What's new

India: should you be China's foe or friend?

Status
Not open for further replies.

gpit

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
3,954
Reaction score
0
China-India equation still uncracked
By Jian Junbo


SHANGHAI - Indian Home Minister P Chidambaram last month accused China of using the ongoing crisis in Sri Lanka to "expand its sphere of influence", adding that this had "impacted on India's response to the situation". Meanwhile, China in April blocked India's loan efforts at the Asian Development Bank on territory that both nations claim. (See Chinese antics have India fuming, May 5, 2009)

Such allegations and suspicion only damages trust between these two Asian giants, which both have reasons to develop a more constructive and friendly partnership. China and India have rapidly growing economies, but they are still developing countries with sizeable segments of the population living in poverty. If there were fruitful bilateral cooperation and a peaceful regional environment, then people's livelihoods could be improved and both nations' economies be strengthened.

As developing countries striving for modernization, China and India could in theory be closer with each other than each is with Western countries. And any confrontation between them instantly becomes leverage for other world powers to use and gain influence over them.

Many people in the two countries, especially in India, like to compare the nations' achievements in various aspects of modernization. Some compare the development of Mumbai to that in Shanghai, while others like to compare levels of industry or political systems. But critics say these types of comparisons only lead to nationalistic emotions overtaking the more important aspects of bilateral relations.

There is a danger of Sino-India relations becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, with the attitude of one country leading the other to take the same attitude. Unfortunately, issues such as the decades-old border dispute are not easy to resolve.

China claims India has occupied more than 90,000 square kilometers of its territory since the 1940s. In 1913, the British-Indian authority signed a secret agreement with the then Tibetan authority in China to draw the so-called McMahon border line between China and India, which ceded several large parts of Chinese territory to India. Neither the Republic of China (ROC) or the People's Republic of China (PRC) recognized the legitimacy of the McMahon Line.

In 1947, India's Jawaharlal Nehru administration, encouraged by the idea of a great Indian federation, declared its compliance with the McMahon Line. In 1962, partly supported by the Soviet Union, Indian troops invaded the area. A border war broke out. India swiftly lost, but China's military pulled out of the disputed areas to minimize the impact of the war and to avoid superpowers becoming involved.

China has hoped India would withdraw from the territories. But India has controlled them since and many Indian nationals have migrated there, with one large part of the territories becoming an Indian state - Arunachal Pradesh - that China does not recognize.
For the sake of solidarity among developing countries, the then-Chinese government under Mao Zedong showed tolerance towards India, just as it ceded the sovereignty of a small area to North Korea and rented out an island to Vietnam, both of which were so-called brothers of the "great family of socialism".

But the wounds of the brief Sino-India border war have not healed. China has often been cited as a potential enemy of India's military, with ties worsened by China's friendship with Pakistan. India's defense minister publicly stated the threat after India's first successful nuclear-bomb test in 1998.

Any small action on one side of the disputed section of the border arouses the other's suspicion. India, for example, is sensitive to China's infrastructure projects in Tibet or even in Hainan province, assuming that they could be used in any potential conflict against India.

This mutual suspicion runs counter to the long history of good Sino-India relations. As Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said during a visit to India in 2007, the history of China-India relations is more than 2,000 years old. The long history consists of cultural communications based on Buddhism. Thus, to some degree, China and India share similar cultural values.

The friendship was also consolidated in the last century in two different stages: through fighting colonialism and seeking independence in the 1920s to the 1940s to co-advocating the five basic principles among sovereign states in the 1950s.

The current level of trade between the nations is too low, given the huge size and fast growth of the Chinese and Indian economies, and economic exchanges are still imbalanced. It was reported in 2008 that India was only China's 10th-largest trade partner and the eighth export market. However, in the same year, China was India's biggest trade partner and the third-biggest export market.

Important international issues could also be resolved through cooperation between China and India. For example, the Indian Ocean has increasingly become an important thoroughfare amid more frequent economic exchanges between Asian, African and Arabian countries. With more and more pirate activities on these waters, China and India could jointly help police the waters. Other issues, such as international infrastructure projects and anti-terrorism cooperation, could be achieved through effective cooperation.

Fortunately, both countries have realized the importance of good relations for national interests and regional prosperity. The Chinese government in 2002 issued the "three policy principles toward neighboring countries - harmony, security and prosperity", which included India as an important neighbor of China.

India in the 1990s started to implement the "Look East" policy, which partly aimed at the expansion of India's influence in Southeast Asia. Yet the policy at the same time implied that India was paying more attention to East Asia, including China. As Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said when he visited China in January, China was one focus of the Look East policy.

These overtures indicate that the countries have gradually begun to understand the importance of having each other as a neighbor. Perhaps India should not be too sensitive to Chinese activities overseas, especially in the Indian Ocean and its neighboring countries, as these are mainly related to China maintaining its fast-growing economy.

China and India should look beyond seeing each other as strangers or enemies, and look towards the ideal Indian Minister of State for Commerce Jairam Ramesh encapsulated in the word "Chindia". He coined the phrase to describe a future in which China and India are united peacefully and together keep regional stability and promote regional prosperity, an idea which be a continuation of a great historic relation and shared culture.

Dr Jian Junbo is assistant professor of the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)


Asia Times Online :: China News, China Business News, Taiwan and Hong Kong News and Business.
 
.
ut India has controlled them since and many Indian nationals have migrated there, with one large part of the territories becoming an Indian state - Arunachal Pradesh - that China does not recognize.
For the sake of solidarity among developing countries, the then-Chinese government under Mao Zedong showed tolerance towards India, just as it ceded the sovereignty of a small area to North Korea and rented out an island to Vietnam, both of which were so-called brothers of the "great family of socialism".

Many Indian nationals have migrated to Arunachal? What rubbish. Arunachal has about one million people living in the state. Making it the least populated state in India. However, what does it matter if some have migrated to Arunachal? Arunachal is India.

Dr Jian Junbo is assistant professor of the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

You quote a post by someone who teaches in Shanghai and expect us to believe its unbiased? So if i were to post an article written by a professor in an Indian university that blames all India-China problems on China, would you believe it?

However, i do agree with the main theme of the article that India and China should be friends rather than foes.
 
.
This is a relatively neutral and good article. Even there exists territorial dispute, China never seriously takes India as an enemy (sorry if some Indians take this as an insult). Regrettably, nonetheless, it is not news anymore that repeatedly the world hears hawkish and bellicose noises from India, which recently do stir some nerves in ordinary Chinese in China.

these types of comparisons only lead to nationalistic emotions overtaking the more important aspects of bilateral relations.

How rightly thus said! Have any of you investigated who started India vs China comparison? It is not Indians, nor Chinese. It is westerners!

India, for example, is sensitive to China's infrastructure projects in Tibet or even in Hainan province, assuming that they could be used in any potential conflict against India.

:lol:

Pray tell what should China do?

Leave Tibet poor and backward? If so, China will be more accused. We all know transportation is one of the keys to development.

Leave China’s sea-lanes vulnerable to various threat including pirates attacks? If so, how China could develop and China is still to be more accused.
 
.
Many Indian nationals have migrated to Arunachal? What rubbish. Arunachal has about one million people living in the state. Making it the least populated state in India. However, what does it matter if some have migrated to Arunachal? Arunachal is India.



You quote a post by someone who teaches in Shanghai and expect us to believe its unbiased? So if i were to post an article written by a professor in an Indian university that blames all India-China problems on China, would you believe it?

...

Per territorial dispute: in the east, China believes the boarder has never been demarcated, because China rejects some one-sided "agreements"; thus disputed areas should be kept status quo. But India believes British and Tibet already demarcate it, and India is the heir of imperial British; thus India should deem McMahon as the boarder and move the people in.

In the West, India didn’t even know there were Chinese in Aksai Chin when it claimed it. India first claimed it then sent out a team to explore. Indians said, whether there are Chinese or not does not change the fact that it is mine.

Actually I don’t care who take up the subject, be they from Shanghai, British (such as Neville Maxwell), India or from anywhere else, as long as they are persuasive based on facts, not ideology.

BTW, in some Chinese web sites, there has been a claim that GoI actually moved in millions of people into AP, and then declared it a state. Could somebody seriously verify that based on fact not ideology?
 
.
The population of Arunachal is one million, so any claim that India "moved in millions of people into AP" is ludicrous.

Come to think of it, its also ironic. China uses the population migration technique in Tibet, shifting millions of Han Chinese to Tibet, and now some are accusing India of doing the same?

Per territorial dispute: in the east, China believes the boarder has never been demarcated, because China rejects some one-sided "agreements"; thus disputed areas should be kept status quo. But India believes British and Tibet already demarcate it, and India is the heir of imperial British; thus India should deem McMahon as the boarder and move the people in.

The people of Arunachal pradesh consider themselves Indian. So whatever their claim may be, it is irrelevant. They also claimed Sikkim as a part of China, despite the fact over 90% of people in Sikkim voted to join the Indian union.

Sikkim and Arunachal are also two states in the NE that do not have any separatist movements.

Pray tell what should China do?

Leave Tibet poor and backward? If so, China will be more accused. We all know transportation is one of the keys to development.

Leave China’s sea-lanes vulnerable to various threat including pirates attacks? If so, how China could develop and China is still to be more accused.

You're quoting your own article and expect us to respond?
 
.
it is indeed a good article gpit.
i disagree on the border issues mentioned...but India and China should cooperate more economically...because...after experiencing unprecedented growth...the two nations would not toy with the idea of waging a war...cus a war is all that is required to kill the fast economic growth rate of India and china...so if i really was pissed at china and India for their getting richer while i suffer from recession and a dented cold-war pride...i'd want India and china to engage and destroy each other's economy...
 
.
After forcibly occupying Tibet, you claim that lands beyond Tibet is a part of china. When tibet itself is not truely part of china. What a joke?

Learn Geography before arguing....

