Why China will chose India over Pakistan

[AbuSalam]

Pak should understand its vulnerabilities & shortfalls,the more they feel insecure the more will they work for their country like Israel,I think this depending on aid mentality should stop,look here in any thread the moment they are cornered they will raise China flags & say..Oh here they come our all weather friend. Anyway..Good luck Pakistan..Big Bro is watching !!

 

[Agito]

I generally agree with Developereo, but I'll add a few things from my scenario.

I don't think Pakistan's importance will ever diminsh in either China or America's eyes and here is the reason. From China's point of view India will always be a rival even if it's not an enemy. In the future they might have a great relationship but China will always want to maintain an alliance with Pakistan as a trump card or at least to have the upper hand in a status-quo with India.
That same thought could be used with the relationship between India and the US. The difference being India is not America's natural rival as it's still very far away geographically, so Pakistan is less important to America than it is to China.

America has an almost closed circle of military alliances against China with a few breaks in between. That ring starts (east to west) from South Korea through Japan, Taiwan, The Philipines, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, India (if possible), Pakistan, Afganistan, Tajikstan and Uzbekistan. Yes it's not a full circle but it's more than a half circle isolating China from the east, south and west.

That's why China needs to maintain allies to break the circle. Those alliances being Cambodia, Mynamar and Pakistan. Pakistan being the strongest of the three and a rival to India, while the other two are allies with India.

That's why China will never ever want to abandon Pakistan (or Mynamar) as it is a Trump card or a 2:1 nuclear ratio against India, thus maintaining a stronger status-quo.

 

[Developereo]

I foresee that China will drop its claim on AP, the reason is they are anyways doing nothing about their claim, maybe just keeping the claim open for negotiations. I do not think they seriously want it.

AP is the least of India-China troubles. The future conflict between India-China, India-Pakistan and India-Bangladesh will be over water.

Wanna know the truth behind the 'contentious' Kashmir Issue and how it was made emotional?

You have presented the Indian point of view. I appreciate that but don't want to derail the thread. I already presented the Pakistani perspective.

We have seen the US and India getting close after bitter relationships, and China and India becoming bitter adversaries despite a long history of peaceful cultural intercourse. Mind you, during the cold war, more Americans used to visit India looking for spirituality, than they do now! That cultural exchange did not do anything to warm up the relationship between India and the US. So I say the best step forward always starts with self-reliance and progressive diplomacy, or so I think because India took this course and appears to be successful with it.

I think you are agreeing with me that it is precisely the long arduous road of grass-roots diplomacy that pays dividends in the long run. But it only works with democracies, which is why I said China will get softer towards India as it gets more democratic. Mind you, I did not say it is in China's best interests -- those long terms interests firmly lie against India -- but it will become more difficult for Chinese leadership to oppose India without a very good reason.

The best play for Pakistan would be to be careful in these testing times, and focus more on self-reliance to remain as a stable state lest some undesirable diplomatic repercussions shall occur.

For Pakistan, complete reliance on China for the sake of diplomatic security may not be the best option.

Again, we are agreeing that Pakistan needs to be self-reliant. My other point was that Pakistan has completely neglected the use of soft power. Admittedly, with the Western media against us from the git-go, it is hard to compete with India in the West but surely we can promote our message through cultural programs in the Middle East, China and elsewhere.

Firstly, no Indian lives in a ghetto man.

It's just an expression. As in 'hood. As in neighborhood. Don't be so sensitive. Jeez.

We did not do this to make you guys look small. We did not do this to gain acceptance by the West. We did this for us. So instead of grudging us (admittedly smoothly) what we have achieved by dismissing us as aspirational wannabes, maybe it is time for you guys to do the same, whatever route you decide for yourselves.

Despite your hurt ego, we do not grudge you anything. Good on you for growing economically. Our only concern is when you try to act like a superpower when you clearly are not. Not even a regional superpower. Not with China breathing down your neck.

Our media is no different from media anywhere else. So don't grudge them their living either.

When we say Pakistan is irrelevant, or that you do not count in the top 10 of the priority lists of most Indians, it is not to say that we are actively seeking to dehyphenate ourselves from you. It just is.

Your statements are negated by the fact that the Indian media is obsessed with Pakistan. Clearly, Pakistan-bashing sells well in the Indian marketplace. Quite an accomplishment for an 'irrelevant' nation.

If we feel justifiably vindicated and take small pleasure of occasionally rubbing your faces in it, instead of getting all uptight about it, use it instead to goad youselves into action and a concerted attempt at self-won parity.

That's mightly nice of you to be so continually concerned about the welfare of such an 'irrelevant' country.

