Chethan Shajan, of First Year, B.A. (Hons.) History, St. Stephen's College, writes his opinions on the nature of Sino-Indian relations and diplomacy:
Throughout human history, societies have always faced the need of resources for various purposes. The need for resources was satisfied mainly through two methods; either by taking it from someone through brute force or by conducting trade. All throughout history countries have tried both. For thousands of years there were mainly two entities that all of these countries bought their goods from. These two entities were India and China, two of the world’s wealthiest civilizations. Countries often fought with each other to gain control of trade routes that brought them as close to India and China as possible.
Before we examine the contemporary issues and power play between India and China, we need to understand that both of these ancient civilizations with their respective spheres of influence have never come into direct contact with each other. When we examine it in a political manner, this was a major contributing factor to the stability of Eurasia throughout the millennia. This is where the context and importance of Tibet i.e. the roof of the world comes in. Tibet and its inhospitable topography made it undesirable for invasion. Tibet maintained autonomy throughout much of its history and by paying tribute to the Chinese dynasties that ruled the mainland and maintained itself as a political entity indirectly acting as a buffer between these two massive civilizations. Hence the geopolitical ambitions of both India and China were limited to each other through Tibet, while at the same time both remained hegemons at multiple times with out ever challenging each other.
It is through this prism that we should understand the context of India-China relations, the roof of the world does not stand there anymore to shield both civilizations from each other. 1950 was the first time in history that India and China came to share a direct border with each other. This encounter happened at a time when both these countries were reeling from the most disastrous age that they had just gone through in there history and the Chinese have a name for it, which I will use as the title of the next element of the India-China Dynamic.
The Century Of Humiliation
India’s lack of political unity, especially the collapse of the Mughal empire right at the dawn of European colonialism was the sole reason for the entire colonization of the subcontinent. China was a politically unified entity when the Europeans arrived, but complacency among the political class and a culture shunned anything that was foreign, and this excessive focus on isolationism by the Chinese state under the Ming Dynasty and the later Qing dynasty brought about the downfall of China. It was too technologically outgunned and its manufacturing was unable to keep up with modern European manufacturing and Western geo political interests (Chakrabarty 2014, pp.267 to 303).
By the 1940s when both these countries attained sovereignty both of them had lost all their geo political influence and global economic might that they used to have. This left a major scar on both these countries. They did not want to be at the mercy of the western powers and wanted to regain the lost geo political influence that they had in a world dominated by the West. Hence, both of them adopted a centrally planned economy; although India had a more progressive approach and understood that the market played a role in the economy. India gave a small role to the private sector. China adopted all the economic policies of the USSR from collectivization to complete ownership of all economic resources in the country falling under the responsibility of the communist party (Mingfu 2016, pp. 6 to 9). In the 1950s these looked like the perfect conditions required for an alliance between the two countries. India with its liberal democratic system had a very peaceful policy to China and to its eastern neighbors in general, mainly because in the eyes of India it was good to maintain a warm relation with China: it did not want more adversaries since it already had both West and East Pakistan to worry about.
India in general under Nehru did not actually maintain a very globalist foreign policy in general. It opted to stay out of the conflicts of the Cold War and adopted a Non- Aligned policy. Nehru wisely understood that India needed to attend to its internal matters such as the eradication of the caste system, alleviation of poverty, to attain food security and to industrialize the nation as fast as possible for which it adopted the Soviet model of central planning and five-year plans. A lot of initial progress was made with India setting up heavy industries with the help of the USSR and improving agriculture production and the condition of the farmers. Both India and China maintained almost similar economic growth and had a similar anti-liberal capitalist and to its extension an anti-American attitude. We all know of the ’’Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai’’ policy and the Panchsheel principles, which basically underlined the peaceful attitude that India expected from China. By the 1960s we will see a massive structural shift.
The Great Leap Backwards
We have to understand that whenever a political entity takes control of a particular geographic territory, it inherits the same geo political advantages and constraints that the previous political entity faced. Hence communist China, which inherited the geopolitical constraints of the Qing Dynasty, saw Tibet with same eyes that every Chinese Dynasty saw: a buffer between it and any external force coming from the other side. The region where all the three major rivers of China originated added to this. India’s warm relations with Tibet only further increased suspicion on the Chinese side, which culminated in the takeover of Tibet. Consequently, China had conflicts with all of its neighbors. Now, this included India, which it always looked at with an eye of suspicion. This suspicion became mutual after the India-China war of 1962; a low point of the India-China relationship.
By 1980, when countries like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan were growing and expanding, pulling millions out of poverty and becoming prosperous nations, China was one of the most isolated nations on the planet with an economy on the brink of collapse. India was also in a very similar state; the economies of both nations were very stagnant, the dirigisme and the inability to create industrial jobs for its people put excessive pressure on the agricultural sector. The over protectionist attitude of India and the defunct economic policies in China were responsible for this stagnancy. Both India and China almost had the same industrial capacity and GDP in this period.
Reclaiming the lost thrones
In the 1980s China adopted free market reforms, a move out of clear desperation and necessity to save the Communist party and the country as a whole from a massive stagnation led collapse, like that of the USSR. China grew at a double-digit growth rate for 3 decades leaving the world bewildered and by 2020 it became a 15 trillion dollar economy and is currently the second largest GDP in the world. India’s Liberalization happened 10 years later.
What we need to understand is that as the rest of the world was focusing on China’s impressive growth we have failed to see the evolution of the Chinese society and politics behind this economy. The truth is that China, to this day, remains a “controlocracy ’’ (Ringen 2016, pp. 138) a sophisticated authoritarian dictatorship that gives many economic liberties to its citizens to a certain point but maintains massive control over their personal and public lives. The party and to a large extend its current leader, Xi Jing Ping, basically functions in a mindset set by the three ghosts that haunt the party: the century of humiliation, the destructive policies of the Mao era and the collapse of the USSR (Ringen 2016, pp. 2 to 3). China now has the economic and industrial might to enforce its geo-political interests, its foreign policy is rooted in ultra revisionism, it wants to reverse the humiliation if faced in the past and to reestablish a world order with it at its center.
We can see this reflecting in its attitude throughout the world in the recent years; from the South China Sea to establishing military stations in Djibouti. China has taken full advantage of a world where America is increasingly leaning towards isolationism, while liberal democracies are dealing with the rise of populist and right-wing nationalist leaders who advocate against globalization and free trade. In such a scenario, China utilizes the best of its abilities. We can see this in Europe where the continent is divided between right-wing populist leaders who view china as an ally and liberal leaders who want to curb the increasing influence China has on the continent. While this is happening, China is buying up ports and European companies and investing heavily in infrastructure in eastern European nations.
India has to understand that the days of Panchsheel are long over and that China views India as its biggest potential rival on the continent. What we are consistently failing to understand is that the type of aggression that will come from China is not that of armed conflicts. Instead, it will be geo-strategic maneuvering. The current aggression near the India-China border and gaining some outposts in the Himalayan mountains are not what China wants, it is of no use to it rather than some strategic hold it will get over India. They are just mere distractions, it has a bigger price to win.
The China Dream and How India can turn it Into a Nightmare
Take a look at China’s defense budget of the past 6 years and you will be able to notice two things:
1. Defense expenditure has sky rocketed to 175 billion dollars
2. Majority of the expenditure increases had gone to the navy.
Correlate these with the increasing amount of infrastructural investments China is doing in the Indian Ocean. From Sri Lanka to Pakistan to East Africa, the Indian Ocean today is vital to global trade and its absolutely vital for China’s geo political interests.
China knows that its interests can be blocked by India and hence we can see that whenever India increases its activity in the Indian Ocean, China sends troops across the Himalayan border to create border conflicts. India has no choice but to focus its limited resources and media attention to the Himalayan border. While this happens, China starts port projects in Myanmar and increases investments in East Africa.
Looking to the future, India-China relations will only get more complex. I believe, ten years from now we will be living in a new Cold War: a world of authoritarian capitalist nations and liberal democracies. The USA will be facing off against a country that has an economy which is just as large, and has more than double its population. In our current world, wars are not won through military might; instead, it is based on sheer geo-political and economic dominance.
The world is need of a country that can maintain a balance with China and can limit its ambitions, a country with a population and economy and a geo political will just like that of China. India can be that alternative; India was always the alternative that kept China’s hegemony in line till the 1700s.
Moving to the future India needs to focus on certain important aspects to counter China for securing world democracy and its own sovereignty. It should deepen its ties with European Union and USA as much as possible, increase investments in ASEAN countries and Africa, maintain cordial and confident relations with all its neighbors to the south and east. It should also further foster economic and military ties with Japan and Australia.
For all of this to be possible India’s economy needs to grow at an average of 10% annually for the next 2 to 3 decades and for India, this should be a national security issue.
Bibliography
Ranjan Chakrabarti, A History Of the Modern World, New Delhi: Sai Graphic Design, 2014
Stein Ringen, The Perfect Dictatorship: China In the 21st Century, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2016
Liu Mingfu, The China Dream: Great Power Thinking and Strategic Posture in the Post American Era, 2016
Comments