Secondly if you argue sikkim and AP are not part of India. We would do the same for Tibet and Tiwan. And demark it as a separate country rather than as part of china. Do not interfere with our countries internal affair. It will be detrimental for you.
 
.
Just for the record:

Sikkim has been recognized as part of India by China

Tibet has been recognized as part of China by India.

:pop:
 
.
After forcibly occupying Tibet, you claim that lands beyond Tibet is a part of china. When tibet itself is not truely part of china. What a joke?

Learn Geography before arguing....

Secondly if you argue sikkim and AP are not part of India. We would do the same for Tibet and Tiwan. And demark it as a separate country rather than as part of china. Do not interfere with our countries internal affair. It will be detrimental for you.
bygones are bygones...Tibet is as much Chinese as Kashmir is Indian.
we should take the sataus quo on border disputes to be the remedy and nothing much is then left for dispute...
 
.
To say the truth, the real enemy of India is India itself.

India is still too weak to be considered a potential enemy of China. If there is no nuclear war, which I always oppose, it will take just 3-5 months for China to occupy the whole subcontinent as the experience of 1962 war shows us. But China is not an aggressive country. Had China been so, she could have kept all the lands occupied in 1962. China returned all the occupied land, army equipments, prisoners of war, though India did not give back anything.
 
.
China-India equation still uncracked
By Jian Junbo

China and India should look beyond seeing each other as strangers or enemies, and look towards the ideal Indian Minister of State for Commerce Jairam Ramesh encapsulated in the word "Chindia". He coined the phrase to describe a future in which China and India are united peacefully and together keep regional stability and promote regional prosperity, an idea which be a continuation of a great historic relation and shared culture.

Dr Jian Junbo is assistant professor of the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University, Shanghai, China.



The article ended up in a very frustrating way. The last paragraph is a reflection of utopian stupidity. China must not befriend with India, because friendship with India is more expensive than remaining as an enemy. 'Chindia' type of utopian dream is never possible in reality. China is a different race with different cultural connotations and social values and as oil and water cannot be mixed, two different races can never be mixed. Even if they are mixed, they will create trouble. It is better to keep both as distinct and different civilizations with regular war and peace. It is the system of the world.

Enmity is not always bad. Progress comes from clashes between two civilizations. Preparation for war is a driving force that keeps a civilization alive and awake. This is the rule of the nature.
 
.
India is still too weak to be considered a potential enemy of China.

We are talking about India here, not Bhutan. ;)

If there is no nuclear war, which I always oppose, it will take just 3-5 months for China to occupy the whole subcontinent as the experience of 1962 war shows us.

You are still living in 60s. May want to look out of the window and see that world has changed. India is what it was in 60s.

But China is not an aggressive country. Had China been so, she could have kept all the lands occupied in 1962. China returned all the occupied land, army equipments, prisoners of war, though India did not give back anything.

Either you call it stretegic mistake by china where they gave back almoset 60,000 km area or friendly genture, which I highly dought. I dont believe India was occupying chinese land. After china left, indian forces moved back in and took Tawang. China later wanted that back. Rest is history.
 
.
Either you call it stretegic mistake by china where they gave back almoset 60,000 km area or friendly genture, which I highly dought. I dont believe India was occupying chinese land. After china left, indian forces moved back in and took Tawang. China later wanted that back. Rest is history.

You are right Gabbar. Whether it was a strategic mistake or something else, but to me...

Honesty is nothing but stupidity.

Now China is paying for what it did. If China does not take serious lesson from her past mistakes, China will never survive. I personally believe in survival of the fittest. This is the bottom line of the nature's rule.
 
.
India is still too weak to be considered a potential enemy of China. If there is no nuclear war, which I always oppose, it will take just 3-5 months for China to occupy the whole subcontinent as the experience of 1962 war shows us.

You are still living in 60s. May want to look out of the window and see that world has changed. India is what it was in 60s.

The communism died long back and there are no real communist countries except few exception of self proclaimed Communist countries. So living in past and keeping hope alive for future communist world is not a bad idea.:D
 
.
To say the truth, the real enemy of India is India itself.

India is still too weak to be considered a potential enemy of China. If there is no nuclear war, which I always oppose, it will take just 3-5 months for China to occupy the whole subcontinent as the experience of 1962 war shows us. But China is not an aggressive country. Had China been so, she could have kept all the lands occupied in 1962. China returned all the occupied land, army equipments, prisoners of war, though India did not give back anything.

Neither are we looking at the same China nor same India that existed in 1962. Applying the '62 yardstick in 2009 is way off the mark.

Both the countries cannot be compared with each other since the internal dynamics of both are entirely diff. However, since they are co located interaction is bound to occur & along with this dif of opinion.

Holding on to occupied land no longer is an option in todays world. Saddam learnt it the hard way.

On the topic of this thread , my take is that there is no way that China will vacate Aksai Chin & Arunachal is a part of India. China uses this as a leverage while the Tibetan Govt in exile in India is a source of embarrassment to China. We can keep punching alphabets on the key board.. nothing will change onthe ground.

This game of chess will continue, there will be periods of heated exchanges but economics & better sense will prevail.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom