What's new

Why China Doesn't See India As a Threat

third eye

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
18,519
Reaction score
13
Country
India
Location
India
In my view India & China are two adolescents growing up in the same locality & like all young men growing up together there are bound to be some convergences & differences. Ultimately things will fall in place.


Why China Doesn’t See India As a Threat | The Diplomat

thediplomat_2015-02-02_06-46-43-386x257.jpg


The recently concluded trip by U.S. President Barack Obama to India was hailed by many as a turning point in U.S.-India relations. A short list of achievements includes agreements in defense, nuclear cooperation, climate change, and security. In particular, there is considerable hype that India has agreed to join the U.S. to contain China’s rise. There are also reports that China is now worried about the warming relationship between the U.S. and India. Is this really so?

A warm U.S.-India relationship will not worry China. In fact, the outcome might disappoint those in India and the U.S. who want to actively balance the rise of China. There are three primary reasons for this.

The first reason is that India has always maintained an independent foreign policy since its independence, thus making it very difficult for it to join any major power as an ally. As the book Wronged by Empire convincingly argues, India has a strong sense of victimization that still is relevant today to its foreign policy. In practice, this means that India will always remain suspicious of any major power’s potential threat to India’s independence and security. No matter how successful president Obama’s trip to India was this time, it is very unlikely that India would completely trust the U.S. intentions in helping India to balance China. Modi perfectly understands that India and the U.S. need each other at the moment and there is no harm in welcoming American assistance in balancing a possible China threat.

The second reason is quite straightforward. Very simply speaking, India needs Chinese investment to develop its economy in the long run. Sure, India does not want to be dominated by China economically, but in the long run there is no better alternative than China to help India’s huge appetite for investment in infrastructure. For example, Obama announced that the U.S. would invest $4 billion in India over the coming years, a number that pales in comparison to China’s pledge of $20 billion for India, announced during President Xi Jinping’s visit to India in 2014. Of course, there is no reason for India to reject investment from other powers as long as India resists economic colonization. Moreover, although India has some advantages with its democratic system, there is a lot to learn from China with regard to China’s unique model of economic development. If India can learn the right lessons from China and avoid China’s mistakes, then indeed the 21st century might be a century for Asians.

Lastly, policymakers in India fully understand that it is pointless and even counterproductive to contain a rising China. The truth is that China has already risen and any plan to contain China would be a huge mistake. This is not to say that a containment strategy would not cause damage to China’s national interests (it would). But the point is rather that any power who initiates this containment strategy would suffer vastly itself. Thus, no rational state would choose such a suicidal strategy. Despite the fact that there is some kind of security and economic cooperation between India and Vietnam, no evidence suggests that India truly wants to intervene in the South China Sea dispute. India’s strategy in the South China Sea is more likely a response to China’s increasing inroads into the Indian Ocean and continued support for Pakistan. If China is willing to make some concessions in those areas, India will also likely make some concessions in the South China Sea.

To conclude, despite the disputes and differences between India and China, the potential gains in this relationship are greater than the costs. Like any other bilateral relationship between major powers, there is always both cooperation and conflict in China-India relations. Both countries are rational enough to understand this important point and will maintain a good and friendly relationship in the future. The fact that Modi will visit Beijing in May proves the point that India still needs China badly. China does not see India as a threat, and India certainly should not see China that way either.
 
A fair analysis and observation, the facts and rationale are accurate, though I might slightly disagree with the author's conclusion for some other areas hasn't been covered.

It is a fair assessment.

Pretty close to the truth.
 
I don't see a conflict with China with China's new aristocrats. Mao is long gone, and so is military disparity.
While China has a strong state, they can not afford a war especially now when China plans to slow down economic development for market correction, unless they want civil unrest from the masses. China is known for revolutions, and carefully the CCP now pays the PAP more than they pay the PLA!
Plus, anyone with common sense can realize India doesn't take drastic actions, nor do they have a strong state even under modi to make war possible. The Indian military as it always has been, is a defence force even more so than Japans, despite the nuclear weapons.
Also to note the Agni V range was down played, they said it could reach all of China, but it can already reach Europe and put in a sub can reach coasts of America. India is interested in its own self interest, and the regions, and the greatest threat to Asia's security is not the nations, in Asia but foreign powers like NATO and America in Asia. America needs to limit its interaction with Asia.
 
Because China is far far powerful thn Indian even think about... China's priority is USA and west not 3rd world country where 70% population not even get food 2 times aday!

The recently concluded trip by U.S. President Barack Obama to India was hailed by many as a turning point in U.S.-India relations. A short list of achievements includes agreements in defense, nuclear cooperation, climate change, and security. In particular, there is considerable hype that India has agreed to join the U.S. to contain China’s rise. There are also reports that China is now worried about the warming relationship between the U.S. and India. Is this really so?

Lol again and again put colors on black and white sheet

Agreements in defense
LOL which one ? and about which so called TOP-NOTCH technology which US never share with others?

Nuclear cooperation
LOL since 2005/8 this Cooperation is dummy and still take many years to finalize.

Climate Change
Its pressure from US and soon India must agree if they want to run their economy and politics with USA.

India has agreed to join the U.S. to contain China’s rise.

LOL toor moor kar likhnay say behtar In short India will become a US front hand like Pakistan before once to run their objectives (Another US pheto for contain China).


and China give ***** damn to Indian US relations lol
 
Because China is far far powerful thn Indian even think about... China's priority is USA and west not 3rd world country where 70% population not even get food 2 times aday!


The author in post No 1 has given three cogent reasons to support his POV.

Can we keep our stereo typed reasons for another thread maybe ?
 
Border dispute with China is not as big a problem for China as India becoming a satellite state for Americans.
 
It is a fair assessment.
Pretty close to the truth.

As I said also agree that the assessment is fair and close, though I might differ slightly, points being as below.

The first reason is that India has always maintained an independent foreign policy since its independence, thus making it very difficult for it to join any major power as an ally. As the book Wronged by Empire convincingly argues, India has a strong sense of victimization that still is relevant today to its foreign policy. In practice, this means that India will always remain suspicious of any major power’s potential threat to India’s independence and security. No matter how successful president Obama’s trip to India was this time, it is very unlikely that India would completely trust the U.S. intentions in helping India to balance China. Modi perfectly understands that India and the U.S. need each other at the moment and there is no harm in welcoming American assistance in balancing a possible China threat.

This point is debatable. Yes, India has maintained an apparently independent foreign policy largely due to the sense of victimization and hence maintaining a diplomatic distance to the West and chose to stay close to USSR instead (not formal ally though very close). However since the fall of USSR, it is also observed that there is an eager to be accepted by the West especially among its elite public, as similarly observed in Turkey, even in Russia during the Yeltsin period. Now the question is, though the West wouldn't accept India whole-heartedly, but it would be pragmatic for the West to woo India into a containment of China, and such action would be welcome by India to satisfy its eagerness to be accepted by the West.

The second reason is quite straightforward. Very simply speaking, India needs Chinese investment to develop its economy in the long run. Sure, India does not want to be dominated by China economically, but in the long run there is no better alternative than China to help India’s huge appetite for investment in infrastructure. For example, Obama announced that the U.S. would invest $4 billion in India over the coming years, a number that pales in comparison to China’s pledge of $20 billion for India, announced during President Xi Jinping’s visit to India in 2014. Of course, there is no reason for India to reject investment from other powers as long as India resists economic colonization. Moreover, although India has some advantages with its democratic system, there is a lot to learn from China with regard to China’s unique model of economic development. If India can learn the right lessons from China and avoid China’s mistakes, then indeed the 21st century might be a century for Asians.

I concur with the author.

Lastly, policymakers in India fully understand that it is pointless and even counterproductive to contain a rising China. The truth is that China has already risen and any plan to contain China would be a huge mistake. This is not to say that a containment strategy would not cause damage to China’s national interests (it would). But the point is rather that any power who initiates this containment strategy would suffer vastly itself. Thus, no rational state would choose such a suicidal strategy. Despite the fact that there is some kind of security and economic cooperation between India and Vietnam, no evidence suggests that India truly wants to intervene in the South China Sea dispute. India’s strategy in the South China Sea is more likely a response to China’s increasing inroads into the Indian Ocean and continued support for Pakistan. If China is willing to make some concessions in those areas, India will also likely make some concessions in the South China Sea.

I concur with the author on the above.

The forth reason, in my view, is that Beijing is clear about the severe disparity in economic output, growth potential financial capacity, industrial capacity and hence military capacity. That's why in this count, China see Japan as a major threat.

However there one area that the author has not covered, i.e. regional security. There are two parts in this area, the first one being Pakistan, which being an factual ally of China, is potentially in conflict with India, hence may drag China into a regional conflict with India. The second part being IOR, on which China is relying for its maritime trade before a continental trade route ("New Silk Road") can happen, and a lack of trust between China and India will spur some security concern in Beijing.

So my conclusion is: China doesn't see India as a major threat, though there are concerns about the uncertainty in its foreign policy (be used by the West as containment vehicle), India's potential conflict with China's ally Pakistan (hence drag into it), and freedom of sail in IOR.
 
Last edited:
This point is debatable. Yes, India has maintained an apparently independent foreign policy largely due to the sense of victimization and hence maintaining a diplomatic distance to the West and chose to stay close to USSR instead (not formal ally though very close). However since the fall of USSR, it is also observed that there is an eager to be accepted by the West especially among its elite public, as similarly observed in Turkey, even in Russia during the Yeltsin period. Now the question is, though the West wouldn't accept India whole-heartedly, but it would be pragmatic for the West to woo India into a containment of China, and such action would be welcome by India to satisfy its eagerness to be accepted by the West.
Right, but India is still repeated the mantra of Strategic Autonomy. A better answer is that America is interested in the economic aspect of India's growth and wants a piece of if even the military sales.
Only China as a state has the ability of taking military alliances like they did in the Cold War. India doesn't have that ability given the Indian people don't approve. 30 % of Indians and even more of Indian bureaucrats don't like the US military involvement in Asia even if it has stabilized certain parts
However there one area that the author has not covered, i.e. regional security. There are two parts in this area, the first one being Pakistan, which being an factual ally of China, is potentially in conflict with India, hence may drag China into a regional conflict with India. The second part being IOR, on which China is relying for its maritime trade before a continental trade route ("New Silk Road") can happen, and a lack of trust between China and India will spur some security concern in Beijing.
.
If China didn't see India as a major threat, they wouldn't have involved them selves with Pakistan to such an extent. Remember even though the PLA is bigger, it doesn't matter on the Tibetan plateu which is why the CCP strengthened Pakistan. India doesn't need USA, or Japan, which are concerned with China, because China has plenty more states to be concerned with, Vietnam, SK etc...
And never has China intervened in Indo-Pak conflicts directly! 65, 71, 99 China took a backseat and America played a bigger role. China would fight India down to the last Pakistani but not the last Chinese.

Also to note, it is region coming up with cooperation groups in Asia NOT to contain a rising China, but stand firm against a more aggressive China. No way is this a alliance on paper, but much smaller agreements covering larger scales, for the economic security of Asia.
 
Right, but India is still repeated the mantra of Strategic Autonomy. A better answer is that America is interested in the economic aspect of India's growth and wants a piece of if even the military sales.
Only China as a state has the ability of taking military alliances like they did in the Cold War. India doesn't have that ability given the Indian people don't approve. 30 % of Indians and even more of Indian bureaucrats don't like the US military involvement in Asia even if it has stabilized certain parts

Whether India likes US doing in Asia or not is an non-issue, some US allies also disagree with their Iraqi war. Regarding your alternative answer to the question, yes for sure US wants arms sales to India which is an ideal market (despite low per capita income the aggregate volume is good, weak domestic industry, eagerness to be accepted by the West), and if so it only makes India more vulnerable to be used by US in her containment design. So still, from China's perspective, there is an uncertainty in India's apparently independent foreign policy.

