The India-China Rivalry by Robert D. Kaplan

[StormShadow]

---

---

The cause of the new rivalry is the collapse of distance brought about by the advance of military technology. By Robert D. Kaplan. Republished with permission of STRATFOR



As the world moves into the second decade of the 21st century, a new power rivalry is taking shape between India and China, Asia's two behemoths in terms of territory, population and richness of civilization. India's recent successful launch of a long-range missile able to hit Beijing and Shanghai with nuclear weapons is the latest sign of this development.

This is a rivalry borne completely of high-tech geopolitics, creating a core dichotomy between two powers whose own geographical expansion patterns throughout history have rarely overlapped or interacted with each other. Despite the limited war fought between the two countries on their Himalayan border 50 years ago, this competition has relatively little long-standing historical or ethnic animosity behind it.

The signal geographical fact about Indians and Chinese is that the impassable wall of the Himalayas separates them. Buddhism spread in varying forms from India, via Sri Lanka and Myanmar, to Yunnan in southern China in the third century B.C., but this kind of profound cultural interaction was the exception more than the rule.

Moreover, the dispute over the demarcation of their common frontier in the Himalayan foothills, from Kashmir in the west to Arunachal Pradesh in the east, while a source of serious tension in its own right, is not especially the cause of the new rivalry. The cause of the new rivalry is the collapse of distance brought about by the advance of military technology.


Indeed, the theoretical arc of operations of Chinese fighter jets at Tibetan airfields includes India. Indian space satellites are able to do surveillance on China. In addition, India is able to send warships into the South China Sea, even as China helps develop state-of-the-art ports in the Indian Ocean. And so, India and China are eyeing each other warily. The whole map of Asia now spreads out in front of defense planners in New Delhi and Beijing, as it becomes apparent that the two nations with the largest populations in the world (even as both are undergoing rapid military buildups) are encroaching upon each other's spheres of influence -- spheres of influence that exist in concrete terms today in a way they did not in an earlier era of technology.

And this is to say nothing of China's expanding economic reach, which projects Chinese influence throughout the Indian Ocean world, as evinced by Beijing's port-enhancement projects in Kenya, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Myanmar. This, too, makes India nervous.

Because this rivalry is geopolitical -- based, that is, on the positions of India and China, with their huge populations, on the map of Eurasia -- there is little emotion behind it. In that sense, it is comparable to the Cold War ideological contest between the United States and the Soviet Union, which were not especially geographically proximate and had little emotional baggage dividing them.

The best way to gauge the relatively restrained atmosphere of the India-China rivalry is to compare it to the rivalry between India and Pakistan. India and Pakistan abut one another. India's highly populated Ganges River Valley is within 480 kilometers (300 miles) of Pakistan's highly populated Indus River Valley. There is an intimacy to India-Pakistan tensions that simply does not apply to those between India and China. That intimacy is inflamed by a religious element: Pakistan is the modern incarnation of all of the Muslim invasions that have assaulted Hindu northern India throughout history. And then there is the tangled story of the partition of the Asian subcontinent itself to consider -- India and Pakistan were both borne in blood together.

Partly because the India-China rivalry carries nothing like this degree of long-standing passion, it serves the interests of the elite policy community in New Delhi very well. A rivalry with China in and of itself raises the stature of India because China is a great power with which India can now be compared. Indian elites hate when India is hyphenated with Pakistan, a poor and semi-chaotic state; they much prefer to be hyphenated with China. Indian elites can be obsessed with China, even as Chinese elites think much less about India. This is normal. In an unequal rivalry, it is the lesser power that always demonstrates the greater degree of obsession. For instance, Greeks have always been more worried about Turks than Turks have been about Greeks.

China's inherent strength in relation to India is more than just a matter of its greater economic capacity, or its more efficient governmental authority. It is also a matter of its geography. True, ethnic-Han Chinese are virtually surrounded by non-Han minorities -- Inner Mongolians, Uighur Turks and Tibetans -- in China's drier uplands. Nevertheless, Beijing has incorporated these minorities into the Chinese state so that internal security is manageable, even as China has in recent years been resolving its frontier disputes with neighboring countries, few of which present a threat to China.

India, on the other hand, is bedeviled by long and insecure borders not only with troubled Pakistan, but also with Nepal and Bangladesh, both of which are weak states that create refugee problems for India. Then there is the Maoist Naxalite insurgency in eastern and central India. The result is that while the Indian navy can contemplate the projection of power in the Indian Ocean -- and thus hedge against China -- the Indian army is constrained with problems inside the subcontinent itself.

