China and India - How is India viewed in China?

[Nilgiri]

Agreed. The state-state relationship according to geopolitical principles takes precedence, and indeed serves as a foundation for nation-nation dynamics to be built upon it later.

How public perception works into this is as much a factor of the directions laid by geopolitical alignments of national interests or lack thereof as it is by media coverage, which quite often can be channeled into preferred directions according to policy decisions.

Ok let me proceed with this and see what @Michael , @Joe Shearer etc have to say:

i.e roughly (some overlaps exist):

south (Burma - Vietnam etc)
south east - East (PH, ROC, Japan, Korea)
North (USSR/Russia, Mongolia)
West (USSR, now Central Asian republics etc)

vis a vis the South Western one (India, Himalayan states, Pakistan etc), and then how this axis further impacts India directly (given say Pakistan pre 71 and post 71).

These can be cross referenced like a matrix with the PRC state's political tenure eras in the modern era i.e relevant time segments:

pre-1949 (pre PRC, ROC first arc in nationstate mandate/formation taking over from Qing empire),
1949 - 1981 (PRC, roughly Mao Zedong tenure)
1981 - 2002 (Deng Xiaoping and jiang Zemin tenures)
2002 - current (Hu Jintao and Xi jinping tenures)

I will assign (w.r.t China) for a state-state matrix component analysis:

A as South
B as South East
C as East
D as North
E as West
F as South West

1 as pre-1949
2 as 1949 - 1981
3 as 1981 - 2002
4 as 2002 - present

So an example of a conflict study here and its lingering residual analysis in state-state could for example be A3 w.r.t the 1979-1989 situation between PRC and Vietnam.

Then how the state-state made adjustment for better nation-nation heading/deference etc to present day.

It can then be compared to the F-block study which contains India-China. F2, F3 and F4 especially (given established nationstate basis for it).

 

[MH.Yang]

I'd like to elaborate on a core issue first. I can't represent everyone, but I should be able to represent the views of many ordinary Chinese.

About democracy and centralization

In English media, China is often described as a centralized or even dictatorial country. I think the vast majority of Indians also believe that India is a democratic country and they take pride in it.

We need to carefully analyze this issue:

What is democracy or centralization?

We can understand it as whether various state powers can constrain each other. For example, legislative power, judicial power, administrative power, military power, and so on. We usually judge a country as a democratic or authoritarian state based on the provisions of its constitution regarding these powers.

However, we are humans, not machines. After we have some wishes, we always find ways to break the rules.

When some groups within a democratic country have the ability to simultaneously influence all state powers at certain times, is the country still a democratic country? For example, military industrial complexes in the United States, conglomerates in South Korea, and political families in many democratic countries

China is a one party state, and the CCP has absolute power. However, there are factions with different tendencies within the CCP. Sometimes their opinions are consistent, and other times their opinions are not consistent. They control different national powers and constrain each other. Is China still a centralized state at this time?

So, I believe that democracy or centralization is a manifestation of a country at a certain time, rather than a fixed attribute of that country.

The external manifestations of each country are different, some countries are more direct, some countries are more subtle, and the specific form adopted depends on their own culture. But their ultimate core is completely consistent.

Analyze from the basic logic of management and development:

Democracy is more suitable for stabilizing society; Centralization is more suitable for developing society. For example:

When a country encounters war, it needs a high degree of centralization. This is the only way to react quickly and win the war. If state power is mutually constrained at this time, it will pay a more painful price in war------ Refer to the situation in the United States during World War II.

When a country needs rapid development, centralization is also necessary. If everything requires a lengthy and complex system of constraints to handle, there is no possibility of rapid development------ Compare the development of European countries with that of China.

When a country tends to be stable, power constraints are needed, otherwise various major events will erupt. If these events are not dealt with in a timely manner, they will lead to internal strife and even disintegration of the country------ Refer to the major cases that have occurred in China in recent years.

