Defence Minister Arun Jaitley’s recent riposte to the Chinese bullying over Doklam standoff and the response it evoked from China sum up the new reality of Sino-Indian relations: Jaitley said India was no longer the India of 1962 (when it was defeated by China in a war) and China replied it was also not the China of 1962.
Even though both meant something else, the fact is the two countries have come a long way from just being inimical neighbours. Bilateral and global contexts have completely changed from 1962. China may be a bigger military and economic power than India, but it can hardly afford a military conflict today.
China’s global ambitions
During the past few years, Chinese President Xi Jinping has unleashed a grand propaganda for image makeover of the country. China does not want to be perceived as a bigger, richer and more powerful North Korea. In his first speech to the World Economic Forum at Davos in January, Xi surprised the world by defending economic globalisation and speaking against emerging protectionist trends all over the world.
Since there are signs of the US backing off from its position of the global leader, China is eyeing that role. But for that it needs to shed the image of a bellicose dictatorship and an unreliable trader. That’s why China is increasingly presenting itself as a responsible power to the world.
China’s global dream is best exemplified by its One Belt One Belt (OBOR) initiative where it tried to portray itself as a responsible global economic force which is willing to work for greater economic good of all.
Bullying and belligerence run counter to China’s ambition to replace the US as global leader or at least its rhetoric of emerging as a responsible world power and a reliable, open economy. In the Doklam standoff, China has stooped to a new low of threatening to encourage separatism in Sikkim while it had started with a threat of armed conflict. Such posturing will hardly evoke confidence in innumerable small countries in Asia and Africa with whom China seeks economic partnership.Defence Minister Arun Jaitley’s recent riposte to the Chinese bullying over Doklam standoff and the response it evoked from China sum up the new reality of Sino-Indian relations: Jaitley said India was no longer the India of 1962 (when it was defeated by China in a war) and China replied it was also not the China of 1962. Even though both meant something else, the fact is the two countries have come a long way from just being inimical neighbours. Bilateral and global contexts have completely changed from 1962. China may be a bigger military and economic power than India, but it can hardly afford a military conflict today. China’s global ambitions During the past few years, Chinese President Xi Jinping has unleashed a grand propaganda for image makeover of the country. China does not want to be perceived as a bigger, richer and more powerful North Korea. In his first speech to the World Economic Forum at Davos in January, Xi surprised the world by defending economic globalisation and speaking against emerging protectionist trends all over the world. Since there are signs of the US backing off from its position of the global leader, China is eyeing that role. But for that it needs to shed the image of a bellicose dictatorship and an unreliable trader. That’s why China is increasingly presenting itself as a responsible power to the world. China’s global dream is best exemplified by its One Belt One Belt (OBOR) initiative where it tried to portray itself as a responsible global economic force which is willing to work for greater economic good of all. Bullying and belligerence run counter to China’s ambition to replace the US as global leader or at least its rhetoric of emerging as a responsible world power and a reliable, open economy. In the Doklam standoff, China has stooped to a new low of threatening to encourage separatism in Sikkim while it had started with a threat of armed conflict. Such posturing will hardly evoke confidence in innumerable small countries in Asia and Africa with whom China seeks economic partnership.