India and China do play a great game of sorts, competing for economic and military influence in Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Sri Lanka. But these places are generally within the Greater Indian subcontinent, so that China is taking the struggle to India's backyard.

Just as a crucial test for India remains the future of Afghanistan, a crucial test for China remains the fate of North Korea. Both Afghanistan and North Korea have the capacity to drain energy and resources away from India and China, though here India may have the upper hand because India has no land border with Afghanistan, whereas China has a land border with North Korea. Thus, a chaotic, post-American Afghanistan is less troublesome for India than an unraveling regime in North Korea would be for China, which faces the possibility of millions of refugees streaming into Chinese Manchuria.

Because India's population will surpass that of China in 2030 or so, even as India's population will get gray at a slower rate than that of China, India may in relative terms have a brighter future. As inefficient as India's democratic system is, it does not face a fundamental problem of legitimacy like China's authoritarian system very well might.

Then there is Tibet. Tibet abuts the Indian subcontinent where India and China are at odds over the Himalayan borderlands. The less control China has over Tibet, the more advantageous the geopolitical situation is for India. The Indians provide a refuge for the Tibetan Dalai Lama. Anti-Chinese manifestations in Tibet inconvenience China and are therefore convenient to India. Were China ever to face a serious insurrection in Tibet, India's shadow zone of influence would grow measurably. Thus, while China is clearly the greater power, there are favorable possibilities for India in this rivalry.

India and the United States are not formal allies. The Indian political establishment, with its nationalistic and leftist characteristics, would never allow for that. Yet, merely because of its location astride the Indian Ocean in the heart of maritime Eurasia, the growth of Indian military and economic power benefits the United States since it acts as a counter-balance to a rising Chinese power; the United States never wants to see a power as dominant in the Eastern Hemisphere as it itself is in the Western Hemisphere. That is the silver lining of the India-China rivalry: India balancing against China, and thus relieving the United States of some of the burden of being the world's dominant power.

domain-b.com : The India-China Rivalry by Robert D. Kaplan

[Speaker]

The India-China rivalry is a good thing, provided India stays neutral to US overtures to take us into their "camp". We will certainly do what is in the best interest of our country, but should not overlook the fact that we will be in this region forever, and China will be our neighbor forever. We have a lot to gain and learn from China and that will only come with mutual respect and humility. A healthy competition never hurt anybody.

Both our nations are pretty sensible and know the consequence of war will be too high for our economies. Hopefully the sanity prevails on both sides for a long time and neither gets baited by calls for "balance and counterbalance of power". Nationalistic and Jingoistic tendencies seem to be popular in our media and on this forum. My theory is that our nations have been underachievers for the better part of the 20th century and want to make this century "our own" real fast. Our constant quest to undo the humiliations of the last century make us look at each other's rise suspiciously. If we look past that and work towards an economic bloc, we will do wonders for the region.

[IndoCarib]

The India-China rivalry is a good thing, provided India stays neutral to US overtures to take us into their "camp". We will certainly do what is in the best interest of our country, but should not overlook the fact that we will be in this region forever, and China will be our neighbor forever. We have a lot to gain and learn from China and that will only come with mutual respect and humility. A healthy competition never hurt anybody.

Both our nations are pretty sensible and know the consequence of war will be too high for our economies. Hopefully the sanity prevails on both sides for a long time and neither gets baited by calls for "balance and counterbalance of power". Nationalistic and Jingoistic tendencies seem to be popular in our media and on this forum. My theory is that our nations have been underachievers for the better part of the 20th century and want to make this century "our own" real fast. Our constant quest to undo the humiliations of the last century make us look at each other's rise suspiciously. If we look past that and work towards an economic bloc, we will do wonders for the region.

I like this part. We should never ally with the US. Keep US as a friend. Thats it

[Speaker]

I like this part. We should never ally with the US. Keep US as a friend. Thats it

Agreed. We should continue to be unemotional when it comes to International relations. As long as we have this perspective, the motives of the other country do not matter.

It is not anything new for us - we have pretty much proven that a non-aligned approach is the only way to succeed in this world.

[kalu_miah]

What this Kaplan guy does not say is that how US/West financial elite 1% has sold out US/West national and strategic security for short term money making and allowed the rise of both China and India by outsourcing manufacturing and services under Neo-liberal globalization version of capitalism, which is also trashing the planetary environment. The planets environment should come first and then the security of global humanity, which is ignored by the current financial elite 1% of the world.

[protest]

What this Kaplan guy does not say is that how US/West financial elite 1% has sold out US/West national and strategic security for short term money making and allowed the rise of both China and India by outsourcing manufacturing and services under Neo-liberal globalization version of capitalism, which is also trashing the planetary environment. The planets environment should come first and then the security of global humanity, which is ignored by the current financial elite 1% of the world.

