China and India relationship


gadgetcool5

Junior Member
Registered Member
It's been only 9 months since the first engagement.
- What did you expect to change in less than a year?
"Only 9 months." So how long should we wait? 9 years? 90 years? When do you expect China to reap a reward for this horrible incident, and what do you expect it to be? Please answer this question.

- What are your/our sources to read the whole situation accurately, and are we confident about their trustworthiness?
My source is common sense. Do you really think antagonizing a country of 1.4 billion people with a fast growing economy and driving them into the arms of the Quad is a smart idea? In what universe is that good for China? Generally being surrounded by enemies is not a good thing. You can take that to the bank.

- Do you think we can accurately guess all the long-term consequences?
Well since they have now disengaged, the damage can be mitigated, and it might not be so bad. That's the point. If they work to improve relations now, there will be no negative long term consequences.

- As long as Modi and his bunch are in power, there is no room for better bilateral relations.
Modi was in power in 2016 when relations were better.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

ougoah

Major
Registered Member
My source is common sense. Do you really think antagonizing a country of 1.4 billion people with a fast growing economy and driving them into the arms of the Quad is a smart idea? In what universe is that good for China? Generally being surrounded by enemies is not a good thing. You can take that to the bank.

Highly inaccurate estimation. Large population is not always good, in fact it's usually the opposite.

India's economy is factually slower than most African nations.

India is more or less already Quad and if not in it, basically a part of the establishment, reversible only with very dramatic social changes in India such as a revolution. They have a choice in this. China isn't antagonising India out of nowhere it is India doing that to China. Start with your history from the 1950s. No sane mind could say Nehru wasn't the one antagonising China while calling China brothers. Then after the war/s, it was India that continued to antagonise China. China largely ignores India. China trades with it, develops it with investments (India invests nothing into China whereas China builds factories in India and continues to for one small example).

India accused China of releasing Covid without considering the basic facts and timeline and jumps to ridiculous assumptions and conclusions based on timeline e.g. CCP knew about pneumonia for a week therefore delaying for that week is criminal despite that being actually an incredibly fast reaction and ALL the other facts surrounding covid. India antagonises China as its full time career. China tries to develop itself as a full time career. This is reflected in the current and historic states of both nations since the beginning of their modern histories (1940s/50s).

No one says being surrounded by enemies is good. If you consider Japan an enemy of China well isn't it also surrounded by enemies in Russia, Koreas, and China? Is that bad for Japan? Why doesn't Japan behave and concede and bow down to Russia, China, and Koreas to avoid being surrounded by enemies?

China is surrounded by over a dozen countries, how many do you consider enemies? Clearly India is more surrounded by enemies and so is Japan right?

Think your points through. They're so poor in quality it's often shamefully cringey.
 

OppositeDay

Junior Member
Registered Member
Highly inaccurate estimation. Large population is not always good, in fact it's usually the opposite.

India's economy is factually slower than most African nations.

India is more or less already Quad and if not in it, basically a part of the establishment, reversible only with very dramatic social changes in India such as a revolution. They have a choice in this. China isn't antagonising India out of nowhere it is India doing that to China. Start with your history from the 1950s. No sane mind could say Nehru wasn't the one antagonising China while calling China brothers. Then after the war/s, it was India that continued to antagonise China. China largely ignores India. China trades with it, develops it with investments (India invests nothing into China whereas China builds factories in India and continues to for one small example).

India accused China of releasing Covid without considering the basic facts and timeline and jumps to ridiculous assumptions and conclusions based on timeline e.g. CCP knew about pneumonia for a week therefore delaying for that week is criminal despite that being actually an incredibly fast reaction and ALL the other facts surrounding covid. India antagonises China as its full time career. China tries to develop itself as a full time career. This is reflected in the current and historic states of both nations since the beginning of their modern histories (1940s/50s).

No one says being surrounded by enemies is good. If you consider Japan an enemy of China well isn't it also surrounded by enemies in Russia, Koreas, and China? Is that bad for Japan? Why doesn't Japan behave and concede and bow down to Russia, China, and Koreas to avoid being surrounded by enemies?

China is surrounded by over a dozen countries, how many do you consider enemies? Clearly India is more surrounded by enemies and so is Japan right?

Think your points through. They're so poor in quality it's often shamefully cringey.

India is in the quad and will stay in the quad, but it’s better for China if India can play spoiler in the quad as it often does in the SCO. India also don’t want to fully embrace the West. Stephen Kotkin once remarked that when faced with pressures from both East and West, Russia will always compromise with the East and fight the West, because the East only wants land but the West wants Russia’s soul. The same applies to India. Witness Modi’s recent outbursts against foreign destructive ideology. So a compromise between China and India serves both sides’ interests.
 

ougoah

Major
Registered Member
India is in the quad and will stay in the quad, but it’s better for China if India can play spoiler in the quad as it often does in the SCO. India also don’t want to fully embrace the West. Stephen Kotkin once remarked that when faced with pressures from both East and West, Russia will always compromise with the East and fight the West, because the East only wants land but the West wants Russia’s soul. The same applies to India. Witness Modi’s recent outbursts against foreign destructive ideology. So a compromise between China and India serves both sides’ interests.

As much as Modi and the bhakts' recent anger at the west is interesting, I don't think any of this has a thing to do with China or for China.
 

Gatekeeper

Colonel
Registered Member
My source is common sense. Do you really think antagonizing a country of 1.4 billion people with a fast growing economy and driving them into the arms of the Quad is a smart idea? In what universe is that good for China? Generally being surrounded by enemies is not a good thing. You can take that to the bank


If you know anything about China Indian relationship. And China v India psyche. You would know it doesn't take anything from the Chinese side to 'drive' the Indians to the side of the Quads.

And if you claimed you're Chinese, you would also know India is obsessed with China, while China couldn't give two monkeys about India.
 

OppositeDay

Junior Member
Registered Member
As much as Modi and the bhakts' recent anger at the west is interesting, I don't think any of this has a thing to do with China or for China.

No directly, but they must be more acutely aware the danger of becoming overly dependent on the West.
 

azretonov

Junior Member
Registered Member
"Only 9 months." So how long should we wait? 9 years? 90 years? When do you expect China to reap a reward for this horrible incident, and what do you expect it to be? Please answer this question.
It's very well possible that China is already benefiting from the chain of events in a much less conspicuous way. We don't necessarily need to observe them all at this time. Border skirmishes often less relevant with the immediate claims and more about pressuring the opposite side into something. I'm not claiming this is the case here but one should widen the range of possibilities.

My source is common sense. Do you really think antagonizing a country of 1.4 billion people with a fast growing economy and driving them into the arms of the Quad is a smart idea? In what universe is that good for China? Generally being surrounded by enemies is not a good thing. You can take that to the bank.
Firstly, this goes both ways. India has done its' part by taking unilateral action on a disputed area for the sake of a set of domestic policy goals. It was clear that this action would create an undesired reaction from the other claimants. (I'd rather not bother with the claim of the fast-growing economy part.)
Secondly, the Quad is usually mistaken for an alliance with clear goals. It's a security dialogue mechanism, exploring the possibilities of mutual grounds for developing mutual defense policies. There is no security commitment there, mostly consultations when deemed necessary. In some 20 years, it could turn into something solid or quite possibly stay as vague as it is today.
Thirdly, neither Japan nor Australia would risk their beneficial and somewhat unique relations with China on questionable grounds for an over-glorified isolationist village pretending to be a superpower, ready to implode. (See their respective trade volumes with India and China.) If the Indian decision-makers consider this endeavor of the Quad as an escape route, they're looking at the wrong place. (See the last paragraph.)

Well since they have now disengaged, the damage can be mitigated, and it might not be so bad. That's the point. If they work to improve relations now, there will be no negative long term consequences.
Modi was in power in 2016 when relations were better.
The BJP is employing the whole storyline to feed the withered fraternalism, just like their predecessors did. So one would be wise if lowered the expectations as nothing we see here are new.

[Modi was in power in 2016] and Doklam happened in 2017. Later Modi has successfully managed to reverse the whole bilateral process for empty promises. Now India is all alone between two nuclear-armed nations with strings of obscure commitments. As if that wasn't enough, he's now gambling on weak ties with the US over the S-400 deal. That could trigger the CAATSA sanctions, thus ending up hindering the ongoing beneficial deals with France.
 
Last edited:

Dolcevita

Senior Member
My source is common sense. Do you really think antagonizing a country of 1.4 billion people with a fast growing economy and driving them into the arms of the Quad is a smart idea? In what universe is that good for China? Generally being surrounded by enemies is not a good thing. You can take that to the bank.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE be more pro-India and you can provide all the no-citation-needed Indian-style Common Sense advise. China is doing fine but India desperately needs your common sense.
 
Last edited:

localizer

Colonel
Registered Member
There is no benefit for China to antagonize India.

Thus it wasn’t China who overstepped.

And aggression must be given appropriate response or else the aggressor will repeat.

It’s the way of this world since the dawn of life.
 

davidau

Junior Member
Registered Member
Highly inaccurate estimation. Large population is not always good, in fact it's usually the opposite.

India's economy is factually slower than most African nations.

India is more or less already Quad and if not in it, basically a part of the establishment, reversible only with very dramatic social changes in India such as a revolution. They have a choice in this. China isn't antagonising India out of nowhere it is India doing that to China. Start with your history from the 1950s. No sane mind could say Nehru wasn't the one antagonising China while calling China brothers. Then after the war/s, it was India that continued to antagonise China. China largely ignores India. China trades with it, develops it with investments (India invests nothing into China whereas China builds factories in India and continues to for one small example).

India accused China of releasing Covid without considering the basic facts and timeline and jumps to ridiculous assumptions and conclusions based on timeline e.g. CCP knew about pneumonia for a week therefore delaying for that week is criminal despite that being actually an incredibly fast reaction and ALL the other facts surrounding covid. India antagonises China as its full time career. China tries to develop itself as a full time career. This is reflected in the current and historic states of both nations since the beginning of their modern histories (1940s/50s).

No one says being surrounded by enemies is good. If you consider Japan an enemy of China well isn't it also surrounded by enemies in Russia, Koreas, and China? Is that bad for Japan? Why doesn't Japan behave and concede and bow down to Russia, China, and Koreas to avoid being surrounded by enemies?

China is surrounded by over a dozen countries, how many do you consider enemies? Clearly India is more surrounded by enemies and so is Japan right?

Think your points through. They're so poor in quality it's often shamefully cringey.
Thanks. Very well researched and reasoned.
 

Top