US and PRC relationship & India

[negi]

ABV did the right thing it is better to come to terms with the reality and accept the things the way they are on the ground unless one has what it takes to reclaim the area back .

[csharma]

India can always change the stand on Tibet if it suits her. As they say agreements are made to be broken.

Based on the reports China seems to be going all out against India. Re-establishing links with naga rebels, AP, PoK, moving missiles etc. Bharat Verma had rightly warned last year.

[Christopher Sidor]

ABV did the right thing it is better to come to terms with the reality and accept the things the way they are on the ground unless one has what it takes to reclaim the area back .

I beg to differ. AB Vajyapee did a grave mistake by doing what he did. He traded Tibet for Sikkim. He traded approximately 1/5th of the landmass of China for say some 1/50th landmass of India. Arunachal and the Chinese occupied territories of northern Ladakh were not included in the bargain. In other words we gave up much more than what we got in return. In fact we got nothing in return.

Some people have even speculated that India under ABV undermined India's position, by acknowledging China's sovereignty over Tibet. Till that date we had only acknowledged China's suzerainty over Tibet. For a layman these distinctions might not seem important or crucial. But in International and foreign relations context these are massive differences.

And if coming to terms with reality is important, then why is India hell bent on not recognizing the status of POK or Northern Areas of Kashmir? Is it because we are perceived to be more powerful than Pakistan? Reality has nothing to do with our stand on important strategic issues. Just because reality does not favor us today does not mean that we should give up our stand or modify it.

[Manishw]

Self delete.

[Mauli]

AB Vajyapee did a grave mistake by doing what he did. He traded Tibet for Sikkim. He traded approximately 1/5th of the landmass of China for say some 1/50th landmass of India.

In a different thread Ramana Ji said that a fruit can not fall far from the tree. And given that ABV viewed himself as "Manas Putra" of JLN, above is not surprising.

[merlin]

ABV did the right thing it is better to come to terms with the reality and accept the things the way they are on the ground unless one has what it takes to reclaim the area back .

We don't claim Tibet so what's there to reclaim?

[Christopher Sidor]

ABV did the right thing it is better to come to terms with the reality and accept the things the way they are on the ground unless one has what it takes to reclaim the area back .

We don't claim Tibet so what's there to reclaim?

We have never claimed tibet as a part of India. But we have never claimed either, before ABV went to china, that Tibet is a part of China either.
In between these two points is a vast array of possibilities. Some of which I will specify below
1) An Independent Tibet - A Difficult and extremely costly option as far as India is concerned. And there is also the question of whether Tibetans see themselves as an independent nation or not.
2) A US - Puteo Rico type solution of Tibet, where Chinese are responsible only for foreign affairs. There are no Chink armed forces inside Tibet. One of the most mouth watering possibilities, as it removes the threat of Chinese forces from practically 90% of our northern and eastern borders, without any cost to us.

Offcourse there are variants to these above options also.

So something like nepal and bhutan which are currently serving as a buffer for us, Tibet just becomes another buffer on steroids for us. We do not have to physically reclaim Tibet, like nepal and bhutan, just make sure that no threat emanates from there. Moreover Tibet on its own will not be able to threaten us. But Chinese occupation of Tibet or another foreign country's occupation of Tibet will threaten us.

[derkonig]

Ppl pl. stop blaming ABV. He remains India's greatest PM till date. The same ABV who took the bus to lahore, also tore the packees a few new orifices at Kargil. The same ABV would have settled the packee problem once & for all during Parakram, but he was hamstrung by our own industry captains & the Godhra riots. This very ABV would have also kicked the PRC out of Tibet had he gotten another term. But no, our ungrateful nation & aam admi could only elect traitors in 2004. Do remember that ABV didn't have the luxury of a BJP govt., but an NDA, which had its share of sekoolaar socialist gandhian-adharmic-inaction types. They wouldn't have allowed ABV to clean up the neighbourhood. Yet & in spite of all these constraints, ABV stands head & shoulders above the rest of our PMs, most of whom by their action & track record as PMs are/were at best pygmies. True, PRC may have indulged in taqqiya with ABV over Tibet, but it would have been unthinkable that PLA could simply walk into PoK, while GoI tried to brush things under the carpet, had ABV been in charge.
It was ABV who had the fortitude to do a Pokhran-2, it was his Raksha Mantri who could openly come out against the PRC threat. The same ABV kicked packees out of Kargil, ground packeestan to a halt at Parakram. ABV put India on the high growth trajectory that it is on today. Most of our marquee mil programmes be it the Agni-3, ABM, ATV, K-15 or the nuke deterrent, are directly/indirectly all a part of his legacy.
Show me one other PM who even comes close?
Criticizing ABV therefore is nothing short of high treason with India!

[Manishw]

self delete.

[Christopher Sidor]

[deleted]

No value to the discussion. And borderline trolling.

[Manishw]

self delete

[Pratyush]

Well, it is irrleveant what the official Indian stand WRT Tibbet is. As long as HH Dalai Lama is an Indian guest and he enjoys the privilages associated with Indian hospitality. The Indian position is clear to the PRC.

They cannot do any thing to change the situation.

This is what must cause the biggest heart ache to the PRC.

[krisna]

^^^^
wrt KS article he does not spell out India's cards. keeping close to his chest. Will have to watch out for it.

china seems to have true friends only with dysfunctional states- NoKo and Pakis.
Unfortunately for us- pakis is our rabid neighbour assidously courted by the dlagon.
India can break the strange hold by unravelling pakistan which could be the key to the whole business.
Tibet card could be the other issue to unravel china.
Of course both are easier than done.
Can US be the Jambavantha to Indian Hanuman.
Just speculating

[Sanjay M]

US doesn't want India to unravel Pakistan.
US could unravel Pakistan all on its own, but they don't even want to do that.
US doesn't have a clear mind on what it wants to do - the pull of Atlanticism is too strong.

[ramana]

Chrisotpher Sidor, I am warning you not to bring in Indian politics into a thread discussing US and PRC. Thanks to that we now have a spate of posts to clean up. This thread has run for over a year without such catfights. Thanks to you its now here. What do you have to say?

Again I suggest
"Dont stab yourself because you have golden knife!"
In other words No self goals.Unless you want to be banned.
Marathi Proverb.

[ramana]

KS article is insightful and original. China is playing a much bigger game with these PoK moves. This affects not only India but also US. India will have to militarize and militarize fast like Gen Jacob was saying.

US and others will also make counter moves. A key takeaway from KS article is that he expects PA to break away from US and run totally into China's lap.

As a rising power India should try to tackle the situation on its own. It should collaborate with the US without getting used to its own detriment.

The Cold War was won by US and West by prying away the PRC from the FSU and posing an existential threat from next door neighbor. It was classic balance of power grand strategy.

If you see the analogy now: PRC is the new FSU and US is still the US and wants India to be the new China in this B-o-P game. Hence the periodic exhortations for the US expertatti to India to confront PRC. Unfortunateily this is not credible for at the same time they impose many barriers to India and claim holier than thou status.

Moreover we see that PRC and US are intertwined in many ways and it is India that has to pry the US and PRC apart. And there is no real Cold War between the two gaints for various reasons. The US is bringing a knife to the gunfight. Let me explain myself.

In any military, economic or political grouping of countries the US comes at the top of the heap. PRC also ranks a distant second or even third in these. So the PRC has chosen to use assymetric means of economy and secondly political (proliferating to US challengers and second rung allies) as its choice of cudgels. PRC is not going to go bankrupt trying to match or outspend the US in the military sphere of things.

So the game is different from different viewing angles.

[Johann]

Ramana,

We can say that the Soviet Union suffered overstretch from trying to deal with both NATO and the PRC at the same time (although the idea of a Chinese realignment was Mao's, with Nixon responding favorably). Once again, it was not NATO that maintained a consistently tough line - public opinion and state policy in the West towards the Soviets vacillated (in typical democratic form) between confrontation and conciliation. It was the PRC that was consistently unrelenting in talks with the Soviets whether under Mao or Deng.

Today the United States faces multiple strategic strains - fighting the Global Jihad in Afghanistan (Iraq is quiescent for now), containing nuclearising adversaries like Iran and North Korea, and dealing with the PRC's strategic challenge. In addition it may find itself drawn in to Mexico's vicious Colombian-style war narco-terrorism. They can not take a tough line on all of them - the Neo-Conservatives tried that and failed. John Bolton's firing in December 2006 along Rumsfeld and the rest of that circle marked the Bush Presidency's acceptance of the strategic impossibility of the Neo-Conservative policy maximalism on every front.

[krisna]

x posted from geopolitical thread
Turkmenistan inks deal on Afghanistan pipeline

Afghanistan and the Central Asian republic Turkmenistan have agreed to build a gas pipeline through Afghanistan, despite the ongoing security concerns in the country.

The planned 1680-kilometre pipeline, which had been under discussion for more than a decade, is due to supply up to 33 billion cubic metres of gas per year from 2015, mostly to India and also to Pakistan, the report said.

Turkmenistan holds the world's fourth largest gas reserves, which are also eyed by the European Union.

Turkmenistan recently also opened pipelines to China and to Iran.

Iran, Pakistan Loom Large in Caspian Basin Pipeline Developments

Pakistan is one of the chief proponents of the so-called TAPI pipeline, which would deliver natural gas from Turkmenistan via Afghanistan to Islamabad and India.

While TAPI developments have garnered headlines, another deal involving Pakistan stands a better chance of delivering results. At the end of June, Iran and Pakistan announced that they had finalized the negotiations on a 1,100-kilometer-long pipeline that would carry Iranian gas to Pakistan. This $7.5-billion project would allow Iran to supply Pakistan with up 750 million cubic feet of gas daily, starting in 2014.

But in July, India revealed that it had reopened discussions with Iran on two different pipeline options. One of these was the revival of the so-called IPI (Iran-Pakistan-India) route. And the second involved a new project, which would involve the construction of an underwater pipeline connecting Iran and India. Iran naturally has trumpeted India’s volte-face as a major diplomatic victory, one that undermines US economic isolation efforts.

The mere possibility of such projects coming to fruition undermines Washington’s attempts to isolate Iran, and can validate the utility of playing the energy card in Iranian eyes. Second, China has clearly expressed interest in a pipeline from Iran to Pakistan and from there to China. Indeed, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi has suggested that if India does not get back into the project, the pipeline could be renamed the Iran-Pakistan-China route. So clearly there is more to the story than South and Central Asia.

Unlikely for beggaristan to oppose uncle publicly or go ahead in its oil pipeline. OTOH may cry beg and steal nuclear deal similar to the one India got from uncle. Despite uncle refusing it bakis are persistent or else dlagon gives it.
dlagon entering the picture makes it tough for India.
If only POK was in our hands a lot of issues would have been settled- direct access to central asia, afghanisthan being our neighbour. blocking china across to pakistan.
The more developments occur in POK like the pipelines roads and railways across to china the more resistant will be china to give up on POK. Also it will prop up this beggar along with uncle though both do it for different reasons.
Net effect will a loss for India.
Already panda is saying that Kashmir is disputed but not POK-- legalising everything on pakis side. However much India shouts in world forums it will carry little weight as panda or pakis give little on the ground.
India should do more shadow boxing behind the scenes exploit the disturbances in pakiland and balkanise it.

[krisna]

US doesn't want India to unravel Pakistan.
US could unravel Pakistan all on its own, but they don't even want to do that.
US doesn't have a clear mind on what it wants to do - the pull of Atlanticism is too strong.

It is a question of Indian interest not that of US interest.
US can prop tin pots all over the world but cannot sustain for long as the costs will become astronomical with time. unless its economy is stable it will be difficult to do it.
pakistan has its faultlines despite uncle's kindness in showering goodies. It does not have good institutions to hold the state in unity. India should hasten its division, that is all what I am asking for.

[krisna]

A Himalayan rivalry

Asia’s two giants are still unsure what to make of each other. But as they grow, they are coming closer—for good and bad

India now has three army corps—about 100,000 troops—in its far north-eastern state of Arunachal Pradesh, which includes Tawang.
With another corps in reserve, and a few Sukhoi fighter planes deployed last year to neighbouring Assam, they are a meaty border force,

The 1962 war was an act of Chinese aggression most obviously springing from China’s desire for western Aksai Chin, a lofty plain linking Xinjiang to Tibet. But its deeper causes included a famine in China and economic malaise in both countries.

Over 70% of India’s exports to China by value are raw materials, chiefly iron ore, bespeaking a colonial-style trade relationship that is hugely favourable to China. A proliferating range of Chinese non-tariff barriers to Indian companies, which India grumbles about, is a small part of this. The fault lies chiefly with India’s uncompetitive manufacturing. It is currently cheaper, an Indian businessman says ruefully, to export plastic granules to China and then import them again in bucket-form, than it is to make buckets in India.

the 4,000km border that runs between the two countries. Nearly half a century after China’s invasion, it remains largely undefined and bitterly contested.

This(arunachal pradesh) 890km stretch of frontier was settled in 1914 by the governments of Britain and Tibet, which was then in effect independent, and named the McMahon Line after its creator, Sir Henry McMahon, foreign secretary of British-ruled India. For China—which was afforded mere observer status at the negotiations preceding the agreement—the McMahon Line represents a dire humiliation.

No role for china so how come they are humiliated when they dont rule Tibet.

Despite several threatened dust-ups—including one in 1986 that saw 200,000 Indian troops rushed to northern Tawang district—there has been no confirmed exchange of fire between Indian and Chinese troops since 1967.

Both countries appointed special envoys,(2003 onwards) who have since met 13 times, to lead the negotiations that followed. This led to an outline deal in 2005, containing the “guiding principles and political parameters” for a final settlement. Those included an agreement that it would involve no exchange of “settled populations”—which implied that China had dropped its historical demand for Tawang.

China fears encirclement -
India coming close to uncle exemplied by the new clear deal signified it.

he United States has sought to strengthen security ties with South-East Asian countries, including Vietnam and Indonesia. It has also called on China, in an unusually public fashion, to be more accommodating over contested areas of the South China Sea—where America and India share concerns about a Chinese naval build-up, including the construction of a nuclear-submarine base on the Chinese island of Hainan. In north-east Asia, America has launched military exercises with South Korea in response to North Korea’s alleged sinking of a South Korean warship in March. Some Chinese analysts, with ties to the government, consider these a direct challenge to China.

Dlagon fears India getting close to Japan/ASEAN/Australia

It is also unimpressed by a growing closeness between India and Japan, its main Asian rival. Japanese firms are, for example, expected to invest $10 billion, and perhaps much more, in a 1,500km “industrial corridor” between Delhi and Mumbai. In 2007 Japanese warships took part in a naval exercise in the Bay of Bengal, also involving Indian, Australian and Singaporean ships and the American nuclear-powered vessels USS Nimitz and USS Chicago, which was hosted by India and was the biggest ever held in the region.

India's fears wrt china- string of pearls strategy

China has also made big investments in all India’s neighbours. It is building deepwater ports in Pakistan and Bangladesh, roads in Nepal and oil and gas pipelines in Myanmar. Worse, it agreed in 2008 to build two nuclear-power plants for its main regional ally, Pakistan—a deal that also worried America, who saw it as a tit-for-tat response to its nuclear deal with India. (China has become Pakistan’s biggest supplier of military hardware, including fighter jets and guided-missile frigates, and in the past has given it weapons-grade fissile material and a tested bomb design as part of its nuclear support.)

Tibet issue-

Its fugitive Dalai Lama and his “government-in-exile” have found refuge in India since 1959—and China blames him, and by extension his hosts, for the continued rebelliousness in his homeland.

bad hatchet job

This visit, from which leftover banners of welcome still festoon the town’s main bazaar, perhaps reminded China why it is so fixated on Tawang—as a centre of the Tibetan Buddhist culture that it is struggling, all too visibly, to control.

khujili in the dlagon's musharraff.

Indeed, many Indian pundits consider that China will never settle the border, and so relinquish a potential source of leverage over India, while the 75-year-old lama is alive.
After his death, China will attempt to control his holy office as it has those of other senior lamas.

Only if Tibetans agree

The Dalai Lama has already indicated that he may choose to be “reborn” outside China. There is talk of the important role Tawang has often played in identifying incarnations of the Dalai Lama, or even that the 14th may choose to reincarnate in Tawang itself.

double treble khujili for dlagon musharraff.

The article is clearly slanted in favour of the chinese.

it has not been posted here- checked the last few pages, if missed apologies.

[ramana]

Ready for Chinese Checkers?

Three successive foreign secretaries have been China experts, S.S. Menon also being the current national security adviser. Addressing the Heads of Indian Missions, Mr Menon felt that despite the pinpricks the Chinese will not opt for confrontation as they are focused on economic growth. Anticipating human or national behaviour is tricky business. On December 19, 1979, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) advised the US President that “the pace of Soviet deployments does not suggest an urgent contingency”. A week later the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Tim Weiner, in his masterly book on CIA Legacy of Ashes, comments that it was not a lack of intelligence; it was a lack of imagination.

[Pratyush]

^^^ WRT the Lack of imagination, IMO the NSA may also be suffring from the same is he thinks the risk of military confrontation with PRC is low. Just because it is focusing on economic growth.

The best course of action is that we prepare for all eventulaties in order to deal with them.

[Christopher Sidor]

Chrisotpher Sidor, I am warning you not to bring in Indian politics into a thread discussing US and PRC. Thanks to that we now have a spate of posts to clean up. This thread has run for over a year without such catfights. Thanks to you its now here. What do you have to say?

Again I suggest
"Dont stab yourself because you have golden knife!"
In other words No self goals.Unless you want to be banned.
Marathi Proverb.

Ramana, I just pointed one part of the article which referred to India-PRC and US and which was crucial. The point that I referred to was how certain actions of Indian ruling class have impacted India's position, which according to my view was negative.

I did not start a cat fight over here. You are right that this is a not a thread about Indian politics. Maybe people have objected that I have tried to paint or I have painted ABV (i.e. Atal Bihari Vajpayee) in a bad light. I have never ever said ABV was a good or a bad prime minister. Whether he was good or bad will be decided by history. All I have said that ABV did something in his visit to China, which should not have been done.

[ramana]

You need not have said it in this thread.

[Jarita]

^^^ I believe ABV actually weakened Indias position in many ways vs. Narasimha Rao.
This is contrary to popular belief but one of the reasons ABV was celebrated by international media and others was because he did what Manmohan is doing. he opened up markets, disinvested etc which benefitted the western firms (which fund media etc).
His strategy wrt China was a disaster. And much like MMS he aligned India with US interests.
But he had some positives. Where he triumphed was during the "Kargil" war and operation "parakram".

[svinayak]

^^^ I believe ABV actually weakened Indias position in many ways vs. Narasimha Rao.
This is contrary to popular belief but one of the reasons ABV was celebrated by international media and others was because he did what Manmohan is doing. he opened up markets, disinvested etc which benefitted the western firms (which fund media etc).
His strategy wrt China was a disaster. And much like MMS he aligned India with US interests.
But he had some positives. Where he triumphed was during the "Kargil" war and operation "parakram".

There are several things going on internationally and the control of the leftist and their supporters in the politics was so strong in the 1998-2001 time period that they brought down the govt and actively attacked the govt on several fronts.
To break all of these control lot of measures were done. It is a complex subject and needs a longer thread and discussion seperately

[ramana]

No more discussion of ABV in this thread. Take that as an admonition.

[ramana]

No more discussion of ABV in this thread. Take that as an admonition.

[krisna]

^^^^
wrt KS article he does not spell out India's cards. keeping close to his chest. Will have to watch out for it.

china seems to have true friends only with dysfunctional states- NoKo and Pakis.
Unfortunately for us- pakis is our rabid neighbour assidously courted by the dlagon.
India can break the strange hold by unravelling pakistan which could be the key to the whole business.
Tibet card could be the other issue to unravel china.
Of course both are easier than done.
Can US be the Jambavantha to Indian Hanuman.
Just speculating

contering china

There can be no doubt that China is trying to apply pressure on India through measures like refusing a visa to India’s Northern Army Commander in Jammu and Kashmir, issuing stapled visas to people from that state visiting China, undertaking large-scale projects in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and discussing the possibility of limited war against India. The New York Times has reported that 7,000-11,000 Chinese troops have been deployed in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and that the area is closed to the world. Questions are naturally being raised in India as to why the Chinese are indulging in such pressure tactics at this stage.

why is china behaving like this towards India

Meanwhile, the Chinese aim is to assert itself as the dominant power in Asia. They see India as the only hindrance to their achieving that aim, in view of India’s comparable population, its likely advantage of a youth bulge as China ages and its growth slows down, and the developing Indo-US strategic partnership.

China has been using Pakistan to counter India by arming it with nuclear weapons, missiles and conventional weapons. India as a poverty-free country having one of the largest knowledge pools in the world is challenged on two sides by the religious-extremist fundamentalism of Pakistan and the single-party state ideological fundamentalism of China. Moreover, they are bonded together by their nuclear and missile proliferation relationship.

Both countries are interested in fragmenting India. Both have tried to encourage extremist and secessionist groups within the country in J&K, the North-east and the Maoist areas. It is therefore natural for China and Pakistan to attempt to ensure that US President Barack Obama’s forthcoming visit to India does not take the Indo-US relationship further forward. China has questioned India’s sovereignty over Kashmir with its stapled visas and denial of a visa to India’s Northern Army Commander, and its ostensible military presence in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir/Pakistan has activated its ‘sleeper agents’ in various Kashmiri towns to stage stone-pelting protests.

In a move to reassure Pakistan, China has discussed in its media the possibility of a limited war against India, copying the Indian debate on the ‘cold start’. China wants to duplicate the Indo-US nuclear deal by offering two more reactors to Pakistan in defiance of Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines.

How to counter china

We should learn from China. In 1971 China was a nuclear weapon power with thermo-nuclear weapons and missiles. Yet, when it faced the Soviet Union after the Ussuri clashes, it felt the need for allies, overt or covert. Though it had fought the US in the Korean war and lost 150,000 lives, including that of Mao Zedong’s pilot son, it entered into an entente with the US against the Soviet Union.

China made available to the US monitoring stations in Xinjiang against Soviet missile tests and subsequently developed close economic relations with the US, which made China the economic and military power it is today. China’s communist ideology did not come in the way of its national security interests. It was to demonstrate to China the credibility of the US as a covert ally that Kissinger ordered the USS Enterprise mission into the Bay of Bengal during the last days of the Bangladesh war.

The Chinese are masters of statecraft and strategy. In the wake of Chiang Kai-shek’s defeat, when they faced a hostile United States, they allied themselves with the Soviet Union, and when they had problems with the USSR, they switched to a covert alliance with the US. Once the Soviet Union was dissolved and was no longer a threat, China became Russia’s largest arms market. National security interests and not ideology become the primary determinant of national strategy.

Past events which have helped India-
1971 Indo Soviet treaty
Mig 21 by Krishna Menon.

How does India go about it--

Times have changed, as has the international strategic milieu. Even while retaining Russia as a friend in the Asian context, India has to develop a new balance of power equation to deal with the challenge from China and Pakistan not merely to our external security but to our national development as a pluralistic, secular and democratic nation. India too has its ancient strategic wisdom, preached in the Panchatantra, Hitopadesa and Arthasastra, encompassing sama (cooperation), dhana (buying up), bedha (causing division) and dhanda (use of force). It is time to invoke that ancient wisdom and devise an appropriate international strategy to counter the Chinese-Pakistani challenge.

Good article gives some think to chew about the ways to go and deal with the menace of panda infected with rabid animal.
It does not reveal everything in black or white.

[ramana]

I think we need to relook the rise of US on the world stage and its interaction with PRC to understand what is happening now.

[Neshant]

Something is afoot at the IMF. China is going to be invited onboard by the US to setup some SDR type currency sometime soon. India is going to get hit broadside if its not alive to the evolving situation.

Europeans will soon give up part of their over-representation at the IMF grudgingly since US wants China onboard with this plan. Where does that leave India?

I worry a new kind of economic 'security council' is forming with India left out yet again.

If India does not get adequate representation, don't join it and instead wreck the worthless SDR system by buying gold to expose the worthlessness of SDR paper.
------------

Trichet calls for united EU at the IMF
http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/s/0409 ... u-imf.html

Jim Rickards Interview from June 14th with Eric King
http://www.kingworldnews.com/kingworldn ... 3A2010.mp3

[rohiths]

I think India should not actively try to increase its quota in the IMF. Anyway most of the work that IMF does is to bail out economically failed states like Pakistan, Greece etc. The loans which IMF gives are also at a low interest rate. All the increased quota will accomplish is that more of Indian money will go to the Pakis.
Apart from a prestige issue, the IMF quota is useless.

[krisna]

What is China's problem with India?
frivtion between the himalayan rivals

No one quite knows what drives China's policies towards its neighbour India

In strategic circles, Chindia is a four-letter word. China barely figured on India's security consciousness a decade ago. Today, among a younger generation, it may be slowly supplanting Pakistan as India's bogeyman. It doesn't help China is a closed society when it comes to policy-making.

4 theories why this is happening-
1) school of confusion-

India's policies were marked by political drift and long periods of inactivity. China's were coloured by its disdain for India. China is still trying to work out what are India's red lines.

Regarding J&K-

Refusing a visa to Lieutenant General B S Jaswal, admit some Indian officials, may simply reflect a Chinese assumption India isn't overly excited about the issue. After all, New Delhi didn't kick up much fuss about the stapled visa issue. The decision to merely disallow such visa holders from traveling was a relatively passive response. And India barely raised an eyebrow when a Chinese vice foreign minister said his country was prepared to mediate on Kashmir.

begs the question what are India's core interests and the red lines where china will be taken to task diplomatically.
2) school of indifference-china uninterested in India-

They see a country politically too chaotic and culturally too confused to be a contender for the Asian high table. The result is an India policy that is driven by short term considerations.

The juicy sound bytes on Indian borders tp prop their etch and dee inside china and to "feel good" factor for their all weather friend wrt J&K.

By this school of thinking, the visa refusal was not a carefully calculated move. It was an ad hoc attempt at keeping Pakistan happy, a country whose suicidal tendencies worry even China these days. That this would infuriate India was expected. But Beijing's leadership would see that as a small price to pay because India's reaction would be seen as being of no consequence.

3) school of rivalry-

India is closing the gap when it comes to economic growth rates. And such diplomatic successes as the Indo-US nuclear deal have made the Middle Kingdom worry about an anti-China great power combination. Because of past historical humiliations, Beijing is particularly sensitive about border disputes.

Chinese analyst Dai Bing admits that "while a hot war is out of the question, a cold war between the two countries is increasingly likely."

Beijing's response is to keep pushing the envelope, reminding India and the world there is only one superpower-in-the-making in Asia. Whether it is the border, Pakistan or projecting military power into the Indian Ocean, the message to New Delhi is that it would be best to come to terms with the Big Boss.

reminds me of the story of the monkeys and man with a stick.

Malik says manufacturing new disputes to put the other side off balance is an old negotiating tactic in Chinese statecraft.

J&K-Box down India by raising J&K issue

Says Malik, "Chinese supremacy in Asia is contingent upon having smaller and weaker, compliant states on China's periphery."

India can pay back with interest.
4) school of military-

The Chinese army believes Beijing should be more assertive about the country's 'core interests'," says former Research and Analysis Wing analyst B Raman. "Retired officers often write that self-respect means being tough about national interests." India intrudes into many of the issues the military sees as important: Tibet, Pakistan, Myanmar and naval security (India hardly raises stink about Tibet, china is blatantly propping up pakistan with nuclear proliferation and interfering in India's affairs,Myanmar is not chinese protectorate. Naval security is for Indian security because of its vast coastline and important trade routes.It would nice on chinese part to be friendly instead of sabre rattling) . The latter is rising Chinese strategic concern, writes Dean Cheng of the Heritage Foundation, because Beijing faces "an unprecedented reliance on the seas for China's economic well-being".

J&K- china worried about xinjaing hence the support to pakistan inreturn for possible reducing tensions with uighurs.

While Malik says there is only one India policy in Beijing, "the PLA has always played a key role in policy towards the Korean peninsula, Taiwan and India".

previously india was bogged down with pakistan and did not give importance to china due to it. Now pakistan slowly going down the tubes, India is realising of late the nature of the dragon. it is trying to formulate a better strategy to keep up with it.
China has the feeling that India is a serious threat to its global ambitions and better to put it down. pakistan is not helping it as expected due to its internal dynamics tearing it apart. No wonder china is raising the stakes by openingly needling India frequently.

[csharma]

By giving the example of Mig purchase, is KS saying that India should go for American planes for MRCA?

[Prem]

K Subrahmanyam: Countering China's new assertiveness
India needs to devise a new balance of power equation to ensure its security and development in the face of the Chinese military challenge

There was a brief honeymoon period between China and the United States, when there was speculation in both countries about the world order being governed by G-2 (China and the US). After their interaction on economic issues, in which they reached an understanding on the stability of the dollar and continuing Chinese purchases of US treasury bonds, they reverted to their normal stance of competition. China has become more assertive on its ‘core’ concerns, including its interest in international waters as being its ‘waters of concern’. With China’s military modernisation speeding up and its navy expanding, increasing military assertiveness is becoming evident in China’s international behaviour.
It is therefore natural for China and Pakistan to attempt to ensure that US President Barack Obama’s forthcoming visit to India does not take the Indo-US relationship further forward. China has questioned India’s sovereignty over Kashmir with its stapled visas and denial of a visa to India’s Northern Army Commander, and its ostensible military presence in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir/Pakistan has activated its ‘sleeper agents’ in various Kashmiri towns to stage stone-pelting protests.In a move to reassure Pakistan, China has discussed in its media the possibility of a limited war against India, copying the Indian debate on the ‘cold start’. China wants to duplicate the Indo-US nuclear deal by offering two more reactors to Pakistan in defiance of Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines.How does India deal with this Chinese pressure? We should learn from China. In 1971 China was a nuclear weapon power with thermo-nuclear weapons and missiles. Yet, when it faced the Soviet Union after the Ussuri clashes, it felt the need for allies, overt or covert. Though it had fought the US in the Korean war and lost 150,000 lives, including that of Mao Zedong’s pilot son, it entered into an entente with the US against the Soviet Union

[ramana]

India should play the US card jus as PRC is playing the US card. Let me explain. The PRC proliferates to US allies in India's periphery and the US does nothing but issue platitudes and wring hands about treaty obligations, great power compulsions and other BS all the while Indian security is singed. India should identify US allies in PRC neighborhood who have issues with PRC and bolster them. The other thing is to support those powers who are neighbors of PRC rogues: NoKo and TSP.

So I suggest supporting SoKo, Japan and Afghanistan.

Vietnam and Iran are different category.

[TonyMontana]

India should play the US card jus as PRC is playing the US card. Let me explain. The PRC proliferates to US allies in India's periphery and the US does nothing but issue platitudes and wring hands about treaty obligations, great power compulsions and other BS all the while Indian security is singed. India should identify US allies in PRC neighborhood who have issues with PRC and bolster them. The other thing is to support those powers who are neighbors of PRC rogues: NoKo and TSP.

So I suggest supporting SoKo, Japan and Afghanistan.

Vietnam and Iran are different category.

The problem with this line of thinking is what could India offer and what would India gain in return?

What could India offer SoKo, Japan and Afghanistan that the US can not or would not? And say India does provide military hardware to these countries. Do you forsee these military hardware being used in the coming decade? And by buying military hardware from India, would these country fall into the India camp? Or be seen as falling into the India camp? How would that affect their relationship with PRC? What would these effects be? And how does that benefit these countries?

[ramana]

Right now they have US support and US is beholden to PRC for is own reasons. Its a process of helping the US untangle itself from the PRC.

[TonyMontana]

Right now they have US support and US is beholden to PRC for is own reasons. Its a process of helping the US untangle itself from the PRC.

Are you suggesting that India replace the USA as the protector of these countries? How would that help the US untangle from PRC? By removing the presence of the US or their military hardware support from these countries, don't you remove more points of contention between the US and PRC? Thus bettering their relationship?

[Arihant]

India should play the US card jus as PRC is playing the US card. Let me explain. The PRC proliferates to US allies in India's periphery and the US does nothing but issue platitudes and wring hands about treaty obligations, great power compulsions and other BS all the while Indian security is singed. India should identify US allies in PRC neighborhood who have issues with PRC and bolster them. The other thing is to support those powers who are neighbors of PRC rogues: NoKo and TSP.

So I suggest supporting SoKo, Japan and Afghanistan.

Vietnam and Iran are different category.

I think our establishent consistently underestimates what Taiwan has to offer us. In part, I fear that our establishment has written off Taiwan as a lost cause (a Han-majority nation - ultimately doomed to sign up with China). I think we are not reading the situation correctly (and I've said this multiple times in the past on this forum). A very large proportion of Taiwan's would never accept annexation by China (by most accounts, at least 70%, and possibly upto 90%). There is a business lobby that has been co-opted by the goodies the China market has to offer, but that state of affairs is as fragile as the Chinese market....

I'm sure there is contact and activity under the radar, but a calibrated set of _public_ moves (possibly well short of establishing full diplomatic ties) would provide us another point of leverage. The Taiwanese oppostion (now looking likely to win power in the next election) would welcome such moves, and even the ruling KMT would be open to some ...