It is a natural course of globalization. What you see today is half way through there. As and when China and India raises to their levels with relatively open markets, there's incomparable amount of money to be had for a thinking society in the future. And America is bound to reap a huge part of it.

[FairAndUnbiased]

What this Kaplan guy does not say is that how US/West financial elite 1% has sold out US/West national and strategic security for short term money making and allowed the rise of both China and India by outsourcing manufacturing and services under Neo-liberal globalization version of capitalism, which is also trashing the planetary environment. The planets environment should come first and then the security of global humanity, which is ignored by the current financial elite 1% of the world.

you know the yachts of the rich? in 10 minutes it will exhaust more fuel than will be used by 10 Africans in their entire lifetimes. They burn a liter of fuel per second of engine operation. It's that amazing.

One rich billionaire wastes as much resources as 1 million poor.

[CorporateAffairs]

Any misadventure by any country would cost their hard earned development for 50 years.

[Chinese-Dragon]

Because this rivalry is geopolitical -- based, that is, on the positions of India and China, with their huge populations, on the map of Eurasia -- there is little emotion behind it.

The best way to gauge the relatively restrained atmosphere of the India-China rivalry is to compare it to the rivalry between India and Pakistan.

That is some sort of joke right?

Go to any Indian website and look for comments about China. About 1% of them are based on cold hard logic, 99% of them are based on emotion.

To say that Indians are not emotional about their rivalry with China, is simply a lie. We've all heard the screaming about 1962 and our cooperation with Pakistan, day in and day out.

[AbhijitSingh]

That is some sort of joke right?

Go to any Indian website and look for comments about China. About 1% of them are based on cold hard logic, 99% of them are based on emotion.

.

Depends on which website you go to ....

[Shinigami]

That is some sort of joke right?

Go to any Indian website and look for comments about China. About 1% of them are based on cold hard logic, 99% of them are based on emotion.

To say that Indians are not emotional about their rivalry with China, is simply a lie. We've all heard the screaming about 1962 and our cooperation with Pakistan, day in and day out.

internet world and real world are different. why dont u leave the keyboard and find out the difference.

take the red pill

[Chinese-Dragon]

Depends on which website you go to ....

I have yet to see more than 1% of Indians anywhere who can assess China in terms of pure facts and data, rather than emotion.

Just check that Arnab Goswami guy on Youtube who screams about us every other second like a raving lunatic.

internet world and real world are different. why dont u leave the keyboard and find out the difference.

take the red pill

Indians in Hong Kong obviously cannot say their true opinions about Chinese people, since they would immediately get into a fight. Instead, they just keep quiet.

[Ajaxpaul]

I am tired of India china rivalry news.

In reality there is more of India china co operation rather than rivalry

[Shinigami]

I have yet to see more than 1% of Indians anywhere who can assess China in terms of pure facts and data, rather than emotion.

this statement is false because it is emotional

Just check that Arnab Goswami guy on Youtube who screams about us every other second like a raving lunatic.

all indians think he is a lunatic. thats why he is on TV

Indians in Hong Kong obviously cannot say their true opinions about Chinese people, since they would immediately get into a fight. Instead, they just keep quiet and keep their heads down.

using that logic,

Americans in Hong Kong obviously cannot say their true opinions about Chinese people, since they would immediately get into a fight. Instead, they just keep quiet and keep their heads down.

British in Hong Kong obviously cannot say their true opinions about Chinese people, since they would immediately get into a fight. Instead, they just keep quiet and keep their heads down.

Jamaicans in Hong Kong obviously cannot say their true opinions about Chinese people, since they would immediately get into a fight. Instead, they just keep quiet and keep their heads down.

etc...

[Chinese-Dragon]

---

---

using that logic,

But none of those nationalities have the psychotic paranoia that Indians have about 1962.

Your media is in English, everyone here can read it. You guys have an obsession regarding China, that is only getting stronger as time goes on.

Here, from a third-party outsider source:

New York Yimes - India Measures Itself Against a China That Doesn’t Notice

It seems to be a national obsession in India: measuring the country’s economic development against China’s yardstick.

Indians, in fact, seem to talk endlessly about all things China, a neighbor with whom they have long had a prickly relationship, but which is also one of the few other economies that has had 8 percent or more annual growth in recent years.

Indian newspapers are filled with articles comparing the two countries. Indian executives refer to China as a template for development. Government officials cite Beijing, variously as a threat, partner or role model.

But if keeping up with the Wangs is India’s economic motive force, the rivalry seems to be largely one-sided.

There is a one-way obsession going on here, even outsiders can see it.