What's new

How China and India May Come to Blows

dadeechi

BANNED
Joined
Sep 12, 2015
Messages
4,281
Reaction score
-8
Country
India
Location
United States
How China and India May Come to Blows
Why could there be war between these two most populous countries in the world?
Peter Navarro, November 4, 2015

Quick question to test your global know-how: Which source of friction between China and India is the most likely trigger or tripwire for war between these two most populous countries in the world?

  • 1. A territorial dispute involving Aksai Chin or Arunachal Pradesh
    2. China’s supply of nuclear and conventional weapons to India’s archenemy Pakistan
    3. India’s harboring of the Dalai Lama and other issues related to China’s authoritarian grip on Tibet
    4. China’s diversion of key sources of India’s water supply
    5. Any or all of the above
This is a very difficult question to answer, but the ultimate answer may well turn out to be #5 – any or all of the above.
Let’s take them in a step-by-step fashion – first looking at the territorial disputes involving Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh.
These two pieces of strategic real estate, which lie more than 1,200 miles apart, served as the original battlefields in the bloody 1962 Sino-Indian War.
Aksai Chin, a Chinese-controlled territory that is contested by India is about the size of Switzerland. It sits on the easternmost portion of the autonomous Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir.
For China, this virtually uninhabited high desert provides an essential north-south transportation and logistics link between its two most western territories – Xinjiang Province and Tibet.
This essential link – officially known as Chinese National Highway 219 – runs for more than 1,000 miles from Yecheng in Xinjiang to Lhatse in Tibet and passes right through Aksai Chin.
In fact, it was the construction of this critical road segment in the mid-1950s that first inflamed Indian passions and set the stage for the 1962 war.
Ironically, India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, had gone out of his way in the early 1950s to assist Maoist China, then a communist pariah to much of the world.
As late as 1954, Nehru promoted the slogan “Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai,” meaning that India and China are brothers. In fact, in April of that same year, China and India signed a mutual non-aggression pact.
As part of that pact, Nehru had presented China with a frontier map that included Aksai Chin as part of India. And Chinese Foreign Minister Zhou Enlai had assured Nehru that China had no designs on this mountainous enclave or any other Indian territory.
This assurance notwithstanding, China began to secretly build its strategic road across Aksai Chin as early as 1956. In 1958, China would further escalate the budding crisis by marking Aksai Chin on official maps as Chinese territory.
From warfare to “mapfare”
Operating in this stealthy way, China sought to establish new facts on the ground and thereby legally bolster its sovereignty claim.
As the world has learned in recent years, this kind of “lawfare” and “mapfare” is a common feature of China’s way to claim disputed territory.
With India’s capital New Delhi about as close to the Aksai Chin border as Washington, D.C. is to Boston, China’s rapid military buildup over the last several decades in both Tibet and Xinjiang has become a cause of great concern for India.
In evaluating the legitimacy of India’s strategic concerns, it is important to note that historically the high altitude Himalayas formed a natural, almost impenetrable, barrier between India and China.
Today, China’s military can easily overcome this barrier through joint air and land operations.
China’s growing threat to the Indian subcontinent also manifests itself via a modern, military-grade road network in Tibet that features numerous axial roads, stretches for more than 35,000 miles and funnels right into Aksai Chin’s land invasion route.
What all this adds up to is a very credible threat to the Indian heartland, the strategic centerpiece of which is China’s control of Aksai Chin.
There also is a second territorial dispute with quite similar strategic dimensions – the Indian-held state of Arunachal Pradesh (which China calls “Southern Tibet”).
About the size of Austria, this “land of the dawn-lit mountains” and most north-eastern part of India borders both Bhutan in the West and Myanmar in the east as well as Tibet to the north.

In fact, more than 50 years after the end of the 1962 Sino-Indian War, Chinese troops continue to make periodic and highly provocative incursions into Arunachal Pradesh.
From New Delhi’s strategic perspective, if China were to successfully take this eastern gateway into India, it would offer a second line of military advance through the Brahmaputra Valley from China’s heavily populated, and equally heavily militarized, Yunnan Province.
Ultimately, the real prize in any Chinese taking of Arunachal Pradesh may well turn out to be its water rights. To see why, we need to look more closely at the budding water wars between China and India.
The water conundrum
China and India account for almost 40% of the world’s population, but have access to only about 10% of global water supplies.
China’s water scarcity is further compounded by a high degree of pollution – many of its lakes and rivers are dead zones and as much as 40% of the water in China’s rivers is unfit for human consumption.
For India, the situation is hardly any better. In a land heavily dependent on agriculture, it is projected by the World Bank to be “water stressed” as early as 2025 and “water scarce” by 2050.
China, via its control of Tibet, also has control over much of India’s water supplies.
In fact, the Tibetan Plateau is the “world’s largest freshwater repository after the polar icecaps” and a key watershed for fully ten of the largest rivers in Asia, including the Mekong running through Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia on its way to Vietnam, and the Salween that winds it way through Burma.
And just how may China’s control of this Tibetan “water tower of the world” actually trigger war? Just consider the real-world ramifications of Beijing’s audacious proposal to divert as much as 60% of the waters of India’s Brahmaputra River into China’s increasingly parched Yellow River.
To understand how catastrophic such a diversion would be for India – and how the importance of Arunachal Pradesh as a war trigger jumps right back into the strategic picture – a little geography is in order.
At present, the waters of India’s Brahmaputra River begin in the Kailas range of the Himalayas and head directly east for some 1,800 miles through Tibet before reaching a “Great Bend” just north of the border between Tibet and Arunachal Pradesh.
At this point, in one of the most remarkable feats of nature, the river makes an abrupt U-turn and then winds its way through Arunachal Pradesh on its way first to become a main tributary of India’s sacred Ganges River and eventually to find the river’s end in Bangladesh and the Bay of Bengal.
If China did indeed divert as much as 200 billion cubic meters of this water annually to the Yellow River, this would not just represent an obvious casus belli. It would be an environmental and economic disaster for India as well as a cataclysmic event for India’s downriver neighbor Bangladesh.
Put both the territorial and the water dimensions together and you discover the most important reason for China’s increasing insistence that Arunachal Pradesh is Chinese, not Indian, territory.
If China can impose its “Southern Tibet” claim on India (either through coercion or force), then India would have much less standing when it came to protesting the diversion of water from the Brahmaputra.
From Pakistan to Tibet
Beyond these territorial and water disputes creating plenty of friction between India and China, there are also other perennial triggers, perhaps none of them bigger than the Pakistan issue.
India quite correctly blames China both for its substantial arms sales to Pakistan and for providing its archenemy with the expertise and technology to become a nuclear power.
And just why is China so cozy with Pakistan? Because it views the Islamic state both as a gateway to South Asia as well as a buffer state against India itself.
It is important to realize that this special China-Pakistan bond is not a recent development. In fact, it dates back to the 1962 Sino-Indian War and the unraveling of strong relations between Nehru’s India and Mao’s China.
In addition, Pakistan has built a massive port at Gwadar that is likely to become an increasingly important port of call for China’s growing navy.
The “will there be war?” problem is that, as China begins to project its naval power into the Indian Ocean and uses Pakistan as a basing area, the scope for a second Sino-Indian War will mount.
As for whether India and China would actually ever really go to war over Tibet or water or anything else, some experts argue that this is impossible.
The argument they base their assessment on is that both states are very capable and well-equipped nuclear powers. One should certainly hope so, but there is no guarantee whatsoever that restraint will prevail.
Editor’s Note: This is an excerpt from Peter Navarro’s book “Crouching Tiger: What China’s Militarism Means for the World (Prometheus Books)” which released on November 3, 2015.


Navarro.png

About Peter Navarro
Peter Navarro is a professor of Economics and Public Policy at The Paul Merage School of Business, University of California-Irvine.

How China and India May Come to Blows - The Globalist
 
Facing up to the Chinese dragon
Thursday, 05 November 2015 | Pravin Sawhney | in Oped


Until India realises that China ought to be its foreign policy priority, with the border dispute at the heart of the matter, it will not make progress on other bilateral issues. India's reluctance to catch the bull by the horns has weakened its diplomatic options
China’s Vice President Li Yuanchao’s five-day India visit began on November 3 and Vice Chairman of Central Military Commission, General Fan Changlong is expected here later in the month. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Hua Chunying has confirmed that in addition to talks on counter-terrorism, a host of bilateral issues would be on the table.
What comes in the way of resolving these issues is mutual distrust on account of the border dispute. Until India wakes up to the reality that China ought to be its prime foreign policy priority with the border dispute at the heart of the matter, its long shadow will continue to fall on other bilateral matters disallowing their optimal fruition. India’s hesitancy to catch the bull by the horn has weakened its political, economic and diplomatic options when dealing with other majors powers. This squarely impacts on India’s strategic autonomy policy and desire to become a leading power.
At the recently held sixth Xiangshan Forum in Beijing, India’s former National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon, when asked about India’s challenges to an early resolution of the border dispute with China, offered a disconcerting response. He said, “The border is not settled because things are going well. Both sides have done a remarkable job.”
Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. The border dispute cannot be settled because India cannot give what China wants. Moreover, as China’s national power and political stature grows, let alone a catch-up which under the present circumstances is not possible, even managing the bilateral relationship so that it does not impact adversely on India’s rise, will become increasingly difficult for India. A badly handled border dispute by India will impact negatively on other contentious bilateral issues, something that is already happening. By not acknowledging that the border dispute rankles and is unresolvable, India cannot explore options to mitigate its deleterious effects in order to build a win-win relationship based upon mutual trust with China.
To place this matter into perspective, consider this: China, on July 21, 2008, resolved its outstanding territorial dispute with Russia under the 2004 proposal of Russian President Vladimir Putin of a 50-50 division of disputed islands. China did this because it grasped the importance of close ties with Russia for both strategic and military-technology gains. Today, Russia is China’s partner in President Xi Jinping’s one belt, one road plan as well as the alternate security architecture that Beijing is building in Asia. Thus, the possibility of softening the Chinese position on the border dispute exists.
Meanwhile, four bilateral issues where the two sides could have done better if India had handled the border dispute properly are worth considering. While India’s Act East policy and China’s OBOR and its Bangladesh–China–India–Myanmar Forum for Regional Cooperation are about trade liberalisation, financial integration, better connectivity and policy coordination in Asia, there is deep suspicion and reluctance on India’s part to jump on the Chinese bandwagon.
India has three problems with OBOR. One, its key artery, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, runs through Azad Kashmir which India considers its territory. India’s objections to this were brushed aside by China saying it was a commercial venture meant to improve peoples’ lives.
Two, India worries that joining the BCIM which might connect with China’s OBOR land route will incentivise Beijing to push Delhi to join OBOR or the Maritime Silk Route also (India insists that the BCIM and OBOR are separate issues). India considers the one road which passes through its backyard and connects with the Gwadar maritime hub in Pakistan as detrimental to its security.
Three, India believes that joining the China supported connectivity projects, when it has a few of its own, would undermine its own Act East policy. In what is seen as a belittling of India, China has offered that India’s maritime projects like Mausam and Spice Route become part of its Maritime Silk Route project. While India has joined the China-supported Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Brics’s New Development Bank (the official argument is that India, with its large economy, will benefit these China-backed institutions), it is hesitant to be a part of Chinese agenda. This explains India’s dilly-dally on the BCIM, which was offered by China before its expansive OBOR plan unfolded. India, since 2013, has still not completed its half-track-study (by a Joint Secretary) to conclude whether it should join the BCIM. Delhi’s grouse at a deeper level is that China has not endorsed its Act East policy.
The other bilateral issue where suspicions linger is China’s Zangmu hydropower dam over the Brahmaputra river (called Yarlung Tsangpo river in Tibet) which was completed in October this year. This is the largest dam built at a high altitude and is reported to provide 2.5 billion kilowatts of electricity per year. China says it is a run-of-the-river project and has agreed to share hydrological data and assistance in emergency management (flood data) with India, as it is the lower-riparian state. It has, however, turned a deaf ear to India’s demand of providing it with lean period data and that a cooperative framework be worked out between the two sides to assuage India’s apprehensions. For instance, India fears that China may divert the river water or build large water storage facilities. Both of these will affect India’s entire North Eastern region which is fed by the Brahmaputra river.
Another area where the unresolved border issue looms large was the first bilateral meeting on disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control held in April in Beijing, ahead of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s China visit in May. China is the only permanent member of the United Nations Security Council which does not accept India as a state with nuclear weapons and continues to demand that India sign the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state as per UN Security Council resolution 1172 of June 6, 1998. It was after years of prodding by India that China agreed to take the first baby step where the two sides exchanged views on global technology regimes and conference on disarmament held under UN aegis.
As China does not recognise India as a nuclear weapon state, it has refused to discuss bilateral issues like respective nuclear doctrines, proliferation of Chinese nuclear and restrictive technologies to Pakistan, and more recently, China’s military strategy paper.
Yet another bilateral issue affected by the border dispute is military diplomacy. The fifth hand-in-hand exercise held in October in Kunming was a part of bilateral agreement to have counter-terrorism exercise in India and China each year. A total of 175 Indian troops had participated with the GOC 33 corps and the director general military training being part of the observation group. The ultimate aim of these exercises is symbolic, exemplified by the presence of general officers for what are essentially company level counter terrorism manoeuvres.
The focus of military diplomacy is to plan more exchanges between the two Armies, an endeavour which has not gone far. For example, the two sides had agreed to set up a hot line (to ease border incidents) between the Indian Army Headquarters and People’s Liberation Armys General Staff Headquarters in Beijing in May during Prime Minister Modi’s China visit. The Chinese have reportedly been dragging feet as even the Memorandum of Understanding has not been signed. Similarly, India has been reluctant to accept the PLA offer of joint Naval and Air Forces exercises, besides hand-in-hand. The contention is that India has a land-centric dispute with China. This may not remain true once China’s one-road joins the Gwadar hub.
India should plan ahead on the biggest military threat and strategic challenge confronting it — how to compel China to moderate its stand on the disputed border which come in the way of India’s rise in Asia.

(The writer is editor, FORCE newsmagazine)

Facing up to the Chinese dragon
 
Aksai Chin or Arunachal Pradesh is not territorial disputes but expansionist's mischief and a very wrong move. Both won't go to war alone. This would be a world War. As Pakistan will give it an another try during Indo China war. And US is not fools to be calm. They will start aggressive stands at sea, weapons support and at the UN. If China gains in one part India will gain in another parts of Chinese borders which may turn deadly to strong hold of China in Tibet. Breaking morale of Chinese soldiers are not that hard.
 
Breaking morale of Chinese soldiers are not that hard.

Then come and try it. :lol:

We fought the US + 16 of her allies combined in the Korean War, and pushed them into the longest retreat in the history of the US armed forces.

If you think you can beat that, start Forward Policy 2.0, anytime.
 
Then come and try it. :lol:

We fought the US + 16 of her allies combined in the Korean War, and pushed them into the longest retreat in the history of the US armed forces.

If you think you can beat that, start Forward Policy 2.0, anytime.


Before 62 Sino-Indian bordoe war, PLA thought Indian Army would be at the level of tier-2 KMT force, and prepared accordingly. Soon after the war broke out, PLA realized that "Breaking morale of Indian soldiers were not that hard" at all. They surrounded or fled in disorder. PLA grossly overestimate the Indian Army's strength and moral. They just were not good fighters. After all, they were conquered by a small group British soldiers and under colonial rules for centuries,.

Big Mouth is their best weapon.
 
Before 62 Sino-Indian bordoe war, PLA thought Indian Army would be at the level of tier-2 KMT force, and prepared accordingly. Soon after the war broke out, PLA realized that "Breaking morale of Indian soldiers were not that hard" at all. They surrounded or fled in disorder. PLA grossly overestimate the Indian Army's strength and moral. They just were not good fighters. After all, they were conquered by a small group British soldiers and under colonial rules for centuries,.

Big Mouth is their best weapon.

Big mouth warmongerer indeed. :lol:

But apart from that warmongerer (and all others like him), who here REALLY wants another war between China and India? Seriously?

Yeah you guys can convince yourselves that it will be easy to fight against China, but in your heart you know it is not.
 
Then come and try it. :lol:

We fought the US + 16 of her allies combined in the Korean War, and pushed them into the longest retreat in the history of the US armed forces.

If you think you can beat that, start Forward Policy 2.0, anytime.
Well said!

