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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS