market debt and potentially reap gains later with the help of currency appreciation in those countries—that it to some degree controls.

That is because even in the wake of its June move to permit greater flexibility in the yuan, China has allowed its currency to appreciate only slightly against the dollar. Meanwhile, countries such as Korea have been forced to keep intervening to keep their currencies from rising against the dollar in order to protect their economic competitiveness against China in export markets. They have also had to keep interest rates high to battle inflation.

At some point China will allow its currency to rise more, at which point Korea and others can allow their currencies to rise. The State Administration of Foreign Exchange, the branch of China's central bank responsible for managing foreign-exchange reserves, on Thursday disclosed that it accumulated $81.1 billion of new foreign-exchange reserves in the second quarter, excluding the effect of exchange-rate changes.

Standard Chartered economist Jinny Yan estimates that around 70% is invested in U.S. dollars, but that the ratio is slowly changing.

"There's much more evidence now that they've allocated a greater quota of their reserves to these other debt markets," she said, referring to SAFE's recent purchases in Japan and South Korea.

Thursday's move to broaden the range of currencies that can directly trade against the yuan was more symbolic in nature, but it helps lay the groundwork for Beijing to be less dependent on the dollar.

In addition to the ringgit, China's foreign-exchange trading platform, a unit of SAFE, said it plans to further increase the number of currencies that trade against the yuan in the interbank market.

Before Thursday's addition of the ringgit, the only currencies with that privilege were the dollar, U.K. pound, yen, euro and Hong Kong dollar.

But if Malaysian businesses start using the yuan instead of dollars to pay for imports and exports—a change Beijing started to encourage last year throughout the Asia—real demand might eventually develop for the new market.

SAFE and its parent organization, the People's Bank of China, both declined to comment on whether China is further diversifying its holdings.

China's holdings of U.S. Treasurys fell by $24 billion to $843.7 billion in June, following a $32.5 billion decline in May, U.S. Treasury data show.

China also makes large purchases through offshore accounts in the U.K. and Hong Kong that don't figure into the Treasury data. Standard Chartered estimates that China's actual holdings of U.S. Treasurys were $1.2 trillion at the end of June.

South Korea's Financial Supervisory Service shows that the total holdings of all Chinese institutions in Seoul's treasurys has more than doubled this year, to 4.3537 trillion Korean won ($3.7 billion) at the end of July.

Data from Japan's Ministry of Finance show that China bought a net 1.73 trillion yen ($20.3 billion) of Japanese government bonds in the first half of this year, compared with a net sale of 5.9 billion yen ($69 million) a year earlier. That strong demand has been a key factor strengthening the yen in recent weeks, to the frustration of Japanese exporters.