China’s “String of Pearls” and India's Two Front War Predicament : Analysis
- Thread starter Aashish
- Start date
As China expands presence, India seeks to catch up in western Indian Ocean
India China news: As China expands presence, India seeks to catch up in western Indian Ocean | India News - Times of India
India China news: As China expands presence, India seeks to catch up in western Indian Ocean | India News - Times of India
After failure of South Indians, Punjabis and Benglais and rest of the India to counter China for obvious reason that is the outlook and cultural differences, that they do not understand the chinese ideology, the people from Himalaya states especially the north east India are the only people which should come in main stream and formulate policy to counter China. They understand the Chinese psychology., the culture and living style.
A sardar or madrasi talking to a chinese will have less influence than a mongoloid looking Naga talking to a Chinese. These are some basics of diplomacy, and I don't understand why these have been ignored. This is stupidity. Come on! Pata nahi yaar kya mazaak hai yeh!
You can't counter China unless until the government supports the citizen and finds out talent than nepotism and favoritism in the government. Chinese employ their talented people who are skilled not neccesarily literate, to expand their policies, Indian IAS and IFS guys are not even close to them when it comes to robust initiatives.
A sardar or madrasi talking to a chinese will have less influence than a mongoloid looking Naga talking to a Chinese. These are some basics of diplomacy, and I don't understand why these have been ignored. This is stupidity. Come on! Pata nahi yaar kya mazaak hai yeh!
You can't counter China unless until the government supports the citizen and finds out talent than nepotism and favoritism in the government. Chinese employ their talented people who are skilled not neccesarily literate, to expand their policies, Indian IAS and IFS guys are not even close to them when it comes to robust initiatives.
Blame RAW for this. Because of their incapability, now Chinese have deeper penetration into Nepal's internal affairs.
Managing China: Nepal’s challenge
The news of the collective rebuke by Nepali media editors of a recent statement from the Chinese Embassy attracted significant attention in South Asian media and beyond. The Wire, published in India, reported: 'Nepali editors condemn Chinese embassy for a statement criticising Newspaper'. The Press Trust of India announced: 'Nepal editors condemn China's embassy; say they're fully committed to practising 'freedom of the press'. The South China Morning Post published from Hong Kong said: 'Nepalese newspaper accuses China of ‘veiled threats against editor’ over coronavirus coverage'.
At issue is a syndicated opinion piece on coronavirus written by a former US ambassador and published in this newspaper. The article blamed China’s authoritarian government for keeping the news of the detection of the virus confidential when it was first identified. It argued that if the news had been shared with the international community in time, it might have helped the virus' early containment. The delayed dissemination was the result of the centralisation of power in China's authoritarian system. Authoritarian systems are incapable of crisis management, it said.
The Chinese Embassy considered the article malicious and anti-Chinese. In a public statement, it accused this paper's editor at the time, Anup Kafle, of anti-Chinese bias and warned the embassy’s 'right of further action'. It did not say what those actions could be.
Protests from foreign missions are common when they feel their interest is deliberately undermined. Generally, these protests are aired at the diplomatic level. They take the form of confidential meetings between the disputing parties or, in case of a published newspaper article, a letter to the editor rebutting the arguments in the 'offending' write-up. But issuing a public statement threatening the editor of the publication is unusual.
Rejuvenation and red lines
Xi Jinping is on a mission to 'rejuvenate' the past glory of China. In the pursuit of this mission, the Chinese Communist Party is engaged all over the world in promoting the superiority of the Chinese political system over other systems, particularly over liberal democracy and in glorifying the achievements of the party. As it engages with the world, its policies and actions come into the public glare and are often criticised. The Chinese are fine with the criticism as long as any of the 'five red lines' they have set up is not crossed.
The red lines are: Criticism of the Chinese political system; support to the Tibetan independence movement or the Dalai Lama; criticism of Chinese policy in Urumqi, Xinjiang; support to Falun Gong and Taiwan/Hong Kong's independence and democratic aspirations. The Post article attracted the embassy’s wrath because they inferred that it crossed their first red line.
Clive Hamilton, a professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University in Canberra, Australia, discusses in his scholarly book Silent Invasion: China's Influence in Australia (2018) the growing threat of Chinese attack on Australian values. He cites numerous cases where the Chinese Embassy was directly involved in schemes to stifle free speech in Australian universities; steering Australian media from critical reporting on China, and influencing Australian public opinion in favour of the Chinese Communist Party's global strategy.
China's encroachment tactics follow a pattern: Buying politicians with largesse and junkets to China; financial inducements to people of influence, particularly politicians, civil society leaders, and media personnel; generous grants to host country educational institutions and think tanks until they become dependent on the Chinese money; and after that, threaten to withdraw the money if they do not toe the line.
Hamilton concludes with the question: 'Yes, China is important for our economy, but how much is our sovereignty as a nation worth?’
Jonathan Manthorpe, a well-known journalist and recognised China expert, discusses China's incursions into Canadian public space in his compelling treatise 'Claws of the Panda: Beijing's Campaign of Influence and Intimidation in Canada' ( 2019). He cites several cases of media manipulation; espionage and personal threat including to those in the media who, in the Chinese Communist Party's view, cross the red lines. Manthorpe questions how much Canada should give in to the Chinese Communist Party's design to secure China trade. There are numerous other similar published cases from other countries.
Nepal’s challenge
The statement from the Chinese Embassy was a brazen affront to the Nepali media's constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of the press. It was intended to force the Nepali media to self-censure when it came to publishing anything that may offend the Chinese government. Our journalists understood it; stood up and asked the embassy to back off. If we had a strong, confident government, the government would also have come out in their support.
After all, it was an attack on our constitution. But it did not. The government lacked the courage to do so.
Since coming to power, the Oli government has presented China as a saviour of our development problems. It has relied on China to meet its large project ambitions. Anything that might displease China could risk its promised economic support. The Oli government does not want that. The so-called fraternal ties between the Nepal Communist Party and the Chinese Communist Party also inhibit the government from criticising the Chinese.
The cause of the spat between the Chinese Embassy and our editors is, at its core, a conflict between the fundamental values of the two countries—ours liberal democratic and theirs communist. As our relationship with China becomes more widespread and the Chinese involvement in our lives increases, situations where our core values come in conflict will increase. For example, Nepalis of Tibetan origin may yet again come out protesting China's Tibet policy. Our media may publish articles on the concentration camps (called training camps by the Chinese government) of Muslims in Urumqi or supporting Hong Kong's democratic aspirations.
Given China's power and sensitivity to criticism, managing such situations will be a challenge. It is about time our government asked itself the question similar to the one that bothered Hamilton and Manthorpe: How much do we want to surrender our values to keep our friend in good humour?
Opinion | Managing China: Nepal’s challenge
The news of the collective rebuke by Nepali media editors of a recent statement from the Chinese Embassy attracted significant attention in South Asian media and beyond. The Wire, published in India, reported: 'Nepali editors condemn Chinese embassy for a statement criticising Newspaper'. The Press Trust of India announced: 'Nepal editors condemn China's embassy; say they're fully committed to practising 'freedom of the press'. The South China Morning Post published from Hong Kong said: 'Nepalese newspaper accuses China of ‘veiled threats against editor’ over coronavirus coverage'.
At issue is a syndicated opinion piece on coronavirus written by a former US ambassador and published in this newspaper. The article blamed China’s authoritarian government for keeping the news of the detection of the virus confidential when it was first identified. It argued that if the news had been shared with the international community in time, it might have helped the virus' early containment. The delayed dissemination was the result of the centralisation of power in China's authoritarian system. Authoritarian systems are incapable of crisis management, it said.
The Chinese Embassy considered the article malicious and anti-Chinese. In a public statement, it accused this paper's editor at the time, Anup Kafle, of anti-Chinese bias and warned the embassy’s 'right of further action'. It did not say what those actions could be.
Protests from foreign missions are common when they feel their interest is deliberately undermined. Generally, these protests are aired at the diplomatic level. They take the form of confidential meetings between the disputing parties or, in case of a published newspaper article, a letter to the editor rebutting the arguments in the 'offending' write-up. But issuing a public statement threatening the editor of the publication is unusual.
Rejuvenation and red lines
Xi Jinping is on a mission to 'rejuvenate' the past glory of China. In the pursuit of this mission, the Chinese Communist Party is engaged all over the world in promoting the superiority of the Chinese political system over other systems, particularly over liberal democracy and in glorifying the achievements of the party. As it engages with the world, its policies and actions come into the public glare and are often criticised. The Chinese are fine with the criticism as long as any of the 'five red lines' they have set up is not crossed.
The red lines are: Criticism of the Chinese political system; support to the Tibetan independence movement or the Dalai Lama; criticism of Chinese policy in Urumqi, Xinjiang; support to Falun Gong and Taiwan/Hong Kong's independence and democratic aspirations. The Post article attracted the embassy’s wrath because they inferred that it crossed their first red line.
Clive Hamilton, a professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University in Canberra, Australia, discusses in his scholarly book Silent Invasion: China's Influence in Australia (2018) the growing threat of Chinese attack on Australian values. He cites numerous cases where the Chinese Embassy was directly involved in schemes to stifle free speech in Australian universities; steering Australian media from critical reporting on China, and influencing Australian public opinion in favour of the Chinese Communist Party's global strategy.
China's encroachment tactics follow a pattern: Buying politicians with largesse and junkets to China; financial inducements to people of influence, particularly politicians, civil society leaders, and media personnel; generous grants to host country educational institutions and think tanks until they become dependent on the Chinese money; and after that, threaten to withdraw the money if they do not toe the line.
Hamilton concludes with the question: 'Yes, China is important for our economy, but how much is our sovereignty as a nation worth?’
Jonathan Manthorpe, a well-known journalist and recognised China expert, discusses China's incursions into Canadian public space in his compelling treatise 'Claws of the Panda: Beijing's Campaign of Influence and Intimidation in Canada' ( 2019). He cites several cases of media manipulation; espionage and personal threat including to those in the media who, in the Chinese Communist Party's view, cross the red lines. Manthorpe questions how much Canada should give in to the Chinese Communist Party's design to secure China trade. There are numerous other similar published cases from other countries.
Nepal’s challenge
The statement from the Chinese Embassy was a brazen affront to the Nepali media's constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of the press. It was intended to force the Nepali media to self-censure when it came to publishing anything that may offend the Chinese government. Our journalists understood it; stood up and asked the embassy to back off. If we had a strong, confident government, the government would also have come out in their support.
After all, it was an attack on our constitution. But it did not. The government lacked the courage to do so.
Since coming to power, the Oli government has presented China as a saviour of our development problems. It has relied on China to meet its large project ambitions. Anything that might displease China could risk its promised economic support. The Oli government does not want that. The so-called fraternal ties between the Nepal Communist Party and the Chinese Communist Party also inhibit the government from criticising the Chinese.
The cause of the spat between the Chinese Embassy and our editors is, at its core, a conflict between the fundamental values of the two countries—ours liberal democratic and theirs communist. As our relationship with China becomes more widespread and the Chinese involvement in our lives increases, situations where our core values come in conflict will increase. For example, Nepalis of Tibetan origin may yet again come out protesting China's Tibet policy. Our media may publish articles on the concentration camps (called training camps by the Chinese government) of Muslims in Urumqi or supporting Hong Kong's democratic aspirations.
Given China's power and sensitivity to criticism, managing such situations will be a challenge. It is about time our government asked itself the question similar to the one that bothered Hamilton and Manthorpe: How much do we want to surrender our values to keep our friend in good humour?
Opinion | Managing China: Nepal’s challenge
My answer is that warfare is logistics.
On the same line let me ask you will china win a war against India ? Answer in yes or no. No qualifications please!
LMAO . That is enough to see your critical thinking sir. Good luck.
Thank you too for beating around the bush. You're a master strategist. Hat tip to you.
No sir that title goes to you. How simplistic you have made war. No need for any analysis of geography or force structure or logistics at all . Wonder why Chinese didn't win at doklam ? Perhaps they didn't had the infinite generalising wisdom you seem to poses. Perhaps they were looking at realistic situation unlike yourself as most military professional are forced to do .
My response was to your query offering a simple choice of yes or no without qualifications which in turn was triggered by my query as to whether you think China will or will not attack India ever with a simple yes or no answer without qualifications. In the event you didn't answer it but got into the logistical part of it.It seems you've lost track of the discussions. Please scroll up and gather your moorings before proceeding ahead.
Not that a lot of people here believe in any kind of analysis. But to those who do this link could open up the perspective.
The Strategic Postures of China and India: A Visual Guide
It's by no measure accurate . But you get the gist .
So much for china prevailing over India . Lol.
The Strategic Postures of China and India: A Visual Guide
It's by no measure accurate . But you get the gist .
So much for china prevailing over India . Lol.
Was posted here by @Gautam a few days ago & duly noted by all concerned members. It seems to me we have a voice of wisdom in our midst who believes in engaging by talking down at those he's engaging.
I first responded to your post about how Chinese will over run us. I implored you to apply critical thinking by asking difficult questions. You turned it into childish yes no contest. Now here we are.
About logistics. War is logistics . Unless that is settled all discussion of warfare are mute. One can compare platform to platform , missile to missile. But an actual war can not be waged unless logistics to achieve the objective is favorable.
Yet to believe china will prevail as is . It seems wisdom has not been noted nor applied. Sigh.
I could also point out the assessment nowhere suggests that china is going to wage a war on India.
And that matches my answer china won't wage a war unless it can decisively win one. And it can't win one given the current limitations of not only force posture but also it's other compulsion on other theatres. It can't mobilise enough forces in time for a decisive Victory. It can't hold and secure territory that it might gain .
On top of that the above assessment doesn't include effect of new entired into Indian arsenal from rafale to s400 to Agni V to new squadrons of Akash missile along with qrsam. All of these only complicate Chinese plans. So to summarize your original contention that Chinese window of attacking on India is coming I conclude that window is already gone.
One could say there chances were probably maximum at doklam and now are only going down .
May have been the case before USA wanted an alliance with India. Now these actions only push USA India closer. Is that in Chinese best interest ?
Chinese best interest was to capture tawang since it can not prevail it wants to create second frontier against India to divide India force posture just like its own force structure. But Pakistan can't sustain it financially. Indian strength along chiese border will keep growing.
The objective behind asking you a simple straight forward question was to ascertain whether you perceived China would ever wage a war on India ? Once that determination is made, the why where, when, how , etc can always be worked out with requisite preparations made from time to time as this is a dynamic situation. In the event, you didn't answer it but merely side stepped the question. Says a lot about your strategic insights & thoughts.
The said article merely notes China won't have it easy as in 1962:& details why it thinks so. A fact, may I remark, nobody here disagrees with & as everyone here would state a welcome change in such a conclusion arising from a detailed analysis, quite unlike many western think tanks & strategists.
Unlike your train of thought or your "analysis" of the said article, nowhere in it does it ever comment that China would never wage war on India or that it wouldn't prevail. If push comes to shove, as of today, China will prevail in such a scenario though China's interests are better served by keeping India off balance enacting a Doklam or a Depsang Valley directly or needle India by blocking it's entry in to NSG, raise the Kashmir issue from time to time, deepen it's strategic engagement with Pakistan & openly support Pakistan on strategic issues against India in multi lateral forums.
You are putting the cart before the horse. India china both are nuclear powers with massive armies. Will china wage a war against India can't be answered without answering what will they achieve by risking nuclear war ? How will they achieve it ? In what time frame? At how many casualties? What will happen in after math of war? Could they capture the territory ? Of so could they hold it ? For how long?
Answering these questions would answer if there will be a war at all.
As we saw in doklam for all their incessant threats Chinese chose peace over war. Now we must see what compulsions drove them to that decision?
I believe I have answered this part. Where is that post now I do not know.