Illustration by Sorit
opinion
Long Live Sibling Rivalry
Let there be no war. Let bhai-bhai one-upmanship last forever.
Arunachal pradesh
With India having given them nothing but neglect, the Arunachalis wonder if they’d have been better off with China
Saikat Datta
Arunachal pradesh
The Centre may put up a show of good intention, but it seldom comes to any sort of fruition
Outlook
tawang
China’s stand on Tawang lies inextricably close to its suspicions of India’s intentions on Tibet. Therein lies the rub....
Pranay Sharma
the india complex
Is it paranoia or just plain old envy because China has surged far ahead of us in every field?
Pranay Sharma
china eye view
The Indian media reserves its vitriol for China. It’s horribly unfair.
Wang Yaodong
bilateral trade
Trade is growing. But a closer look finds India chafing at inequalities.
Lola Nayar
Column
A stronger India must counter China with open-minded caution
K.S. Bajpai
Tawang
The short answer to whether India and China will always be rivals is: yes. But rivals need not be enemies, neighbours need not get fratricidal. When there are two rising powers in a region, rivalry is inevitable. France and Germany or Brazil and Argentina come readily to mind. A 150 years ago, France and Britain were bitter adversaries. The rise of Teutonic nationalism and of Nazism united the two countries against a common enemy. The “end of history” with the triumph of liberal democracy has largely blunted Franco-German rivalry by entwining them economically, while the advent of the European Union has made the borders seamless. The ratification of the Treaty of Tlatelolco of 1967 by Argentina in 1994, making all of Latin America and the Caribbean a nuclear-free zone, has more or less eliminated any vestigial military fears that Argentina and Brazil may have had. But go to a Brazil-Argentina soccer match or a France-England rugby game and you will wonder if things have changed at all. Rivalries, it seems, are forever!

The situation between India and China isn’t very different. Nationalism arrived in both countries in the early 1900s, with the advent of Sun Yat Sen in China and M.K. Gandhi in India. This was after centuries of foreign rule over the Han and Hindu ethnic majorities. Decades of turbulence later, both countries emerged as “free nations” with entirely different systems in the 1940s. Mao Zedong and Jawaharlal Nehru were leaders with entirely different personalities and worldviews. Mao’s ruthless instincts were honed as the leader of the Communists in a bloody civil war. Jawaharlal’s were finessed under the Mahatma’s tutelage into that of a somewhat naive and dreamy idealist. In 1951, China annexed Tibet, rudely shattering the mutual remoteness of India and China the British had so assiduously nurtured by supporting an independent Lhasa. This, and the handing over of Xinjiang by the then ussr to the new People’s Republic of China, made the Han and the Hindu neighbours for the first time in history.

Since 1954, the legacy of a disputed border has flared up into a bitter row. Both countries are guilty of misinterpreting history. India’s claim to the barren and wind-swept Aksai Chin plateau rests on an arbitrary extension of the border in 1939 to the present claim line, first suggested by W.H. Johnson in 1865. Johnson was a discontented official of the Survey of India who made his fortune by vastly extending the Kashmir Maharaja’s domain on the map. The 1939 extension was done to create a buffer between Xinjiang, which had turned into a Soviet protectorate, and British India.

 
 
Like France and Germany or Brazil and Argentina, India and China, too, can keep alive competitiveness—peacefully
 
 
Similarly, the obsequious courtiers of the Qing (Manchu) dynasty in China were not averse to some cartographic conquests of their own. Ge Jianxiong, a well respected history professor at China’s prestigious Fudan University, has written that “the notions of Greater China were based entirely on one-sided views of Qing court records that were written for the court’s self-aggrandisement.” Ge has also written criticising those who feel that the more they exaggerate Chinese territory, the more “patriotic” they are. The present Dalai Lama lent weight to this by formally staking claim over Tawang, located below the McMahon Line, in 1947. Such is the stuff that wars are made of and the two countries have been in a military faceoff since 1962.

To be fair to the Chinese, they have at several times offered a package deal of settling the border issue by foregoing each other’s unhistoric,  unsubstantiated claims in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh. India’s leadership has balked, lest it be accused by the opposition of the day of selling out. Only in recent days, a new wisdom seemed to be creeping into South Block, but the Chinese have suddenly turned recalcitrant. They now seem to suggest that the package deal is no longer on offer.

Other issues too have coloured perceptions. The voracious appetite for tiger parts in China is one. The rise of China is now being threatened by a slowing-down economy, and it’s locked in an irretrievable reverse hock to the vastly indebted US. By contrast, India has begun to experience heady growth rates, giving rise to a new giddiness about its place in the world. The Chinese don’t care too much for this. This is the stuff of competition. But not war. For both sides, as the song goes, are now endowed with the mushroom-shaped cloud! And so we will have to be content playing rivals.


(Mohan Guruswamy is the author of the recently published Chasing the Dragon: Will India Catch Up with China?)

 

Arunachal pradesh
With India having given them nothing but neglect, the Arunachalis wonder if they’d have been better off with China
Saikat Datta
Arunachal pradesh
The Centre may put up a show of good intention, but it seldom comes to any sort of fruition
Outlook
tawang
China’s stand on Tawang lies inextricably close to its suspicions of India’s intentions on Tibet. Therein lies the rub....
Pranay Sharma
the india complex
Is it paranoia or just plain old envy because China has surged far ahead of us in every field?
Pranay Sharma
china eye view
The Indian media reserves its vitriol for China. It’s horribly unfair.
Wang Yaodong
bilateral trade
Trade is growing. But a closer look finds India chafing at inequalities.
Lola Nayar
Column
A stronger India must counter China with open-minded caution
K.S. Bajpai
Tawang
 
Daily MailPublished
COLLAPSE COMMENTS :
HAVE YOUR SAY
Nov 14, 2009 09:40 AM
6
ADITYA MOOKERJEE, I concur with your statement- Patriotism is a phenomenon which arises out of trust and sense of belonging. To be or not to be patriotic-that is the question. Chinese people like any citizenry must be patriotic to the country of their birth. The other important question is-how loyal the Chinese citizenry towards the Chinese totalitarian regime. Saddam Hussein claimed he had hundred percent support among the Iraqis. No sooner did he overthrow by the American led forces than people of Iraq brought his giant statue at Baghdad down and spat on it and stomp on it. Yearning to be free is inherent in all of us- human beings and animals. That can’t be suppressed in perpetuity; it will come back to bite the totalitarian regime sooner or later.
Scaria Varghese
Melbourne, Australia
Nov 13, 2009 12:43 PM
5
China and India are nation's who find themselves to be neighbors, because they choose to be neighbors. China asserted it's rule over Tibet, and Pandit Nehru agreed with the assertion. It was impossible, for Tibet to remain an independent nation, under the circumstances, because of reason's which have been mentioned. The passage to India, and the passage to China, for China, and India, lies through Tibet. How could India and China have interacted with each other, without communicating through Tibet? To be fair, India recognized the demarcation between Tibet and India, from the times of the British Empire. The reason for India to be kept separate from China, ended, after the different factions in China were united under Chinese rule. No doubt, China saw the occupation of Tibet, as further unifying the different factions of China. But, whereas the rest of China shares a similar culture, the Tibetan culture is not of the mainstream Chinese culture. There is no uprising in the rest of China, because of this uniform culture, except within the regions occupied my the Uyghurs, and the Tibetan's. China's own dealings with the Uyghur's and the Tibetan's, are directing her relation's with India. The Chinese government wanted to make the Tibetan's unite with the rest of China, perhaps, by imbibing the culture of mainstream China. Perhaps, this is the wrong policy. A people cannot feel patriotism, if they are persecuted for not feeling patriotic. Patriotism is a phenomenon which arises out of trust and sense of belonging. The Chinese government is using the same tactics, which it used, when the Communist Party saw it's difficult day's of struggle, when it had not come to power.
Aditya Mookerjee
Belgaum, India
Nov 10, 2009 06:50 PM
4
Indians are pathetic, blind people.

India's great enemy is Islamism, not China.

China ruthlessly smashes any attempt by Islamists to raise their ugly heads in China.

If we are helpless in dealing with Islamic terrorism, let us learn from China. Indeed, invite China to rule our lands better than we ever can.
Momeen Rashid
Delhi, India
Nov 10, 2009 03:36 PM
3
Much as our politicos may disagree, India's progress has happened in spite of the politicians and not because of them. In contrast China's progress has been the result of planned moves by their political leadership.There is hardly any business that commences in China without the state acting as benefactor(hovering in the shadows of course)Much of the statistics thrown up by the Chinese can be disputed as to their authenticity - GDP, employment rate etc The bamboo curtain remains impenetrable.Thanks to the profligacy of the united states and its propensity to buy huge quantities of toys, clothes and greeting cards, China built up huge reserves. Much of these reserves have been used to create infrastructure,which while impressive is not yielding much.China does indeed look at India as a rival and given that china and morality do not go together, India needs to be very careful about any move china makes. Chinese leaders have wisely followed the teachings of Sun Tsu, whereas in stark contrast our semi literate politicos have foolishly ignored the teachings of Chanakya.When it comes to relationships between countries, the neighbor is never a friend and always a potential enemy- Indian leadership will do well to remember this maxim.
Shiv Adiseshan
Chennai, India
Nov 09, 2009 10:44 AM
2
Sibling Rivalry should be the way forward for India and China-compete in a level playing field and get the better out of their respective citizenry. India is following that path and China is dreaming of world domination and the only omnipotent nation in the world and the rest has to be subservient to her-yesteryears master servant relationship. Self-preservation is a human trait; China is firmly believed in it.

Hubris is a totalitarian preserve; China is no exception. India shouldn’t be striving to ape China Instead; her aim should be to reach higher heights-world’s economic super power. India is harbouring some of the top billionaires in the world and China has none. Their entrepreneurial prowess will stand out as a loadstar for others to follow to take India to that higher height.
Scaria Varghese
Melbourne, Australia
Nov 07, 2009 10:34 PM
1
Good one by Guruswamy. Rivalry indeed does not mean enmity.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
COLLAPSE COMMENTS   
Post a Comment
You are not logged in, please log in or register
ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISING RATES | COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER | COMMENTS POLICY