India already tried Forward Policy 2.0 in 1975, by attempting to integrate Chinese claimed territory "the state of Sikkim"

The swift PLA response shocked Indian army and led to defeat, resulting in Chinese integration of Sikkim into China. :cry:

Political integration of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Big mouth warmongerer indeed. :lol:

But apart from that warmongerer (and all others like him), who here REALLY wants another war between China and India? Seriously?

Yeah you guys can convince yourselves that it will be easy to fight against China, but in your heart you know it is not.


If you know two recently disclosed letters Nehru sent to JFK begging for US involvement, you would agree even "Breaking morale of India's Prime Minister was not that hard".
 
After all, they were conquered by a small group British soldiers and under colonial rules for centuries,.

Well said, Indian resistance against British is abysmal compared to China's glorious resistance against the British.

For instance India was subjugated by British in mere span of 20 years (from 1839 to 1860) and that too only in two wars.:cry:

First Indian British war in 1839

First Opium War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second Opium War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

End of last British Indian war in 1860

Where as the Chinese resistance against the British went on for 103 years (from 1746 to 1849) involving 12 wars.:china:

First Chinese-British conflict in 1746

First Carnatic War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carnatic Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carnatic Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First Anglo-Mysore War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second Anglo-Mysore War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Third Anglo-Mysore War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fourth Anglo-Mysore War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First Anglo-Maratha War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second Anglo-Maratha War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Third Anglo-Maratha War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First Anglo-Sikh War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second Anglo-Sikh War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last Chinese-British war fought till 1849.

Very awesome performance by the Chinese :enjoy:
 
Last edited:

LOL India itself is a British creation. :lol:

Why do you think all of India's borders are named after British people like Henry MacMahon?

Why do you think India's legal and government system are written in English and basically a copy of the British system?

India as a nation didn't exist before the British created it out of the many independent kingdoms of the subcontinent.
 
Then come and try it. :lol:

We fought the US + 16 of her allies combined in the Korean War, and pushed them into the longest retreat in the history of the US armed forces.

If you think you can beat that, start Forward Policy 2.0, anytime.
OH then why don't you try it? Why you don't fire a single bullet? Ask your self? Check yourself before you wreck yourself :flame:

We already started our forward policy. Kindly check our development plan undertaken at our borders. You shamelessly celebrated victory day. But wait. How and when you won war against US and Japan? If there was no pearl Harbor then you slavery would had continued to 21st century. What happened in your last attempt at our borders? The day you promised that you will never fire a thing at India. You big mouth army got crushed brutally by India Vietnam and Japan.

Claim claim. Claim every others Victory as yours. Lol:whistle::enjoy::rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
Why do you think all of India's borders are named after British people like Henry MacMahon?

Why do you think India's legal and government system are written in English and basically a copy of the British system?

Because we Indians resisted the British for only 20 years unlike the Chinese :P
 

First you need to educate yourself about the territory of China and it's real size against India's. Then come to debate throwing all junks to boost your Arabian ego:sarcastic: wonder what Pakistanis where doing before 1947 :secret::no:
 
OH then why don't you try it? Why you don't fire a single bullet? Ask your self? Check yourself before you wreck yourself :flame:

We already started our forward policy. Kindly check our development plan undertaken at our borders. You shamelessly celebrated victory day. But wait. How and when you won war against US and Japan? If there was no pearl Harbor then you slavery would had continued to 21st century. What happened in your last attempt at our borders? The day you promised that you will never fire a thing at India. You big mouth army got crushed brutally by India Vietnam and Japan.

Claim claim. Claim every others Victory as yours. Lol:whistle::enjoy::rofl::rofl::rofl:

So you think you won the 1962 war? :rofl:

Good, I'm waiting till you have the balls to start another Forward Policy. :enjoy:

Bear in mind, even our conventional rocket artillery has a range of over 350+ km (more than enough to reach New Delhi).

We can simply sit on the high ground of the Tibetan plateau, an unassailable defensive advantage, and target Delhi with cheap mass produced rocket artillery.

We have the largest manufacturing base on the planet, and rocket artillery is cheap. We can wipe out everything you have while sitting on top of the Tibetan plateau.

So let's see when you have the balls to try. :azn:

Because we Indians resisted the British for only 20 years unlike the Chinese :P

Next you'll be telling me that Henry MacMahon is an Indian name. :rofl:
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Military Forum Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom