Recent media reports suggest that tensions between China and India are once again on the rise on their disputed border. China claims a vast swathe of India’s northeastern state of Arunchal Pradesh as its territory.
The ongoing border talks between the two countries haven’t done much to resolve the dispute. They simply froze the border dispute to unfreeze other aspects of the relationship.However, tensions crop up now and then, reminding the world that all is not quiet on the India-China border.
As Brahma Chellaney of the Centre for Policy Research in Delhi recently said: “Things are getting really intense and from the Indian perspective outrageous.”
The border issue is part of a much more complex relationship.
Beijing has never taken kindly to the presence of the Dalai Lama and his entourage in India, even though New Delhi regards Tibet as part of China. At the same time, it infuriates Beijing when India is paraded so often in international talkfests as its Asian rival.
Beijing tends to be dismissive of these claims, considering China to be stronger than India. However, it can’t stop the world from projecting India as a competing Asian power.
This has been China’s problem ever since its “liberation” in 1949. India keeps popping up in some way or the other.
New Delhi’s initial role in the early 1950s to sponsor communist China into the international community was grudgingly accepted, but its credentials doubted. Its role in facilitating autonomy for Tibet in the 1950s was regarded as doing the US’ bidding, and India increasingly came to be seen as a US proxy.
China is concerned that India somehow continues to exist as a single national entity and, by virtue of its size and potential, is regarded as Beijing’s Asian rival.
Indeed, the creation of Bangladesh in the early 1970s with Indian help sent Beijing into a rage, with then-Chinese premier Zhou Enlai (周恩來) questioning — in an interview with a British journalist — the very basis of India’s nationhood, calling it a British creation.
New China News Agency then warned India on Dec. 17, 1971, that others might do to India what it had done to Pakistan.
In other words, India too could be dismembered, apparently with Chinese help.
It was, therefore, not entirely surprising when it was reported recently that a think tank linked to the Chinese military called for India to be split into 30 independent states. It said that if China “takes a little action, the so-called great Indian federation can be broken up.”
The breaking up of India, in its view, would be in China’s interest and foster regional prosperity, it said, adding that this could be accomplished though the agency of China-friendly countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal helping “different nationalities” (in India) establish their own independent states.
Beijing is obviously rattled by India’s move to strengthen its military presence along their joint border after reports of Chinese military intrusions, describing it as “unwise military moves.”
New Delhi, on the other hand, has reiterated its joint commitment with China to “resolve outstanding issues, including the boundary question, through peaceful dialogue and consultations, and with mutual sensitivity to each other’s concerns.”
How serious is the border situation? One cannot rule out border incidents involving military clashes, as China periodically tests Indian resolve and defenses with increased military activity. At the same time, India is equally determined to hold on to its border posts and territory to deny China any territorial advantage.
These border military clashes might develop their own momentum to create a bigger crisis. But, by and large, they are likely to be a controlled affair.
However, as pointed out earlier, the border dispute is part of a larger problem for China — that India, with its size and potential, denies China the right to become the acknowledged Asian supremo.
Japan is easily dismissed these days because of its chronic economic and political malaise. Besides, whenever it tries to raise its head, Beijing whacks it down with the stick of its historical guilt, which Japan has a knack of re-visiting on itself through its insensitivity and incompetence.
India, on the other hand, tends to loom large despite all its problems. And as long as this is the case, China will find it difficult to fit India into its scheme of things.
The only way out of this predicament is to somehow slice it into different national entities. They will be more manageable like Pakistan, Bangladesh and other smaller neighbors of India.
The problem is it is easier said than done.
True, India is plagued by insurgency, including Maoist rebels, in its far-flung regions. It does stretch the Indian state and constitutes a serious problem, but India has managed it so far. Its democratic political system gives it the necessary flexibility and responsiveness to try autonomy deals of varying success, unlike China dealing with Tibet and Xinjiang.
However, if China could accentuate these contradictions in India, it would pin down New Delhi in its neighborhood and within the country. For instance, China could funnel economic and military aid to these rebel movements through Pakistan, Bangladesh and any other country inclined to play Beijing’s game.
China has done this in the past.
However, the Maoist policy of creating “revolutionary” disorder was discontinued under former paramount leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) to concentrate on China’s modernization. Any reversal of this policy to put India in place will require serious deliberations at the highest level, as they could create all kinds of unpredictable complications at a time when China is still in the process of consolidating and expanding its power.
Besides, looking at Pakistan’s parlous state, it doesn’t seem like an effective Chinese proxy against India. Bangladesh too has its own problems. At the same time, India might not be an easy pushover.
That brings us to the threat of creating 30 independent states out of India.
Obviously, it is a warning of sorts to India that Beijing can create serious trouble if New Delhi sought to be “unreasonable.” In the near term, this clash might lead to some local clashes. In the long term, China might continue to question India’s nationhood, and hope for its fragmentation into multiple nation states.
In other words, there is no hopeful scenario for stable China-India relations.
Sushil Seth is a writer based in Australia.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS