India - China Relations

[RescueRanger]

I will DM you and we can have a convo about it. Let’s keep this place sterile for topic related posts.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Members are reminded that they may take it up with the administration - not on the thread concerned - if they have any problems with moderation.

 

[Sharma Ji]

Jaishankar's Big Warning To Indian Businesses On China Trade, Days After Xi Jinping's Europe Tour​

Just days after China President Xi Jinping's Europe tour, India's foreign minister issued a cautionary message to Indian businesses. S Jaishankar, while speaking at an even in Kolkata, called the situation in Ladakh "abnormal". He also commented on the historical factors affecting the India-China relationship and said that the situation at the disputed border cannot be disregarded by any citizen of India.

 

[Nilgiri]

I personally don’t quite agree with your point of view.

I don’t know where India’s hostility towards China comes from, or rather, why India thinks China is hostile towards them.

From my observations, from the past to the present, the vast majority of Chinese people and the Chinese government have no hostility towards India.

In Chinese official media, negative reports about India are rarely seen; most reports are about Chinese companies' investment situations in India.

On Chinese social media, there are indeed some self-media outlets mocking and ridiculing India, but fabricated fake news is very rare.

I speculate that India’s hostility towards China is mainly derived from border conflicts.

I once watched a video of an internal training speech by a scholar who participated in the China-India border negotiations.

He mentioned that during the China-India border negotiations, China had proposed a plan to India. Both sides would use the LAC as a benchmark, mutually recognize it, end the dispute, and sign a border agreement. Unfortunately, India rejected this plan.

Clearly, whether it is India or China, it is not very realistic to expect to claim all the territory they assert through negotiations. India chose to resist proactively.

Currently, China does not pay much attention to South Asian affairs. With China’s rapid economic development, economic activities in South Asian countries naturally spill over, and investments in South Asia are far from reaching a strategic level.

I agree with lot of what you have to say here. I follow China quite closely, a nation very close to my heart.

The matter to understand first is there is a difference between a nation (the body of people) and a state (the authority, especially political authority).

Of course both are packaged together in the modern "nationstate".

So people regarding some situation that has developed hostility/threat.... are often dealing with the state first, nation second (if at all)....as the state has the highest authority and calls the shots on things regarding defence, geopolitics, strategy and so on regd the state of the other nation. i.e many things go through the state - state in ways that are detrimental to say nation - nation.....because a lot of binary decisions of consequence have to be taken by the state (its a state after all looking out for its nation as it sees it).

Then the rest of this involves things like distance, power level (of that state) and so on. PRC state component is simply put much more powerful (PLA, economic heft to leverage from the nation) and its borders are closer to Indian people (nation) for its state to respond to (regarding reasons why the Chinese state wants to gain advantages where situations are open/grey rather than resolved/peaceful)....compared to where the Chinese people (nation) mostly live (and have other pressing threats/memories to the East and world at large instead for example to compete in their mind). Indians and Indian state dont have the same % of that context basically.

The hostility also isnt that deep, nor will it grow much depending on PRC (state) actions regd India's border for say next 10 - 20 years are just kept as a status quo and let nation-nation realities slowly take more priority in Indian people head.

I watch many Indian travellers to China (and compare contrast with my own sojourns into China - from Beijing to Shanghai to Chengdu to Guangzhou.....past HK where I grew up for a decade of my young life)....their interactions, especially since they do not generally know the Chinese language (unlike me as I know Cantonese and improving my Mandarin, so that's funny). Chinese people in general respond in way of normal non-hostility and interest just like you describe.

So that is why I am pretty sure the hostility you perceive from India/Indians wherever it is, comes from the state-state factor (incl. say PRC strategic alliance with Pakistan, and then Indias own history with Pakistan etc security wise).... being closer to Indian population centres and of a higher total summation behind it currently to back it compared to India.

 

[r3alist]

I agree with lot of what you have to say here. I follow China quite closely, a nation very close to my heart.

The matter to understand first is there is a difference between a nation (the body of people) and a state (the authority, especially political authority).

Of course both are packaged together in the modern "nationstate".

So people regarding some situation that has developed hostility/threat.... are often dealing with the state first, nation second (if at all)....as the state has the highest authority and calls the shots on things regarding defence, geopolitics, strategy and so on regd the state of the other nation. i.e many things go through the state - state in ways that are detrimental to say nation - nation.....because a lot of binary decisions of consequence have to be taken by the state (its a state after all looking out for its nation as it sees it).

Then the rest of this involves things like distance, power level (of that state) and so on. PRC state component is simply put much more powerful (PLA, economic heft to leverage from the nation) and its borders are closer to Indian people (nation) for its state to respond to (regarding reasons why the Chinese state wants to gain advantages where situations are open/grey rather than resolved/peaceful)....compared to where the Chinese people (nation) mostly live (and have other pressing threats/memories to the East and world at large instead for example to compete in their mind). Indians and Indian state dont have the same % of that context basically.

The hostility also isnt that deep, nor will it grow much depending on PRC (state) actions regd India's border for say next 10 - 20 years are just kept as a status quo and let nation-nation realities slowly take more priority in Indian people head.

I watch many Indian travellers to China (and compare contrast with my own sojourns into China - from Beijing to Shanghai to Chengdu to Guangzhou.....past HK where I grew up for a decade of my young life)....their interactions, especially since they do not generally know the Chinese language (unlike me as I know Cantonese and improving my Mandarin, so that's funny). Chinese people in general respond in way of normal non-hostility and interest just like you describe.

So that is why I am pretty sure the hostility you perceive from India/Indians wherever it is, comes from the state-state factor (incl. say PRC strategic alliance with Pakistan, and then Indias own history with Pakistan etc security wise).... being closer to Indian population centres and of a higher total summation behind it currently to back it compared to India.

That will have to change, there is no point in the USA investing further into India if the population do not go along with the hostility to a large extent, the population will ofcourse go along with the politics and messaging

My reading is that USA patience is much reduced if not gone altogether with India.

This was an early signal below

America’s Bad Bet on India

New Delhi won’t side with Washington against Beijing.

www.foreignaffairs.com

 

[Nilgiri]

That will have to change, there is no point in the USA investing further into India if the population do not go along with the hostility to a large extent, the population will ofcourse go along with the politics and messaging

My reading is that USA patience is much reduced if not gone altogether with India.

This was an early signal below

America’s Bad Bet on India

New Delhi won’t side with Washington against Beijing.

www.foreignaffairs.com

Ok written in 2023. Lot of water under bridge since that says differently. I don't like selectivity. I prefer holistic look.

 

[r3alist]

Q
Ok written in 2023. Lot of water under bridge since that says FFSdifferently. I don't like selectivity. I prefer holistic look.

The article only looks more true since 2023, I don't know what bridge you are observing

Holistically...ummm....I have to be humble about my intellectual and spiritual insight


But surely we all want to identify the zeitgeist, if you talk about everything you will probably miss the main point

 

[Nilgiri]

The article only looks more true since 2023, I don't know what bridge you are observing

Holistically...ummm....I have to be humble about my intellectual and spiritual insight


But surely we all want to identify the zeitgeist, if you talk about everything you will probably miss the main point

I've read Ashley Tellis over 20 years or more now. You are free to rate him 1 - 10 where you want regd agenda bias....and I'll rate him where I want.

There are papers, hard data and news well past Tellis take on things.

India's relations with US and China don't ever reduce to one person's analysis.

 

[r3alist]

I've read Ashley Tellis over 20 years or more now. You are free to rate him 1 - 10 where you want regd agenda bias....and I'll rate him where I want.

There are papers, hard data and news well past Tellis take on things.

India's relations with US and China don't ever reduce to one person's analysis.

Ok, but that's the crux you are missing

It's about an external actors, the USA, expectations of India and China relations

That's ofcourse the reality, so if you want to do an intellectual tour you cannot exclude this


Unless ofcourse you think it's an insignificant factor, which is fine for your view, that's something concrete in fact to say that USA cannot influence things

 

[Nilgiri]

Ok, but that's the crux you are missing

It's about an external actors, the USA, expectations of India and China relations

That's ofcourse the reality, so if you want to do an intellectual tour you cannot exclude this


Unless ofcourse you think it's an insignificant factor, which is fine for your view, that's something concrete in fact to say that USA cannot influence things

What is it I am missing?

China will try to pull India to its corner to the degree it can. So will the US. India has its own weight to begin with....its own history and view of things and how these express politically from the state.

The US has an advantage as its security bearing is far more in concert with India....PRC has made some miscalculations in contrast (though it probably has reasoning on its end for it).

Doesn't mean US is going to have India dot every single i and cross every t that it wants w.r.t how it views things for India to proceed with PRC.

That got pushback regarding Russia itself (i.e India has its own relationship with Russia), a country thats now less powerful/important than China is overall (to just about everybody).

 

[Michael]

I agree with lot of what you have to say here. I follow China quite closely, a nation very close to my heart.

The matter to understand first is there is a difference between a nation (the body of people) and a state (the authority, especially political authority).

Of course both are packaged together in the modern "nationstate".

So people regarding some situation that has developed hostility/threat.... are often dealing with the state first, nation second (if at all)....as the state has the highest authority and calls the shots on things regarding defence, geopolitics, strategy and so on regd the state of the other nation. i.e many things go through the state - state in ways that are detrimental to say nation - nation.....because a lot of binary decisions of consequence have to be taken by the state (its a state after all looking out for its nation as it sees it).

Then the rest of this involves things like distance, power level (of that state) and so on. PRC state component is simply put much more powerful (PLA, economic heft to leverage from the nation) and its borders are closer to Indian people (nation) for its state to respond to (regarding reasons why the Chinese state wants to gain advantages where situations are open/grey rather than resolved/peaceful)....compared to where the Chinese people (nation) mostly live (and have other pressing threats/memories to the East and world at large instead for example to compete in their mind). Indians and Indian state dont have the same % of that context basically.

The hostility also isnt that deep, nor will it grow much depending on PRC (state) actions regd India's border for say next 10 - 20 years are just kept as a status quo and let nation-nation realities slowly take more priority in Indian people head.

I watch many Indian travellers to China (and compare contrast with my own sojourns into China - from Beijing to Shanghai to Chengdu to Guangzhou.....past HK where I grew up for a decade of my young life)....their interactions, especially since they do not generally know the Chinese language (unlike me as I know Cantonese and improving my Mandarin, so that's funny). Chinese people in general respond in way of normal non-hostility and interest just like you describe.

So that is why I am pretty sure the hostility you perceive from India/Indians wherever it is, comes from the state-state factor (incl. say PRC strategic alliance with Pakistan, and then Indias own history with Pakistan etc security wise).... being closer to Indian population centres and of a higher total summation behind it currently to back it compared to India.

Thank you very much for participating.

In real life, I have some India friends (I don't know if they are still not Indian nationals, but they are certainly Indian). They are active in both Hong Kong and Shenzhen, working in the diamond trade. They have been in control of the entire secondary diamond trade market in China. They know many languages, including Mandarin, Cantonese, and Hokkien, and even some Chinese dialects. They are very open and friendly.

===========================================

We usually think that the relationship between countries is essentially the same as the relationship between children and children.

There was a child in the village, his name was United States, and he was very strong. He wanted the whole village to listen to him, and if there was a disobedient child, he would beat him up until he was obedient. Many children were forced by his strong force to stand by him. He only allows everyone to play according to the rules he has set, and any child who violates the rules is punished, and these rules are completely up to him.

There is a child named China who wants to play with everyone. United States thought the guy was a psychotic and couldn't control it, so they didn't allow him to play with other children. The child was left alone at home to play alone.

With the passage of time, China entered a period of development, and the body grew rapidly, while the United States slowly stopped developing.

The food in the Chinese yard can no longer meet the physical development of China, and it is necessary to come out and find food. The United States let the children around China surround China and do not allow him to come out. China can only find a way to increase the grain production in its own yard, and at the same time give some of its own food to the poorer children in the surrounding area, in exchange for them to let themselves pass. China has been growing up in this difficult environment.

There is another child around China, his name is India. He was also in the period of physical development, but his own yard produced very little food to meet his needs. He has always been envious of the grain in China's yard that harvests more than the grain at home. He also hopes that the United States will give him more food. So he lobbied between China and United States for his importance in exchange for more food to feed his growth.

This is the relationship between China, India, and United States now.

===========================================
In order to prevent misunderstandings caused by machine translation, I will speak in both English and Chinese. Chinese is my true expression of opinion, if the translated English causes misunderstanding, please refer to Chinese.

===========================================

非常感谢你的参与。

现实生活中，我有一些印度朋友（我不知道他们还是不是印度国籍，但肯定是印度人）。他们活跃在香港-深圳两地，从事钻石贸易工作。整个中国的二级钻石贸易市场一直是由他们在掌控。他们懂很多语言，包括普通话、粤语和闽南语，甚至他们还会一些中国的方言。他们非常开放和友善。

===========================================

我们通常认为：国家与国家之间的关系，本质上和小孩与小孩之间的关系是一致的。

村里有个孩子，他的名字叫美国，非常强壮。他希望全村的孩子都听他的话，如果有不听话的小孩，他会去把他揍一顿，直到他听话为止。很多小孩迫于他强壮的武力，只能跟他站在一边。他只允许大家按照他制定的规则玩耍，任何违规的小孩都会被惩罚，这些规则完全由他决定。