If China didn't see India as a major threat, they wouldn't have involved them selves with Pakistan to such an extent. Remember even though the PLA is bigger, it doesn't matter on the Tibetan plateu which is why the CCP strengthened Pakistan. India doesn't need USA, or Japan, which are concerned with China, because China has plenty more states to be concerned with, Vietnam, SK etc...
And never has China intervened in Indo-Pak conflicts directly! 65, 71, 99 China took a backseat and America played a bigger role. China would fight India down to the last Pakistani but not the last Chinese.

Also to note, it is region coming up with cooperation groups in Asia NOT to contain a rising China, but stand firm against a more aggressive China. No way is this a alliance on paper, but much smaller agreements covering larger scales, for the economic security of Asia.

I have said, I basically agree with the author about his assessment (see the article about the 3 points, and the 4th point raised by me in post #10) and his conclusion that China doesn't see India as a threat, and which is indeed a general perspective here in China. The slight difference that I would argue is China may see some minor threat in that direction, the reasons I have already stated (uncertainty in India's foreign policy, and regional security).

Regarding the regional security as mentioned, I don't want to underplay nor exaggerate its weight in my argument. If you want to specifically discuss Sino-Pakistan alliance or roles of China/US in 65/71/99, let's not derail this thread and discuss in another one.
 
Whether India likes US doing in Asia or not is an non-issue, some US allies also disagree with their Iraqi war. Regarding your alternative answer to the question, yes for sure US wants arms sales to India which is an ideal market (despite low per capita income the aggregate volume is good, weak domestic industry, eagerness to be accepted by the West), and if so it only makes India more vulnerable to be used by US in her containment design. So still, from China's perspective, there is an uncertainty in India's apparently independent foreign policy.
Really? Did the purchase of Soviet weapons make India vulnerable to alliances with the USSR? No, despite the warm relations, India stood by its foreign policy. You make it sound like India is a puppet nation. It is not because the state is weak, while the society is strong. The politicians are only puppets of the people and the Army serves the state, the people. No alliance is is close or happening, which is why Washington is relaxed on its policy towards India. India did not reciprocate Washingtons' willingness to enter in any contain China alliance. Rather the Asian nations, are working within in their own frame work, to stand against an assertive China/CCP. There is no agerness by India to be acceapted by the west, because the west already accepts India, especially Europe. India has a look East policy, NOT look West, west to Europe and NATO. Indias security concerns are in Asia, NOT NATO or Europe. And their is no contianment design of the US. China is too big for it. Rather, the Asian nations, have agreed on their own terms how to deal with China, which is a re-action to CCP asserting is power recently! Not a greater design! This is a failure of China's foreign policy as China, like a colonial nations, still sees room for territorial expansion.
I have said, I basically agree with the author about his assessment (see the article about the 3 points, and the 4th point raised by me in post #10) and his conclusion that China doesn't see India as a threat, and which is indeed a general perspective here in China. The slight difference that I would argue is China may see some minor threat in that direction, the reasons I have already stated (uncertainty in India's foreign policy, and regional security).
I agree that the CCP doesn't see a major threat from India' because India is a weak state, however, just because its a weak state doesn't mean the military is! This is the reason why CCP wants to down play the border issue and its support for Pakistan. In India, the Army, decides what is a threat, the politicians, take that as a 'recommendation' but ultimatly it is the people of India whom dictate the terms. In China, and Pakistan, threats are created by CCP or ISI. there is a difference. The CCP downplays India's role as a region, and its accomplishments and tries to persuade the Chinese people to have a negative view of India. Thats a given, you can see what they say about Japan.
All in all India, will not be played by America, alliances may shift, but this is result of America's shift to look East as well as Indias. India, doesn't want the US to dictate solutions. They already tried in Kashmir, and India doesn't want their involvement only their back channels.
 
Because China is adult, while India is juvenile.

That's why India is only relevant being a pawn to another great power. India has never been relevant due to its own power.

China doesn't take India as a threat because India is not even worthy of being even mentioned in the same breath as China, Russia, US.

China only even thinks about India if India allies with US. This has implications for the rivalry between China and US. That's the only time China even gives two hoots about that backward country.

India will not be taken seriously until they start to get an independent foreign policy and not be a pawn of foreign powers.
 
Back
Top Bottom