Your final point. India and Indians would love to enjoy warm relations with Pakistan and Pakistanis. But if we do not, its not going to be something we cannot handle as a country. For as long as it takes. So please do not feel that we came back to the table and re-started dialogue because we were secretly worried about the repercussions of not re-engaging Pakistan.

I am sure your leaders, admittedly more capable than Pakistan's, are far more cognizant of the need for regional relationships.

Our reaction to Mumbai was measured, mature, responsible, and controlled.

With all due respect to the people murdered in Mumbai, the Indian reaction was a copy-cat USA wannbe. You demanded all sorts of things from Pakistan and the rest of the world that were simply ignored. As a result India fell into a deep sulk and refuses to talk. About anything.

Again. I sympathize with the victims of Mumbai and wish the matter were resolved, so we can get on with other things.

 

[vsdoc]

OT Tech query:

Though I am not much of a fan of point by point inline replies to quoted sections, how exactly do you use sections from more than one post while making a consolidated reply like the above?

Cheers, Doc

 

[Old School]

We need to understand first what purpose Pakistan serves to China and if India can better serve the same. The Sino-Pakistan relationship is not limited to India bashing as opposed to popular belief. There are many areas where India does not play any role in Chinese national interests. China has a very large area of interests where India makes only a fraction.
There is Central Asia which is yet to reach it's full potential due to the lack of access to the sea. That is why China invested in Gwadar deep sea port. No Indian port can serve the same purpose even if India opens up all of it's sea ports to China. This is only an example but there are numerous areas where China need to focus without any particular Indian connection.
But , China will choose India over Pakistan only if Pakistan does not exist any more in a hypothetical scenario where the Pakistan as a state in annexed in to the union territory. This is another science fiction.

 

[Developereo]

America has an almost closed circle of military alliances against China with a few breaks in between. That ring starts (east to west) from South Korea through Japan, Taiwan, The Philipines, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, India (if possible), Pakistan, Afganistan, Tajikstan and Uzbekistan. Yes it's not a full circle but it's more than a half circle isolating China from the east, south and west.

Leaving aside Pakistan in the list, which I assume is a mistake in your post, hardly any of these countries would go to actual war with China over US interests.

Japan most definitely will not. Not a chance. Neither will Australia or New Zealand. And I strongly doubt Singapore or South Korea would budge a finger. All it takes is one nuke from Pyong Yang and Seoul is toast. Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are firmly in the Russian sphere of influence, so they will take their orders from Moscow, not Washington.

That only leaves, realistically, Thailand, Phillipines, Indonesia and India as dependable allies.

 

[Bushy]

I think you are agreeing with me that it is precisely the long arduous road of grass-roots diplomacy that pays dividends in the long run. But it only works with democracies, which is why I said China will get softer towards India as it gets more democratic. Mind you, I did not say it is in China's best interests -- those long terms interests firmly lie against India -- but it will become more difficult for Chinese leadership to oppose India without a very good reason.

Oh yes, of course I very much agree with your point that grass roots diplomacy works. But what I meant to say was about more than mere diplomacy. As you just said, grassroots diplomacy works better with democracies, it also works with all other different kinds of institutions. There is no democracy in Saudi Arabia, which is warming up to India very quickly. There was no democracy in the most communist of all states - the USSR, and India was close ally then. In fact, greatest amount of cultural exchange that post-independence India underwent through, was with the communist USSR.

So you see, it is less about democracy or any typical diplomacy, it is more about what you have to offer to the other state to remain an ally. It is a very complex world, and when you seek to be an ally of any country, you should remember how each ground of diplomatic exchange serves the interests of both the countries equally, and in a balanced manner. There is no other reason, and no other way to become an ally of any country.

About the bold part - The best interest of any two nations lie in peaceful economic cooperation. If there were no cold war, the US and the USSR would be the most powerful and most promising economies today. However, each of them had to burden its own people and its own state by diverting their resources to be spent on countering each other. It will always be beneficial for China and India to cooperate on economic terms than to go through self-destructive arms race.

Again, we are agreeing that Pakistan needs to be self-reliant. My other point was that Pakistan has completely neglected the use of soft power. Admittedly, with the Western media against us from the git-go, it is hard to compete with India in the West but surely we can promote our message through cultural programs in the Middle East, China and elsewhere.

Yes, I do very much agree with the points you put forth, but here I want to add something too. The media always caters to those who are ignorant of the actualities. And those who are ignorant and seek the media for information, are the ones who barely affect the relationships of any two states.

For example, a shop-owner in Pakistan or a car dealer in the US would not affect US-Pak relations, no matter how misguided he/she is by the media. On the second hand, a US army general posted in Islamabad or a Pakistani Consular posted in DC may somewhat influence what transpires between the two nations, but then they will not be seeking out the media to understand what is going on. In conclusion, I think the media is given much more credit than it deserves when it comes to diplomatic relations between two states - Pakistani media is as good as absent in the US, yet in general Americans are very sympathetic toward Pakistan and still consider it a close ally of the US. But then, the perception of the general populace does not dictate diplomacy of the state.

Despite your hurt ego, we do not grudge you anything. Good on you for growing economically. Our only concern is when you try to act like a superpower when you clearly are not. Not even a regional superpower. Not with China breathing down your neck.

Please excuse me for replying to you on your response to VsDoc, but I had to say this - Indians (barring the ignorant 5% of them anywhere) do NOT think of India as the next, or next to next... superpower! Indians are fine with India prospering without it being a superpower. We are all aware of the poverty and inequality in India, as our country is also marred by widespread corruption as is yours. In fact, I have seen more Pakistanis using 'superpower' term with India than Indians themselves. We are only being hopeful for a prosper India, and it stops at that.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

When we say Pakistan is irrelevant, or that you do not count in the top 10 of the priority lists of most Indians, it is not to say that we are actively seeking to dehyphenate ourselves from you. It just is. And the de-hyphenation has happened on the world stage, and not a creation of us Indians.

Developereo has already pointed out that your assertions are belied by the reality of the coverage (mostly distorted and disparaging to perpetuate the brainwashing of the Indian masses I presume) Pakistan gets in the Indian media.

Secondly, while the world has and is willing to 'de-hyphenate' India and Pakistan, it is India that continues to 'hyphenate' India and Pakistan, by continuously seeking to lobby against Pakistani interests strategically - whether they be arms sales to Pakistan or attempts to bolster its civilian nuclear capabilities.

 

[trident2010]

Nice thread and good to see so many positive and sane replys.

The question of "Why China will chose India over Pakistan" can be extended to "Why world is choosing India over Pakistan". And by these I do not talk about defence related issues but rather culturally.

There is no single line answers to these type of questions but we can look into the facts.

First, India is known for its history and culture for centuries and all over the world at somepoint of the time they teach about it. So todays policy makers when they were in school or in university learned somthing about India and its culture. Same with other cultures as china or japanese and it make a difference. Not the same for pakistan.

Second, India and Indians always been successful in projected their spritually rich lifestyle in all over the world and everyone directly or indirectly been in contact to india may be in yoga classes, chicken tikka or bollywood movies. This is also absence for pakistan.

Third, IT and economic boom. India had established himself as IT hub and now leading the world. It might be not as high quality as in US however, it is significant.

Fourth and most important is sustained democracy and secularism.
In my opinion, pakistan made the prority as religion first rather than country first. And because of this all the world have their doubts about pakistan. It is good to support other country in the name of religion but is it wise to harm your own country for that?

I think pakistan should seperate himself from the menance caused in the name of Islam and focused totally to make himself as a tolerent and progessive society. Blaming others won't take you anywhere. Other rich islamic countries are busy to secure their future and no one think what pakistan did and doing to support the religious cause.

India was succesfully conveyed the message that it is trying to eliminate all the social evils currently present in the society along with constructing a strong democratic country. The result of which, if choice has to be made it will be India and since China is also engaged improving its reputation, it will sooner or later follow the suite.

The most closest country in term of culture and tradition with pakistan is India and if india can do it despite of so many problems I am very sure that Pakistan can also.

In my opinion it is time now that democratically elected government should be given more priority than military and people of pakistan should ask questions to responsible persons and do not let them get away if they do not fulfill the promises made.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There is no democracy in Saudi Arabia, which is warming up to India very quickly.

With an increasing amount of criticism of the Saudi Wahabbi branch of Islam in Pakistan and the Saudi role in funding and promoting certain puritanical Islamic teachings, combined with the Pakistani attempts to get closer to Iran (assisting in Rigi's arrest, the IP pipeline, Turkey-Iran-Pakistan rail and road links), the presence of a Shia President and a political party with which the Saudis have not always seen eye to eye (the Saudis would much rather do business with Nawaz and the PML-N) Saudi Arabia may in fact be realizing that the Saudi-Pak relationship is not going to exist at the levels it used to, and they are hedging their own bets.

Quite frankly, other than the geo-political fact that a nation must attempt to maintain good relationships with, and influence over, as many nations as possible, I will be extremely glad if a realignment takes place here. Pakistan's immediate neighborhood, and cultural similarities, is Iran, Afghanistan, CAR's, Turkey etc. , and not Saudi Arabia or the other Gulf States. The possibilities of a regional trading bloc, outside of SAARC, only exist with the above mentioned nations, not with the GCC, so why build relationships with the GCC at the expense of the region?

 

[Hyde]

1 miyaan main 2 talwarain kabhi nahi rah sakti.

China and India simply want to take over each other and can never become friend
The way it is possible is one will accept the supremecy of another
That is not gonnai happen in this case

 

[RobbieS]

1 miyaan main 2 talwarain kabhi nahi rah sakti.

China and India simply want to take over each other and can never become friend
The way it is possible is one will accept the supremecy of another
That is not gonnai happen in this case

Though I agree that their can never be a true friendship between two equals, I assume you were kidding in the rest of the post. No country wants to take over the other. They have far better and productive things to do.

 

[Bushy]

1 miyaan main 2 talwarain kabhi nahi rah sakti.

China and India simply want to take over each other and can never become friend
The way it is possible is one will accept the supremecy of another
That is not gonnai happen in this case

India and China are countries, not talwarien or miyaan.

In the history of past 3000+ years, India and China have been greatest economies and markets in the world, and lived very peacefully and had enormous amount of cultural exchange.

All that changed only in the last 100 years when all states in the world began to scramble for all the resources they could find, and China became a communist country in the process. So please, never say never about anything, esp when it comes to diplomatic relations. The US and India were more bitter at each other than are China and India now.

 

[Agito]

Leaving aside Pakistan in the list, which I assume is a mistake in your post, hardly any of these countries would go to actual war with China over US interests.

Japan most definitely will not. Not a chance. Neither will Australia or New Zealand. And I strongly doubt Singapore or South Korea would budge a finger. All it takes is one nuke from Pyong Yang and Seoul is toast. Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are firmly in the Russian sphere of influence, so they will take their orders from Moscow, not Washington.

That only leaves, realistically, Thailand, Phillipines, Indonesia and India as dependable allies.

I never said they would go to war wth China,they would never ever do that. What I said was that they were America's allies, which means that they are closer to America politically and militarly. China has already forced most of those countries to depend on it economically which is a huge step in their favor.

Uzbekistan takes aid from the US and used to house a base or two. Tajikistan has had American, Indian and French troops stationed on its land since 9/11.

As for "All it takes is one nuke from Pyong Yang and Seoul is toast." No one is going to use nukes unless they want to commit suicide with their country. Using nukes is like declaring war on the whole world, as the whole world would take a very tough stance against you.

I never mentioned Australia or NZ.

As for Pakistan, Pakistan can easily be shifted back and forth between China and the US depending on how serious each is in keeping it as an ally. China currently holds a slight upper hand, but Paksitan is still heavily dependent on the US economically, poliotcally and somewhat militarly.

 

[Crypto]

Indian students and Immigration: a case of too many cooks … | Crikey

Student numbers from India beginning new courses in Australian education institutions rocketed from less than 5400 in 2002 to more than 60,000 last year

most students did not have the skills needed for employment in their field or, for cooks and hairdressers, were not interested in employment in these trades

Do you honestly think some guy from India will pay $20,000/year in Australia so he can come back to India and become a hairdresser or a cook?

Australia education roadshow launched - Australian High Commission

The article you are referring to clearly says
The ease with which foreign students could formerly remain permanently in Australia after completing their courses resulted in a vast increase in the number of potential migrants from the two big source countries of India and China.


India and China because they are huge when it comes to population and statistically migrants from them two will be higher in numbers!
Intake from India is highest followed by China, both countries have huge population who want to settle in better socio economic countries.


In your first post you mentioned a fake program was developed by Australia so people from India could come in??

Mate i have worked for DIAC and i am telling you all this from experience - In the beginning the GSM policy was very simple (Study and if your profession is in demand regardless of your country of origin get residence) - just like any other newly started program but overtime it got matured and holes were fixed. Now unless you have experience no chance!
ok tell me do you know about Working holiday scheme? Anyone from Category A country can come here and work for 2 years without any issue and than settle if they want to - how easy is that no fuss. Why India is not on that list??? If they really wanted people just from India they could have used this route.

When hairdressing was in demand student from any country was able to come study and stay there was no barrier as to what your home country is.

Now talking about Study roadshow, that is to attract students so they come here and pay fees, income from overseas students makes up for 13% of GPD here. These workshops to attract students are held everywhere in the world by Universities with the assistance of high commission. Have you been to PC/Avari lahore, consulates from Australia , UK, US hold these seminars about study programs to attract students.


This is nothing to do with immigration , there job is different to what high commission is doing to attract customers (yes its business).

The point you raised in your post about immigration is totally wrong and flawed.