China and India - How is India viewed in China?

[nahtanbob]

If this is an elaborate way to say Pakistan is not worth counting as a useful friend that's fine, I won't argue, though a friend is not your blank cheque, so silly expectations

A friend does help with big bumbzzz lol and military tech

The point I am trying to make is friends are a point in time sort of thing, today's friends are maybe not tomorrows, but then if you are a great power you simply do not care.

You just move to where your interests are

friendships have limits. I am pointing out the limit

 

[nahtanbob]

It only shows how weak you are, being used as a pathetic pawn.

you are accusing India of playing the same game China plays

in any case countries decide what they want to do

 

[Beijingwalker]

you are accusing India of playing the same game China plays

in any case countries decide what they want to do

China was also ashamed of being played as a pawn by world powers, but thank goodness that's a long gone history.

 

[nahtanbob]

China was also ashamed of being played as a pawn by world powers, but thank goodness that's a long gone history.

Do as I say but not as I do
What else is new on PDF ?

 

[r3alist]

friendships have limits. I am pointing out the limit

Thankfully

 

[hembo]

Imagine if China and India had better relations? Imagine the power block and complete shift of Geo strategy and politics. The economic growth and cooperation would send tsunami waves through the world......

Very true. Which makes me think that keeping the 2 countries hostile (to whatever degree) works in somebody's favour

In memory of an esteemed member...blood, soil, religion

India is a swing state right now, arguably the most important one, that means it has to make a choice

Would you imagine bold or brave moves?

I had been a proponent of peaceful developments all my life. That includes advocating for a near normal relationship with PRC, regardless of whatever had happened in the past. This has landed me on a few awkward spots with me being the center of many ridicules.

The problem, IMO, is that both countries' diplomates are too focused on the past, ascertaining who did what and what should have been based on that.

I am from the northeastern state of Assam, and we have a rich history with migrants from Tibeto-Burmans, Far-east & south-east Asians region. Ahoms, who unified the greater Assam and ruled it from early 13th century till 1826 (till the British came via a dubious treaty), are basically admixture/descendants of Tai people & local Assamese, with Tai people having roots in the Guanxi region in China. We had Chinese scholar (Hsüen Tsang) visiting Assam even before that in the 7th century and capturing a detail memoir of it.

Chinese and Indian territories, in some shape and form, had co-existed without any friction (rather a lot of cultural exchange) for thousands of years till the British managed to leave us with some dubious boundaries in 1947. Nehru's flip-flops with Tibet policy coupled with hosting an exiled Tibetan government didn't help (Giving asylum and hosting a government in exile, are not the same). And the final nail was the Chinese incursion in 1962, which led to this frozen relationship now. This frozen relationship is the exact reason why the current generations do not know about each other now-a-days (as pointed out by @Michael and many others).

However, I do hope that once we all stop looking at the past deeds or misdeeds and concentrate on what needs to be done for future, both parties should realize the potential of an amicable relationship. And as @Michael pointed out, it can only start from people-to-people interactions. It will take some time, but it is achievable.

P.S.: As @Paitoo said, there may be some external factors at play including China-Pakistan relationship. But as long as both nations are strong and honest in their future negotiations, those will become irrelevant.

 

[r3alist]

I had been a proponent of peaceful developments all my life. That includes advocating for a near normal relationship with PRC, regardless of whatever had happened in the past. This has landed me on a few awkward spots with me being the center of many ridicules.

The problem, IMO, is that both countries' diplomates are too focused on the past, ascertaining who did what and what should have been based on that.

I am from the northeastern state of Assam, and we have a rich history with migrants from Tibeto-Burmans, Far-east & south-east Asians region. Ahoms, who unified the greater Assam and ruled it from early 13th century till 1826 (till the British came via a dubious treaty), are basically admixture/descendants of Tai people & local Assamese, with Tai people having roots in the Guanxi region in China. We had Chinese scholar (Hsüen Tsang) visiting Assam even before that in the 7th century and capturing a detail memoir of it.

Chinese and Indian territories, in some shape and form, had co-existed without any friction (rather a lot of cultural exchange) for thousands of years till the British managed to live us with some dubious boundaries in 1947. Nehru's flip-flops with Tibet policy coupled with hosting an exiled Tibetan government didn't help (Giving asylum and hosting a government in exile, are not the same). And the final nail was the Chinese incursion in 1962, which led to this frozen relationship now. This frozen relationship is the exact reason why the current generations do not know about each other now-a-days (as pointed out by @Michael and many others).

However, I do hope that once we all stop looking at the past deeds or misdeeds and concentrate on what needs to be done for future, both parties should realize the potential of an amicable relationship. And as @Michael pointed out, it can only start from people-to-people interactions. It will take some time, but it is achievable.

P.S.: As @Paitoo said, there may be some external factors at play including China-Pakistan relationship. But as long as both nations are strong and honest in their future negotiations, those will become irrelevant.

We live in the era of a hyper power, the west.

We also live in an interconnected and interdependent world, the nature and configuration of these connections will define power centers.

Furthermore, understand understand understand that the magnitude and amplification of connections in the modern day are much greater

It's unlike any previous era I would say, mainly due to technology enablement ... And financial


Due to these high stakes any notions of let's get along, there is no civilisational issue, I like noodles etc etc are veering on the silly.

The question is ...what connections and dependencies will India make over the next 20 year's as China/Russia/brics are creating their own alternative systems to the west

Right now India is in the middle more or less, it was neutral on Russia, it cannot be neutral on china

 

[Michael]

I had been a proponent of peaceful developments all my life. That includes advocating for a near normal relationship with PRC, regardless of whatever had happened in the past. This has landed me on a few awkward spots with me being the center of many ridicules.

The problem, IMO, is that both countries' diplomates are too focused on the past, ascertaining who did what and what should have been based on that.

I am from the northeastern state of Assam, and we have a rich history with migrants from Tibeto-Burmans, Far-east & south-east Asians region. Ahoms, who unified the greater Assam and ruled it from early 13th century till 1826 (till the British came via a dubious treaty), are basically admixture/descendants of Tai people & local Assamese, with Tai people having roots in the Guanxi region in China. We had Chinese scholar (Hsüen Tsang) visiting Assam even before that in the 7th century and capturing a detail memoir of it.

Chinese and Indian territories, in some shape and form, had co-existed without any friction (rather a lot of cultural exchange) for thousands of years till the British managed to leave us with some dubious boundaries in 1947. Nehru's flip-flops with Tibet policy coupled with hosting an exiled Tibetan government didn't help (Giving asylum and hosting a government in exile, are not the same). And the final nail was the Chinese incursion in 1962, which led to this frozen relationship now. This frozen relationship is the exact reason why the current generations do not know about each other now-a-days (as pointed out by @Michael and many others).

However, I do hope that once we all stop looking at the past deeds or misdeeds and concentrate on what needs to be done for future, both parties should realize the potential of an amicable relationship. And as @Michael pointed out, it can only start from people-to-people interactions. It will take some time, but it is achievable.

P.S.: As @Paitoo said, there may be some external factors at play including China-Pakistan relationship. But as long as both nations are strong and honest in their future negotiations, those will become irrelevant.

First of all, you are very welcome to join our discussion in a peaceful and rational manner. This is a very good start.

As you have described, there is a very long history of interaction between India and China, with many fond memories. As a Chinese, I also hope to meet more Indian friends through PDF.

However, we all live in our respective countries and are bound to be affected by many objective factors. These influences have given us a less than favourable impression even before we start communicating. So, we need to put some of the bad things down first.

For example:
What happened in 1962 is still described by you as ‘Chinese invasion’. This is not a friendly way of describing it. In the Chinese mindset, it was India that started the invasion war against China in 1962, and then was countered by the Chinese army.
The Gallevan incident. This is also the case in the Indian media. Even if China produces evidence such as photos and videos of the scene, many Indians still believe that it was the Chinese army that invaded, but we have not seen the Indian military produce relevant photos and videos to prove that it was the Chinese army that invaded India.
So, for the sake of more friendly communication, we try to avoid mentioning these bad things. If we do need to mention them, we can use some neutral descriptions. For example: ‘1962 China-Indian War’, ‘Garhwal conflict’.

Welcome. Again.

 

[Nilgiri]

We're way off on some of these concepts. As I mentioned earlier, Eastern politics and Western politics are not the same thing in terms of the understanding and application of political parties and constitutions.

If we summarize history, we will find such a pattern:
The top-level political structure of China in all periods is a triangular structure. There is a spiritual leader at the top, and some substantive officials below.

The spiritual leader is the symbol of spiritual cohesion of the whole group, and he needs to be recognized by the whole group. It has nothing to do with the way he gets the seat. If he fails to gain the recognition of the majority, he will be overthrown by the others. Therefore, how to gain majority recognition is the most important thing for him. He did not deal with any practical matters directly, he was only responsible for regulating the balance between these practical officials below him.
Substantive officials are the officials who control and execute all specific affairs of the state. They are the ones who are actually in power. But behind them are different political groups. These different political groups have always been in a state of mutual supervision and constraint. In Chinese history, this is called “party struggle”.

When the spiritual leaders are able to balance the different political groups well, China will enter a period of prosperity.
When the spiritual leaders are unable to balance the different political groups, China will begin to decline. When a political group grows too strong, The leader of this political group will become the new “spiritual leader” of the country. The political group will re-divide into different political groups, thus forming a new triangular structure.When the spiritual leader completely loses control over the various political groups, causing them to enter into a disorderly struggle, China will experience a foreign invasion or civil uprising.

The mechanism of supervision and control between these political groups is essentially a “democratic” mechanism. This structure is exactly the same as the structure of the Western societies of the past and the modern Western societies. There are just a few differences in how they are called. In the modern Western socio-political structure, the “spiritual leader”, who acts as a political balancing act, usually does things behind the scenes. Of course, there are also some “spiritual leaders” who are on the stage.

In the modern Western socio-political structure:

If there is no “spiritual leader” and the political groups are evenly matched, the country is in chaos. There are many examples of such countries in the world today. When the various factions in a country do not agree, there is a constant struggle within the country. The extent and manner of the internal struggle depends on the specifics of the country, such as its economic strength and cultural education. When one political group grows strong enough to suppress the others, it becomes the new “spiritual leader”. The country then begins to enter a period of stabilization.
If this “triangular structure” of a country is solid, the country will develop well.

For the enemies of the country, destroying the “triangular structure” of the other side is one of the best means. For example: to support a certain force through money and weapons; to influence a certain force through the dissemination of tendentious public opinion. ................ These phenomena are very common in international diplomacy.

The struggle between CCP and KMT during the ROC period (before the PRC) fits this pattern perfectly. When Mr. Sun was still alive, these two political forces did not fight. Mr. Sun was the “spiritual leader” at that time. When Mr. Sun died, the balance was upset and the struggle began.
After CCP defeated KMT and PRC replaced ROC, Mr. Mao became the new “spiritual leader” and the struggle between the various factions within CCP began. When Mr. Mao was still able to balance these struggles, they did not affect the lives of ordinary people, they were confined to a certain area, and the country was not greatly affected by these struggles. When Mr. Mao was unable (for medical reasons) to balance these struggles, they were expanded, culminating in the Cultural Revolution and the “Gang of Four” movement. In the end, the political group represented by Marshal Ye Jianying was victorious, Deng Xiaoping became the new “spiritual leader” and the country began to develop smoothly. However, in the later years of Deng Xiaoping, for the same reason, this kind of struggle arose again in China, resulting in the June Fourth Movement. These phenomena have been analyzed and summarized by modern Chinese politicians, who have made adjustments to the system in an attempt to end this vicious circle. Of course, these political reforms are exploratory and we have to take some risks.

All in all, I think that Western-style democracy and Eastern-style democracy are, in essence, completely the same, they are just differently formulated.

It is one line of thinking you present, I have talked to Chinese that have presented it before, and other Chinese that don't see it that way (in various ways) and all those that are in between too.

Anyway, we have presented enough chapter headings now for people to investigate, read and come to their own further conclusions. Very much doubt most members here know much of China's very significant history from 1900-1950 to properly then understand say 1950-2000. That is up to them to do.

I have put in my work to understand things I could at the depth I could afford for it.

Chess is another realm I have similarly invested much time into over many years, and later this year I can follow how Gukesh takes on Ding Liren for world championship title.

There are others that have to learn chess before they can understand to be able to follow the higher level of it, its up to them. It goes for any subject in the end.

India used to be reliant on just one great player (Anand) and now we approach 100 grandmasters and then the road to 200 after. So it shall be with every domain.

By the way, this concept of "spiritual leader" reminded me of you bringing up in book thread: "救世主"

You likely know where this is from:

他为人民谋幸福，
呼尔嗨哟, 他是人民大救星！

It is one of my favourite tunes aesthetically from China, it has stuck in my head a long time now heh.

 

[Nilgiri]

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.

The trade figures with Japan, Vietnam, Russia etc is basically the part I'm getting at.

China has clashed with these countries.... Russia (USSR) and Vietnam after PRC foundation too. i.e putting aside Japan as under US security umbrella.

So my point is people can study the 1969 USSR-PRC border war and longer term from that, just like they can study the 1979 PRC-Vietnam border war (and 10 years after it of border hostilities) as well.

i.e the flourishing of other relations, how does war sit in policy and statecraft for long term when one has many other objectives of greater interest to pursue to strength and development of the people.

Then apply the relevant transmission to what stays the same and different for China-India one. India growing economically and people-people exchanges increasing long term combined with the respective sizes and distances. It has to be factored in.

In fact recently I read a long book on the Imjin war, and East Asian sphere wise it was interesting to me just how quickly Korea got back to official relations with Japan again, after the intensity of what had happened on the ground.

South Korea and Japan also trade like they do in backdrop of Japanese occupation again in the 1900-1950 period and lingering anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea because of it.

One can also look at surveys of for example the Japanese people view of China today basically paint its own picture versus the trade and even tourism that goes on both ways.

India has done nothing like what Japan did to China (and Korea) in 1900-1950 timeframe, and it is simply further away from areas of China's eastern seaboard (and population centers) that Japan presents itself along with its close alliance with the US.

Vietnam as well has expanded economic relations with China and both sides essentially look past the 1979-1989 period as far as possible. There are things here for India - China to chart just the same way. I don't expect current downturn in relations to last past this decade. Let us see.

 

[Nilgiri]

It depends on what you are looking at. Are you looking at people level (like average joe), economic level or geopolitics level?

At people level, I am pretty sure no one on one side care about the other side much, unless you know someone in the other country, Chinese don't generally talk about India and I am pretty sure Indian don't generally talk about Chinese. Yes, there are moron and bigot from both side that see the other side in a hostile way, but that happened to any country.

Well a complicated look at everything together.

People level sure I agree. People assign fiduciary concept with their govt to handle what they dont have time for in day to day (but realise still important, i.e the bigger picture stuff). I used authority in general in previous replies, instead of fiduciary.

Actually I had to look up what " fiduciary " even translates into Chinese for @Michael , his word for the day maybe.

English makes these complicated new words heh.

At economy level, this is where thing getting a bit tricker, I think it's some sort of love-hate relationship. India need to access to better technology and cheaper neighbor, that's what China have, and China need to get access to new market, not just India but places in Africa, Middle East, and India is the gateway of those market. Sure China can export them direct but it would be easier to export to places like Africa if those products go thru India because it shortens the route and that's what China BRI is for

Maybe very long term if relations improve significantly and India grows far more economically provably too. Also Africa has to grow a lot to make this worthwhile.

Otherwise seaborne trade (and China's own internal West interior - Eastern ports logistics) is just too cost efficient.

Going through Burma is a huge problem for forseeable future as Burma is intent on tearing itself apart with wars as it never developed a good enough political and institutional system for its reality. Whatever China wants to hedge to Indian ocean through BRI can be done through CPEC anyway. Pakistan again has to prove itself a lot, when it's not getting basic things in order for any sizeable capital/investment moves.

Problem with this, is both countries are next to each other, which mean they are going to be natural competitor to each other, so, something gotta give, and at this stage, India are going to be on a disadvantage in this form, and thru, there are going to be negative impact on Indian economy outlook

Geopolitics sense, this is where things got heated off, again, to neighbor countries, and both with land dispute to another, which mean there can only be one thing, both side feed on each other to progress their own geopolitics aim. each is going to see the other as an adversary to be able to do what their perspective government to do.

This is what I think how India see China or how China see India

India has to further grow thats for sure. 5 trillion market cap has to translate into more hard capital investment, especially where it is most densely populated. Right now its skewed, parts of India "get it", others are far behind.