有一个叫中国的小孩，很想和大家一起玩耍。美国认为这家伙是个神经病，自己无法控制，于是不允许他和其他小朋友一起玩耍。这个小孩只能自己一个人在家里独自玩耍。

随着时间的推移，中国进入发育期，身体快速成长，而美国却慢慢的停止发育。

中国院子里的粮食已经无法满足中国的身体发育，想出来找到食物。美国让中国周边的小孩围住中国，不允许他出来。中国只能想办法提高自己院子的粮食产量，同时把自己的粮食分一些给周边比较穷的小孩，换取他们让自己通过。中国一直在这种艰难的环境中成长。

中国周边还有一个小孩，他叫印度。他也处于身体发育期，但他自己家里院子产出的粮食非常少，无法满足他的需求。他一直很羡慕中国院子里的粮食比他家里的粮食收获更多。他也希望美国能给他更多的粮食。于是，他在中国和美国之间游说自己的重要性，以换取更多的粮食来满足自己的成长。

这就是现在中国、印度、美国之间的关系。

 

[Michael]

Since 1949, China's target strategic opponents have only been the Soviet Union and United States.

In the early days of the founding of the People's Republic of China, the relationship between China and the Soviet Union was very close. However, there were a lot of PLA tops who were already working on military tactics to deal with the USSR. While there was some strong opposition to the USSR being listed as an imaginary enemy at this time, there were people in the top echelons of the PLA who were already starting to do something. These strategic preparations greatly strengthened China's confidence in dealing with the Sino-Soviet break. If it were not for these strategic preparations many years ago, China would not have had enough confidence and determination to turn the other cheek with the Soviet Union.

United States has always been China's target adversary. There is no doubt about it.

India, China has never regarded India as an adversary. I don't want to analyze and discuss this reason on the public thread of the PDF, which would lead to an irrational war of words, pointless. If it's a private group, I'm more than willing to share my opinion.

In China, the government's views do not completely change the views of the people. This may be unbelievable to many foreigners who have not been to China, who often believe that the CCP has complete control over the minds of the Chinese people.

In the 80s of the last century, Sino-Japanese relations were highly close. The government is actively developing relations with Japan, and many public opinion trends are driving it. However, the Chinese people's hatred of Japan has not changed. The government's imposition of public opinion has led to many popular protests.

At present, more Chinese people still believe that the current widespread anti-China sentiment in India is a means for the India government to hope to gain more India interests in the Sino-US struggle. Therefore, the Chinese people believe that when the Sino-US struggle reaches a certain stage, this atmosphere will naturally change.

===========================================

自1949年以来，中国的目标战略对手只有苏联和美国。

在新中国刚刚成立的初期，中国和苏联的关系非常密切。但是，有很多解放军高层已经在研究应对苏联的军事策略。虽然有一些人强烈反对在这个时候将苏联列为假想敌，但高层中确实有人已经在开始做一些事情了。这些战略准备工作大大增强了中国后来应对中苏决裂的信心。如果不是这些很多年前的战略准备工作，中国没有足够的信心和决心与苏联翻脸。

美国，一直是中国的目标对手。这是毋庸置疑的。

印度，中国从来没有把印度作为对手。我不想在PDF的公开频道上分析讨论这个原因，这会引发不理性的口水战，毫无意义。如果是一个私人群组，我非常愿意分享我的观点。

在中国，政府的观点并不能完全改变民众的观点。这可能让很多没有到过中国的外国人觉得难以置信，他们通常认为中国共产党能完全掌控中国民众的思想动向。

上个世纪八十年代，中日关系高度密切。政府积极发展与日本的关系，很多舆论风向都在带动。但是，中国民众对日本的仇恨并没有改变。政府强加的舆论思想导致很多民众的抗议。

目前，更多的中国民众依然相信，印度目前广泛的仇中情绪是印度政府期望在中美斗争中获取更多印度利益的手段。所以，中国民众认为，当中美斗争到了某个阶段的时候，这种氛围会自然改变。

 

[r3alist]

What is it I am missing?

China will try to pull India to its corner to the degree it can. So will the US. India has its own weight to begin with....its own history and view of things and how these express politically from the state.

The US has an advantage as its security bearing is far more in concert with India....PRC has made some miscalculations in contrast (though it probably has reasoning on its end for it).

Doesn't mean US is going to have India dot every single i and cross every t that it wants w.r.t how it views things for India to proceed with PRC.

That got pushback regarding Russia itself (i.e India has its own relationship with Russia), a country thats now less powerful/important than China is overall (to just about everybody).

Yes, so India will have to resist internal lobbies that have been cultivated and external pressure.

The whole scenario is in play and will continue to be, India really has only received pressure the last few years