putnanja wrote:I think you didn't understand Sudarshan's post. He was basically saying there is no reason for India to up the ante with China.
Thank you ji.
DavidD, I was listing out the reasons why your theory made no sense whatsoever. Modi has no reason to deflect attention from domestic issues, on the contrary, he's on a roll, tackling long-standing and thorny domestic issues head-on in the parliament, and it is the opposition which is in disarray. And on the ground, in rural and urban India, one of Modi's pet schemes is going on at a phenomenal pace, and as far as the beneficiaries are concerned, it is a highly visible scheme, one which they will remember and thank him for, for a long long while. Yes, the economy is down, but most people, barring the loonies, realize that it is because of the extraordinary circumstances, and Modi is not at a disadvantage, having to face an election in that circumstance, for years.
Normally I wouldn't be patiently explaining all this, if the Chinese want to misread India, that is to India's advantage. But there are these lurkers, and the Indian ones have this urge to "dhoti-shiver," so it is worthwhile putting things in perspective for them. On top of that, there was something really interesting in your post, which I wanted to point out.
You seem to have immediately caught on to something I said about "American support" and you seem to want me to develop that theme to support *your* theory! That was a sarcastic remark, not a suggestion of mine. That is the way China sees India - as something so inferior, and so conscious of its inferiority, that the only way India would even dream of standing up to China, is if India had an iron-clad guarantee of American support. Which is why I brought in that example of the Georgian nut-job Saakashvili, who tried to take over Russian territory under American tutelage.
Sorry, but that is not the case here. India is confident of standing up to China with no guarantees of any external support. It might seem strange and "arrogant and uppity" to the Chinese, but we see your perception of yourselves, as being next only to the USA and utterly unchallenged by anybody else, as equally uppity.
It seems to me that Chinese planners see any confrontation with their neighbors as a card game. This is what "winning without firing a shot" is all about. China brings in more tanks, planes, men, material, and infrastructure into the game. The other side observes the superior Chinese build-up, takes a fearful glance at its own pathetic counter-build-up, and meekly retreats! Basically, China holds the "trump card," and as soon as the other players see that trump card triumphantly displayed, they throw down their own cards, and it is game over. No actual fighting.
India doesn't see things that way. India sees it as a chess game. You might only have a bishop and a knight, while the opponent rules the board with a queen and other pieces. No matter - you look for a superior position, trap that queen into a pin with your knight, in such a way that the opponent's priority is to save his king, and force a loss on the opponent. India is not going to back down when it sees that "trump card." India is going to manoeuvre for position on the board, so get ready for a real fight, not just a show of cards and a walk-over.
I think this is what has the Chinese planners in a bind right now. First of all, the superiority of the Chinese build-up is itself questionable (both sides are roughly at parity at the LAC). Second of all, this assumption that the opponent will see the folly of confrontation, given his limited forces against the massive Chinese build-up, will not hold with India. India will fight regardless. So China can line up and parade her hardware all she wants, it will not intimidate India. And it has nothing to do with American support, either.