From Indian perspective... the formulation and execution of the curren Indian policy is driven primarily by sense of diminishing returns what the Indian policy establishment percieves as China Appeasement. Also, existential angst regarding South Tibet and NE plays a part.
At the outset, a great summation indeed. By and large, I have no 'dissenting voice' here. Minor tweaking to adjust for my take, perhaps?
In another forum, well into the Dokalam crisis, I had penned a write up wherein I had speculated (and retrospectively certain quarters do seem to indicate that my premise had been right) that the Dokalam stand off was more of a fallout of an internal struggle within the Chinese political hierarchy than anything to do with emphatic moves towards alteration of the status-quo as existing.
Personally, I have been in the area, and had visited it for the first time in 1994. Even in those days, when there was a fair weather track laid out by the PLA (along the road over which they were working now), the PLA would patrol the area, and so would IA based out of it's own post at Doka-La. This was the year when PLA positioned it's DF-11 missiles in Yatung for the first time. (or was it 1993, I do not recall exactly, only that in 1994 an IA team went in physically to confirm presence of the missiles). My digressing here has nothing to do with adding ancillaries to obfuscate the issue, merely to point out that this 'cat and mouse' game, as you eloquently put it, is age old, and nothing of a 'big deal'. The only difference since then has been the information war (or misinformation campaign) wherein wars were being fought online thereby skewing the narrative and the facts according to the audience intended. That, and here I agree with you, can cause lot of grief all around.
Having said that, I wanted to clarify on two important aspects here:
1. The so called South Tibet, is merely a bargaining chip for China. In 1950s China had proposed acceptance of Chinese claims over Aksai Chin and the reciprocal acceptance of the Indian claims over NEFA (as Arunachal Pradesh was called then). There was no mention of 'South Tibet' at the time as the Chinese position is based on their long standing propensity to compartmentalize and use those elements of Indo-Tibetan relationships which are convenient for them. It was the Tibet Government, at the time of Indian independence, which tried to backtrack from it's agreement with British India, on the basis of change in government. The recent attempts at raising a 'South Tibet' issue, has to be read in that context. China, unlike a perception which is propagated, is not a fool. It would be willing to settle on the terms as originally proposed by it in the 1950s. What impedes? The Indian narrative of claims over Aksai Chin. It was, afterall, a no man's land which PRC occupied first. Plain and simple. And holds immense strategic value for China, while hardly any value for India, save for the narrative that was built up in the 50s and pushed for vigorously.
2. There is no "China appeasement" issue here. The hard facts are accepted by the Indian Politicians who have the reins of the country in hand. China has emerged as a leader much ahead of India. The Indian economy is on upswing and doing well, but is hobbled by it's greatest strength - democracy. It will take time to catch up with China. Due to the question of unsettled boundaries, this gap, at present, invokes a sense of insecurity as the Chinese domination of markets and with it, it's diplomatic and political clout, impose a sense of concern within Indian establishment. After all, while a person like I would not expect China to militarily involve itself in a conflict to settle matters (rather, it would get into a position wherein it can avoid conflict and settle the matter through diplomatic channels with negotiations, which may appear as one sided, but in consonance with Chinese rights to do everything to look after their interests), one can not guarantee the Chinese approach and patience to play the long game.
This is also the motivation of energetic opposition to CPEC.
Again 2 points:
1. The lay out of the road through Pakistan held J&K region of Gilgit-Baltistan and other areas. Chinese have done exactly what they do not want others to do - undertake any kind of activity in areas it views as disputed. The dual standards here are a laugh.
2. In my opinion, CPEC remains a one sided arrangement, wherein the Pakistani economy will pay a price in terms of wiping off of the local industrial and over the next few years, agricultural base. People may dispute this right now - but one can mark it and remind me am wrong, if indeed I am. A dispassionate analysis of the whole arrangement will lead to this conclusion. This, effectively, would put China in control in Pakistani Policy establishment (the pockets that are not in it's control - some civil establishment; who matter, are already gunning for them), whereby the policies may be tweaked to 'force' India for more concessions.
I am just putting up a reference of a CIA document of March 1963 for others here. An interesting read.
http://www.archieve.claudearpi.net/maintenance/uploaded_pics/polo-07.pdf
Regarding OBOR opposition...it appears to have more to do with creating chips on the negotiation table than actual opposition to the BRI. Why else would India be part of AIIB or BRICS otherwise.
True. And of course the linking of CPEC to OBOR by China did not help the issue either.
In the coming time we are primed to see more 'stand-offs' just like the last one. Both PRC and India are expecting this Cat-n-Mouse to play out with increasing frequency. So staying tuned won't be a bad idea aferall.
I think there will be a pause for now, until and unless there is major shift on the lines of the OP here. But in the long run? Very true.
On many different levels such stand-offs can/shall serve the domestic appetites on both fronts. However, managing the Stage of such confrontations would require the highest maturity of policymakers to not let things come to a boil.
Absolutely. That was perfectly exemplified this time round.
And then there is Eternal Nemesis to the West... That South West Asian regional power which refuses to any Indian advances. Again China is there to make sure the continuiting of Pak as a viable state.
Unlike the popular misconception that is oft repeated, especially in the environs of PDF, India has very little to gain from discontinuity of Pakistan as a viable and an unified state and lot to lose thereof. Chinese interests in Pakistan remain well established - the maintenance of adequate 'balance' to the belligerent state south of China thereby tying the two up, while securing a route well protected and officially sanctioned by an amenable host nation, for it's energy security and access to market both in the host country and thence on to Africa. A fair and wise policy.
The Indian issue with the state in question remain as earlier. The question of a 'broken' nation, with an economy that is just struggling to remain afloat and a society that is by and large radicalized to significant extents, and where the majority of the civil establishments are either too weak or simply incapable of performing the major tasks of any government of a nation, without the risk of either outright subversion or 'pressure' by a security set up keen on protecting it's own varied interests, is not exactly the brightest of idea one can come up with, and is one, which indeed, has plagued the Indian security planners for over three decades now.
Howsoever tempting the prospect may seem, the costs to Indian security will be too high as a fallout of any such eventuality. This has been my consistent position on this forum itself, for 8 years and counting. And this is in consonance, I assure you, with the Indian security establishment as also the hierarchy of the Civil Government. Unlike the public posturing to the contrary, the actions can be analyzed for the actuality.
CPEC is a framework on so many levels that it has become imperative for Indian establishment to oppose it with full force. And NO... it has nothing to do with disputed terriorty narrative...that is just a vehicle.
Au contraire, it is precisely that. The rest are ancillaries here.
China has firmly set its sights on South Tibet and a certian part of Kashmir... which for India would be unacceptable as it would amount to existential threat.
That has been more or less agreed to - the give and take is on this - Aksai Chin settled for Arunachal Pradesh.
The US, JP and Aus would like nothing better that for India to 'take the lead' in this emerging dynamic. The socalled coming of age and standing up to China.
Yes. True. No other nation can match up to China in sheer size and numbers. Let us be brutally honest on that
We can never reduce the relationship between China and India to mere simple notions. Both would do everything possible to avoid a direct confrontation or let the tenstions/hostility to become unmanagable.
Very true. Holds for both nations. Both will indulge in rhetoric and grandstanding, but understanding that engaging the other off the battle field is the best course for both the nations.
Too bad, the rhetoric often drowns out this basic fact for the citizens in general.
Regardless, the nationalistic fervers or PDF brovados... this relationship needs to be managed extremely well. Any miscalculation would be a disaster for not only South Asia but perhaps the world.
I could not agree with you more on this one. Very eloquently put.
Awesome news...India has long been maintaining status quo...if it wishes to be in the security council. It has to start behaving as one.
It has nothing to do with security council. Merely to do with matching up to it's security needs as also interests. Pragmatically speaking, China has far surpassed India in economic field. As long as India trails China economically, it can never hope to secure itself militarily solely on it's own.
Why do you think that the thrust of the present government is more on economic overhauling than populism, even at the cost of losing Delhi, there was no move towards freebies and other populist moves?
China never shown consideration to Indian sensitivities...while framing it's policy in this region and beyond..it is about time we do the same..
What sensitivities? India unilaterally gave up it's rights in Tibet. Then, it slept while China constructed a road through a territory which it claims (how is it that the road got constructed if indeed it was Indian territory? who left it unguarded?), then it refused to settle the boundary issue when a quid pro quo on Aksai Chin and NEFA was proposed. Need I go on?
Time will always be cruel for a nation which sleeps over it's security imperative and interests. Let us accept our mistakes. That is the first step towards rectifying our past mistakes. Are we prepared to accept that it was a strategic blunder by the political leadership of this country in not recognizing Tibet as an independent nation, accepting Tibet as a part of the country and
NOT intervening when Tibet was invaded (even though we had all the rights to do so), and sleeping more as Sinkiang (Xinjiang) was re-assimilated?
India isn't far behind as an economy and therefore while I don't expect bonhomie between two countries, Chinese foreign policy, must treat India differently.
India is quite behind both economically and as a result, in terms of diplomatic leverage and the capability to augment it's force structure as also resources to protect/advance it's interests.
Furthermore, the propensity to undermine the national interests in the name of regionalism, ably supported and protected by the Supreme Court, and federalism, will only serve to weaken a national resolve.
India faces hard choices and decisions, the internal contradictions will continue to hobble it. The first and foremost is the implementation of a population policy that addresses the demographic dysbalance/transformations and growth rate.
As long as the masses remain poor (and remain the fastest growing population subgroup), no amount of economic progress will result in tangible gains to the nation. The economic prosperity is directly linked to the population size and resources mobilization for civic imperatives and for playing the role of purchase of diplomatic currency. A young population today will result in a very large old population as a subset at a latter date wherein automation will be predominant.
Just an amused note.
The rivalry between India and China has to come out sooner or latter. Doklam incidence just expedited the matter. In a decade or so the confrontation will be much bolder than it is now.
Nope
Thanks for posting the article.
To all members, of all nationalities,
namaskar, I am visiting this forum after ages. Hope all of you are in good health. For those who wish to troll me, wait a while, the troll inside me from the good old days is still in there somewhere. :p
@Joe Shearer Long time, sir. Would appreciate a more detailed reply on this policy shift. Yay or nay.
@nair Thank you, sir. Do let me know your thoughts on the piece.
Enough about the piece itself. Eagerly waiting to see what forum members have to say about the interesting times in Indo-Pacific geopolitics.
Excellent insight. Will dissect it elsewhere
I personally feel that like China, India is currently being led by more extroverted leadership which sees itself as restoring the rightful place of India amongst the principal nations of the world. It is no longer content with simply projecting an image of a competent defensive posture, but increasingly willing to take more offensive actions to further it's goals.
It looks like a mixture of good fortune and strong leadership. The reason why I say good fortune is because the U.S has been positioning itself to contain China for the past decade or so, a policy that was magnified with Obama's Pivot to East Asia. The U.S has been eager to co-op India in it's framework of engagement, but it looks like the U.S has abandoned it's unofficial policy of letting China rise more amicably.
With India's leadership eager to enhance prestige at both home and abroad, with a growing economy and stable model of governance, it was natural for India to begin to establish itself more strongly. However, I do believe this would have happened regardless of America's re-engagement. But the nature of it is open to discussion especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Indian population, it's leadership, it's educated members of the society have always been more inclined towards Western political thought, and now with its interests aligning with that of the U.S who are more than willing to accommodate India, it is not surprising for me to see India become more confident in pushing it's interests.
And honestly, unlike others I don't believe India to be so stupid to allow the U.S or anyone else to use it as a pawn in their wars. Even during it's alliance with the Soviets, India kept itself relatively receptive to Western ideas and concerns. So although I believe this is a good sign, I am just not sure how brash the current Indian leadership is, because I don't think most of their actions are being green lighted by Washington or anyone else, but more for domestic consumption and national/personal interests, it would be interesting to see India's moves in the Pacific theater vis a vis China.
However, for the sake of peace I hope that the leadership of both India and China understand the need for mutual respect and establish a framework for conflict management and de-escalation. Otherwise, China's rise and India's new found confidence makes a confrontation inevitable.
(Please note, I consider myself to be extremely ignorant of foreign affairs, so forgive my errors and any abstractions that make absolutely no sense. This is a completely neutral view that I have given after putting aside any biases.)
A very interesting and balanced take. Thanks for this insight. It is refreshing to come across sensible posts.
Having said that, let me just say that do not take the present seemingly erratic behavior of Indian leadership as anything other than a well thought out deception. US is out to look after it's own interests, and so is India. And like you rightly said, India will not allow itself to become a pawn.
Also, I would urge you to look at all the players here - US, China, Russia, India, Pakistan or anyone else, as merely looking out for their own interests. The complexity of relationships in post Cold War era and emergence of a multipolar concept, allows for complexity of interactions.