In recent years, the Modi government has essentially controlled all state power in India, which is why India has experienced rapid development.

By carefully observing different countries, we can prove this logic.

Of course, don't look at political parties alone. We try to describe it using the concept of political groups (groups with consistent political orientations). Some political parties have different political groups within them; Some countries have multiple political parties forming a common political group; Some countries' armies are a separate political group; Some companies in certain countries can be viewed as a separate political group

When these political groups have different opinions, the development of this country is very difficult, and some countries directly erupt into civil wars.

====================================================
我想先就一个核心问题阐述一下我的观点，我不能代表所有人，但应该能代表很多普通中国人的观点。
关于民主与集权
在英文媒体上的中国，经常被描述为集权国家，甚至独裁国家。我想，绝大多数印度人也是这么认为的，印度人以印度是民主国家为骄傲。
这个问题，我们需要认真分析一下：
什么是民主或集权？
我们可以理解为各种国家权力是否能够相互制约。比如立法权、司法权、行政权、军权等等。我们通常是以国家宪法对这些权力的规定来判断这个国家是民主国家或集权国家。
然而，我们是人类而不是机器。当我们有了一些愿望之后，总会找到一些方法去突破规则。
当民主国家内部一些团体在某些时间的能力足以同时影响所有国家权力时，这个国家是否还是民主国家？比如美国的军工复合体、韩国的财团，以及很多民主国家的政治家族..........
中国是一党制国家，CCP拥有绝对权力。但是，CCP内部有不同倾向的派系。某些时候他们的意见是一致的，某些时候他们的意见并不一致。他们掌控不同的国家权力，彼此制约。这时的中国，是否还是集权国家？
所以，我认为，民主或集权，是国家在某个时间的表现，而不是这个国家的固定属性。
每个国家的外在表现不同，有的国家直接一些，有的国家隐晦一些，具体采用的形式根据自己国家的文化来决定。但他们的最终核心完全一致。

从管理与发展的基本逻辑来分析：
民主更适合稳定社会；集权更适合发展社会。比如：
当国家遇到战争时，就需要高度集权。这样才能快速反应，赢得战争。如果国家权力在这个时候互相制约，就会在战争中付出更加惨痛的代价。------参考美国在二战时的情况。
当国家需要高速发展时，同样需要集权。如果每一件事都需要漫长而复杂的制约体系来处理，没有任何高速发展的可能性。------参考欧洲国家的发展和中国的发展对比。
当国家趋于平稳时，就需要权力制约，否则就会爆发各种重大事件，这些事件如果不及时处理，就会导致国家内乱甚至解体。------参考中国最近这些年发生的重大案件。
印度最近这些年，莫迪政府实质上掌控了所有国家权力，所以才会出现印度高速发展。

我们仔细观察不同的国家，就会证明这个逻辑。
当然，不要单独看政党。我们试着用政治群体(政治倾向一致的群体)这个概念来描述。有些政党内部有不同的政治群体；有些国家是多个政党组建一个共同的政治群体；有些国家的军队是一个单独的政治群体；有些国家的某些企业可以单独看作为一个政治群体...................
当这些政治群体意见不一致时，这个国家的发展非常艰难，有些国家直接爆发内战。

Don't trust the Western media's definition of "democracy". To determine whether a country is democratic or not, one should look at the power structure behind it.

If a country is one in which the people control capital through the government, then that country is a democracy.

If a country is one in which capital controls the people through the government, then that country is not a democracy.

 

[nahtanbob]

Don't trust the Western media's definition of "democracy". To determine whether a country is democratic or not, one should look at the power structure behind it.

If a country is one in which the people control capital through the government, then that country is a democracy.

If a country is one in which capital controls the people through the government, then that country is not a democracy.

You have a primitive definition for a democracy

Democracy means representative form of government with checks and balances. You cannot have arbitrary and selective enforcement of laws like in China and still be called a democracy.

 

[KAAFIR]

I like to think about things from the government's point of view so that I can judge how things are going. I have always believed that the first aim of the Government in everything it does is to maintain order and stability in society, rather than pursuing justice, fairness and economic development. The pursuit of justice and fairness is only a means used to achieve an end, but not an end in itself. Economic development is the inevitable development brought about by the maintenance of social order and stability, and it is not an end in itself.

By the same token, politics, diplomacy, war, and trade are necessary means to an end. So I don't think it's human nature to conquer others, but rather a nation goes to war when it needs external conquest to satisfy its internal order and stability.

For example, why does the Chinese Government always want to settle international disputes by peaceful means? It is because order and stability in China need a good economy to be maintained, and China's economy is largely influenced by foreign trade. So China needs a peaceful world to maintain the stability of foreign trade(和气生财). By the same token, the U.S. needs economic development, but the U.S. is a country where domestic demand is the guide to economic growth. And war is the greatest domestic demand, so the United States always needs war, especially when facing economic crisis.

That is why we should first consider what kind of Sino-Indian relationship the governments of these two countries need to maintain domestic order and stability when discussing China-India relations. And considering India's domestic situation, their government needs a hostile China.

As for what these average Indians think, does it matter? These Indians simply do not have the ability to think independently, much less influence government decisions. They are just a bunch of populists who like to watch godi media. whatever godi media says, they believe. Why would you waste your time engaging with them?

As for China and India going to war. Don't worry, the Indian government just needs an enemy country that it can use to terrorize its internal citizens, not one that will actually destroy it. The Indian government is more afraid of a war with China than any Indian because it knows the real China better than godi Indians.

Your attitude, FALSE bravedo and impression is not helping the thread at all. @Nilgiri
And India doesn't Need any enemy to unite India. It is in nature of India to be united. This is absolutely FALSE impression you have. I don't know from where you got it.

 

[Michael]

There are parts I agree with, other parts I disagree with.

Centralisation for centralisation sake is bad.

Same as decentralisation for decentralisation sake is bad.

Be it the central govt vs regional.

Or the role of the citizenry compared to say one legal "central" political party in the staffing of the govt for its decision making and law and order.

They (centralised vs decentralised) are not ends to themselves, rather they are means to a greater end.

How do we find the right balance, the right amount of salt to add to a soup.

To me this requires analysis of:

A) The constitution (highest authority) principles (and why)

B) The checks and balances within this constitution (and why)

C) The faithful implementation of the constitution, its amendment process and/or re-convening for replacement (and why)

To me there are clear qualitative differences between every nationstate, even with their context and circumstances accounted for (at the time of nationstate formation and then the course of it afterwards).

Rest is really time and interest invested into deep study of this subject in all the varieties the human species has produced, current time, near-current and historical/archaic.

In China's case the summary of note, is why the Sun-Yat-Sen constitutional drafting commenced under the principles it did (after Qing dynasty was disestablished). Then the long subject of what happened to that (regd compromises KMT made with the CCP, each parties various factions and the turbulence of that time), his relatively early unfortunate demise, the civil war that followed, the nasty invader that entered into China and the impacts these would have regd the 1949 establishment of the PRC with CCP as sole legal political party....with 4 constitutions to follow.

This is ultimately a very different state of events and deep contexts to India across same time period....and India's one sole constitution from 1950.

But we can even start at this midway point in the century (1950) when the nationstates have both established to compare and contrast purely the state-state....and then the state-state for the other axis vectors for China (I listed in previous post) that are very useful to do in my opinion.

You are open minded and want a honest exchange of views, so it will be fruitful....it will just take time to do as it is all about ultimately understanding reality as best as possible. A reality we all share in end, whatever delusions some of us may have inserted to substitute, to act as a personal emotional crutch or otherwise.

Those with less (or little) understanding of reality in this subject, tend to have formed primitive, prejudicial, ignorant conclusions. I only hope its specific to this domain and not a general character trait of theirs.

Sometimes protracted participation with skirmishing posters have made them worse for wear too upon this when it comes to a forum that has existed quite some time with its various bad-faith agents outnumbering good-faith ones.

I generally take a dim view when some post contains terms like "these Indians" or "these Chinese" or "these Pakistanis" etc.. to begin with.

It is an emotional basis first, that forms its various delusions and self-referenced narratives..... and that colours any intake and processing of objective reality from the start.

So it is not surprising if they get stuck running in circles and are unable to comprehend for example, exactly why the USSR broke up (as you will notice in my axis directions earlier w.r.t PRC) with its power/wealth levels attained and 3 constitutions... and India has not with its power/wealth levels and single 1950 constitution.

i.e Was the USSR a case of centralised for centralised sake to some degree and how much?....compared to say India. What is the problem if a political party within India tries to generate sufficient contravention of the balance India found in its constitution that has stood test of time compared to far mightier USSR (that from the other's point of view had utterly no business breaking up like it did with their flawed reductive emotionally biased "logic").

It needs that analysis of A) B) and C) I gave earlier....and maybe especially B (in my opinion).

i.e what are checks and balances, what are their key role w.r.t power and the long term toughness of the state (and nation it accounts for) so it is neither too soft/exposed or too brittle. With optimal balance of the metal's toughness, it can do the most good and most work with best transmission of reality and truth (governing the top-down and bottom-up processes and their respective best roles and qualities).

In my opinon, PRC could have done a lot better job than it has (on A, B and C), but its a really long subject in end to explore well. India has done about as well as it can have done with the 1950 constitution with what it inherited and could learn from the successful nationstate snapshot it had at the time to process.

i.e What's the best reading on it one ought to have done several times over to be competent on it (or whats a basic place to start even).

The inconsistency in the logic of thinking about the study of politics between us has led us to understand some political terms in completely different ways. I can only try to explain some of your questions and points in a Chinese perspective.

China has a complete and rigorous historical record and living habits throughout its thousands of years of history. They have shaped the traditions of the Chinese people today. These traditions take precedence over the law. Or rather, many Chinese laws are based on these traditions. When the state needs to make laws that go against these traditions, it must first do a lot of emotional work to get the general public to accept the new rules from the inside. Otherwise, the Chinese will not pay any attention to these laws and will still continue to live according to these traditions.
Unlike the situation in many countries, the influence of these traditions on the Chinese is far greater than the influence of traditions on the people in other countries, and far greater than the influence of religion on the population.
Ordinary Chinese people know that there are many laws in China, but they do not care about the terms of these laws. This is because they know that what the laws stipulate is basically the same as the traditions they have in their daily lives. Even when the Mongols, Manchus, and Japanese occupied Han Chinese areas throughout history, they had to respect those traditions when they made laws in those places. For example, all Chinese know the traditional concept of ‘killing a man pays for his life’, but few know what the law says about it. It is only when we come across such things that we look up the legal provisions. Of course, society is developing. Many legal provisions are also gradually becoming new traditions for Chinese people.
As for CCP, he respects these traditions and endeavours to lead the people together towards the ideal society of the Chinese. So, it is the Chinese people who choose CCP as their leader, not CCP who is fooling the Chinese people. Compared to traditional Chinese culture, the influence of CCP is negligible. Don't forget, these CCP members, they are firstly Chinese before they are CCP members. If they want to challenge these traditions, they must first challenge themselves.
Therefore, if we try to interpret and study the Chinese Constitution, we might as well study these Chinese traditions. Ordinary Chinese don't care about what's inside the Constitution at all.
If you are interested, try to study Chinese history. China has used various state systems of today's world in its developmental history. Federalism, Constitutional Monarchy, Parliamentary System ............. The only difference is that they are called differently.

Regarding democracy and centralisation: as I said earlier, it's a dynamic property rather than a static one. To describe it more directly: today's India is a centralised state. Past or future, constitution or performance, it doesn't matter. It does now. If you compare carefully, you will see: India and China have different ways of describing and manifesting the relevant provisions of the institutions of power, but the core is the same. How the Supreme Leader is created, the scope of his powers, and the provisions for his term of office ............. The most controversial: India calls it arising from different political parties; China calls it arising from different factions. But their essence is the same, only the description is different, and they are also produced by different political groups.
So I don't think there is any substantial difference between India and China in terms of democracy and centralisation of power.

 

[MH.Yang]

You have a primitive definition for a democracy

Democracy means representative form of government with checks and balances. You cannot have arbitrary and selective enforcement of laws like in China and still be called a democracy.

No matter what the system is, it is the distribution of rights behind it that counts. Even if you have a representative system, if in the end, it is the capitalist plutocrats who control everything, it is still not democracy.

By the way, first of all, China is also a representative country. The Chinese also have votes and elections.
Secondly, I didn't say which country's power is controlled by capital, so why are you so anxious? Do you realize that what I said？

 

[MH.Yang]

Your attitude, FALSE bravedo and impression is not helping the thread at all. @Nilgiri
And India doesn't Need any enemy to unite India. It is in nature of India to be united. This is absolutely FALSE impression you have. I don't know from where you got it.

Right. So may I ask during which period India had no external enemies?

 

[onlinpunit]

Right. So may I ask during which period India had no external enemies?

Name a country without an external enemy.

 

[MH.Yang]

Name a country without an external enemy.

China in the period from 1985 to 1989.
Japan from 1954 to 2013.

 

[KAAFIR]

Right. So may I ask during which period India had no external enemies?

We were never China's enemy before China attacked 1962 for whatever political reason. We had a saying in India "Hindi-Chini bhai bhai" mean Indian and Chinese are brother. So much trust we had on China. It was shattered in 1962.
Pakistan is a different case. Only a Pakistani and Indian can understand this enmity. We tried our best to make Pakistan feel comfort with us. There are so many examples of India's efforts of peace with Pakistan. But unfortunately we didn't succeed in that.
Otherwise India never had external enemy.

 

[onlinpunit]

China in the period from 1985 to 1989.
Japan from 1954 to 2013.

In which multiverse ?

 

[Michael]

In China's case the summary of note, is why the Sun-Yat-Sen constitutional drafting commenced under the principles it did (after Qing dynasty was disestablished). Then the long subject of what happened to that (regd compromises KMT made with the CCP, each parties various factions and the turbulence of that time), his relatively early unfortunate demise, the civil war that followed, the nasty invader that entered into China and the impacts these would have regd the 1949 establishment of the PRC with CCP as sole legal political party....with 4 constitutions to follow.

About Dr Sun Yat-sen and ROC.

To this day, Mr Sun's contribution to the development of China is still celebrated by the Chinese people. Whether Chinese or foreigners, we have no disputes when it comes to his affairs.

About ROC. In all the records in China today, the ROC before Chiang Kai-shek gained real power is objective and impartial. During the period between Chiang Kai-shek's acquisition of real power and 1949, some of the records are somewhat biased, but these biased records are being gradually corrected and many historical truths are being restored. ...... My grandfather was a senior general of the Kuomintang. Some of the historical materials collected by my family have been handed over to some research institutes, and these materials will be made public in due course, and their disclosure will change the perceptions of many people. ..... ...After 1949, the Chinese government replaced the ROC. but the people and organisations of the ROC are still recognised, they just change the way they are called.

Analysing Mr Sun and his ROC from a historical point of view. they were an inevitable presence and a necessary phenomenon in the course of Chinese history. Their ideas and ways are not suitable for building a better China. But again, they had to exist. Without them, there would be no CCP and no China today. The meaning of ‘overkill’ is: when we want to correct a deviation, we need to deviate more in the opposite direction, and after the natural rebound, it is the right direction.

When Chiang Kai-shek took over the ROC, the huge impact of traditional Chinese culture and western culture was more than he could cope with. Failure became inevitable. CCP in this period was weak, but it found its direction in this collision of Chinese and Western cultures. Success became inevitable.

As I said earlier, in the face of traditional Chinese culture, any political party or law can only conform to it. It will always move forward according to its own laws. Before it, political parties and laws can be ignored.

 

[Michael]

I will assign (w.r.t China) for a state-state matrix component analysis:

A as South
B as South East
C as East
D as North
E as West
F as South West

1 as pre-1949
2 as 1949 - 1981
3 as 1981 - 2002
4 as 2002 - present

So an example of a conflict study here and its lingering residual analysis in state-state could for example be A3 w.r.t the 1979-1989 situation between PRC and Vietnam.

Then how the state-state made adjustment for better nation-nation heading/deference etc to present day.

It can then be compared to the F-block study which contains India-China. F2, F3 and F4 especially (given established nationstate basis for it).

About the China's external situation::

The views of the Chinese are totally different from these views of yours.

It is always known that China and the United States are fighting for supremacy. For other countries, when two giants fight, how to use this opportunity to gain the most benefits is their core idea. They will decide what to say and what to do according to their own situation. They have to be very careful and cautious in handling some issues to avoid becoming a casualty of this battle for supremacy. This is different from what we get from diplomacy and the media.

Let's try to analyse some representative countries:
Japan and South Korea: they have an alliance agreement with the United States and they have to align themselves with the United States on many policy levels. However, no country wants to keep letting other countries have total control all the time. Japan and South Korea have been trying, in various ways, to get the US to loosen or even lift its control over them, especially Japan. So, they have been actively increasing their influence in the US-China rivalry, trying to get the US to value their presence and thus loosen its control over them. (See Japan's performance in the Korean War, and Japan's economic rise as the US loosened its grip on Japan) But they've been very careful to avoid completely provoking China, and have done a lot of things privately. (Ref. trade figures between China and Japan and Korea in recent years)
Southeast Asian countries: they don't want to get involved in the hegemony, They prefer business. As for the Philippines, China doesn't care about it. every step Marcos takes forward, China will take more steps forward. He has given China a great opportunity to solve the South China Sea issue and China wants him to continue. But his political opponents can no longer tolerate him ...........
There are some countries that want to put some pressure on China to give some economic aid in exchange for their solidarity with China. They don't have any will or strength to confront China. That is all.
There are too many countries, I won't analyse them one by one ...........

Anyway, in the Chinese point of view, currently China only has the US as a strategic level opponent. When China develops to have enough power, these neighbouring countries will take the initiative to adjust their foreign policy. Against other individual countries or regions, we only study tactics.
Of course, militarily, China has been preparing for the worst. The COVID-19 incident proved China's ability to respond to national emergencies, and it gave Chinese policymakers a great deal of confidence on the issue of war. We can clearly see that after this incident, the PLA has become more aggressive and larger in its foreign military activities.

 

[nahtanbob]

No matter what the system is, it is the distribution of rights behind it that counts. Even if you have a representative system, if in the end, it is the capitalist plutocrats who control everything, it is still not democracy.

By the way, first of all, China is also a representative country. The Chinese also have votes and elections.
Secondly, I didn't say which country's power is controlled by capital, so why are you so anxious? Do you realize that what I said？

I never mentioned capital anywhere. This is my quote. Read again

Democracy means representative form of government with checks and balances. You cannot have arbitrary and selective enforcement of laws like in China and still be called a democracy.

As a practical matter someone has to exercise control. Do you want a unknown bureaucrat to control things ?

As a practical matter do you expect a homeless bum on the street to have the same influence as a grocery store owner who employs 20 people ?

 

[Joe Shearer]

You have a primitive definition for a democracy

Democracy means representative form of government with checks and balances. You cannot have arbitrary and selective enforcement of laws like in China and still be called a democracy.

Clearly one governed by a garbled version of Marxism. So here capital comes into play, the people - undifferentiated into classes - come into play. Interesting, although weird.