There is a political tussle within China on projecting its power and profile. Many actors feel that the time has come to gradually discard late paramount leader Deng Xiaoping’s 1991-92 strategy of maintaining a low profile while building strength. Concurrently, there is the old Chinese military strategy of striking at the weakest link in an adversarial chain while buying peace and stable relations with the strongest of them.
Sound analysis.
The above strategy is clearly reflected in China confronting weak neighbours on the one hand, and building relations with the US on the other. During his recent visit to the US, Vice President Xi Jinping was rather circumspect in countering sharp talks from President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. Xi is slated to take over the Party leadership in October this year and as President in March next year. Obama is likely to win the US presidential elections at the end of the year. Xi would not like to start his leadership of China for ten years on the wrong footing with the US.
Really Mr. Roy? Just how sure are you about that?
Another development needs consideration. While the Communist Party remains in full control of internal and foreign policies, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has made serious inroads into foreign policy. The PLA has at least four important foreign policy think tanks which the party and the government cannot ignore. Retrieval of territories claimed by China is a major responsibility of the PLA.
Is it really true that the PLA can affect the PRC's foreign policy? If it really is, then I'd be surprised. Can any Chinese members confirm this?
Currently, India sits in the centre of this Chinese strategic planning. Beijing has cautioned and warned India on several issues and views India’s “Look East” policy as trying to encroach on China’s sphere of influence and create, as they say, ‘trouble’ for China. It was therefore not surprising, that pressure on India would be intensified by Beijing.
I do not think that India at the moment is militarily challenging China directly in the short term. In the long term, we cannot really say.
But they do try to exert their influence to counter Chinese interests throughout the region. Of this is abundantly clear.
The first point listed was the China-India border issue, and India was made the main culprit. It blamed some Indians who still insist that border dispute should be based on the Mc Mahon Line left by British colonialists; the dispute only concerns the 90 thousand sq kms in the eastern sector, and not the 30 thousand sq kms in the western sector, claiming that this territory historically belonged to China.
And they were right.
Further, India’s multi-party system was blamed for their different views on the boundary issue, emphasising the superiority of the Chinese system. It was also conveyed that India cannot expect any territorial concessions from China, something China did while resolving border disputes with other countries. India was also charged with not accepting the China proposed principle of “mutual understanding and mutual accommodation” on resolving the border issue.
The commentary, which appears to be an official statement but keeps the window of deniability open, appears to be turning the parameters of the talks on its head. The western sector was always on the discussion table. China has no hard historical evidence to suggest the 30 thousand sq kms, known as Aksai Chin belonged to China. In the eastern sector (90 thousand sq kms) there is a Chinese claim no doubt, but simply claiming territory does not make it theirs.
Fair enough. But is India willing to give up on the Tibet issue? If they give up, then the PLA may as well give up and continue to grow as neighbors. In fact, it appears to be more of a bargaining chip for China. Unlike Hong Kong, China was never actually part of the British Empire.
Interestingly, the People’s Daily added the Tibet issue, insinuating India’s stated position on it differed from actions on the ground. It was alleged that New Delhi’s ambiguous position towards the Dalai Lama and the Tibetans encourage them to provoke Tibetan disturbances inside China. The rest of the article was banal including trying to deny Sino-Pak cooperation to curb India, an issue on which evidence abounds in tons!
Oh please...
A litany of charges against India have been laid by China’s official media. It may be too early to say if it is a threat to be acted upon soon, but the line is certainly hard and the perception is that India may have to be taught a lesson again.
I don't see much of the Chinese mainstream media saying anything too much negative on India. In fact, 1962 is not even heard of over there. Even for me, it was here that I've even heard of 1962. lolz...
At the same time, a military punitive action is not expected. If China does so, it would prove to be the world’s largest liar, hiding evil intentions behind masks of “harmony” and “peace”. But these are non-combative ways. This can be expected. China’s assertiveness is clearly reflected in their policy towards India.
No they do not. Look at the map of the major PLAAF and PLAN bases. Most of them are situated in the east and northeast of the country. India is not militarily a high threat to China. Their concern are the US over the Taiwan issue, Vietnam and perhaps Japan.
Perhaps Mr. Roy doesn't see that China and India are big trading partners worth billions? More than any country in the neighborhood. Even exceeds that of Pakistan.
So if you go to war, Asia would be the loser. Especially given that they are some of the fastest growing economies.
I really hope India lets go of the Tibet issue for the part that it doesn't lead to military conflict. It is not in anyone's best interests in the region.
I mean, whatever has gone on over there, it is really their own problem. They should have never invited the Dalai Lama nor commit the reckless actions on 1962 to begin with.
You have a problem, sit on the negotiating table. Not going around like a bunch of fanboys.
" coz despite U.S support and Best U.S equipments...... pakistan lost..71.. 
