India Versus China

Bajpai argues that the misunderstanding between India and China is a result of four key domains, negative perceptions of each other, non-delineated perimeters, discordant choice of strategic partnerships, and the growing power asymmetry. In short four Ps.

Beginning with the first P; perceptions. Kanti opines that the contact between India and China has been minimal and despite Buddhism originating in India and being accepted within China, its sinicized version effectively nullified this unique bond of origin. Historical trade relations did mushroom between the two nations but the connection between their populace never moved beyond a strictly business-driven interaction. Both countries have had long spells under the imperial yoke, however, certain Indian actions such as its involvement in the Opium trade and stationing of Indian troops under the British flag fed Chinese distrust. The feelings of suspicion and derision have been evenly swept across both countries. Bajpai argues that over time India and China ties have transformed from being perceived as a respectful relationship in ancient times to a less respectful, almost confrontational view of each other in modern and contemporary times.1Furthermore, Bajpai strongly posits that in Chinese world views based on the concepts of ‘tianxia, communism and great power’, India is seen in a ‘secondary or subordinate’ role and not as a ‘fellow great power’. Considering the vast power asymmetry between the two nations, there is a feeling in China that it might well be demeaning to draw a comparison with India.

Moving onto the second ‘P’ the differences in perimeters are anchored in the unresolved border, wherein even after seventy years, the two countries have failed to agree on the delineation of the border, on the status of Tibet, and appropriate military actions and behaviours. In Bajpai’s view, the ‘inability to agree’ or ‘continuous

1 Page 60 disagreement’ between the two countries can be understood from a four-fold perspective:

• Lack of trust in either’s intentions and actions.
• A zero-sum view of security.
• Cognitive dissonance.
• Neither political leadership has the ability and courage to handle nationalist domestic opinion.

He cautions that as these factors continue to prevail, “ another confrontation along the border is therefore quite possible”.2

On the third P; Partnership, Bajpai posits that India and China’s policies towards each other are driven not just by negative perceptions and territorial differences but by their temperamental partnerships with the USSR/Russia and the US. The two countries were never on the same side except for two brief periods of parallel and compatible interests - in the early 1950s and after the Cold War from 1989-1998. Apart from these brief periods, India and China have never been allies or true strategic partners against either USSR/Russia or the US. In Bajpai’s words, “change is the only constant” in India and China’s respective partnerships vis-à-vis Russia and the US. He sticks his neck out by pronouncing that India aligning with the USA is probably the only manner to balance growing Chinese power.

On the fourth P of Power asymmetry, Bajpai posits that India and China are “far apart” in terms of economy, soft power attraction, and military. Here, the key is the extent of comprehensive national power, in which China has an upper hand of seven times that of India. Owing to this, Bajpai suggests that unless India “substantially closes the power gap, there is less prospect of a lasting rapprochement” between New Delhi and Beijing. 3 While Kanti does address Joseph Nye’s elements of soft power and concludes that China has more than stolen a march on India in every domain. He also highlights that a nation’s desire for power has to be matched by the structures that support such a quest for power. “ It is impossible to build a modern Great Power on deep, enduring inequalities and huge rural population.” Just reading through the list of necessary social infrastructure to make this leap provides an idea of the challenges that lie ahead of India. Bajpai cautions that the power asymmetry between India and China is so vast that bridging it will require an almost civilisational change.

The negative mutual perceptions, differences over perimeters, rival geostrategic partnerships, and power asymmetry often work together to amplify the

2 Page 136 3 Pg 220 differences and harden stances. Bajpai argues that of these four drivers of conflict, mutual suspicion and power asymmetry are the gravest.

Throughout the book, the author draws insights from various works of scholarship like John Graver’s Protracted Contest, Tansen Sen’s India, China, and the World: A Connected History, Ranjit Singh Kalha’s India-China Encyclopedia and Srinath Raghavan’s War and Peace in Modern India. The book is well-researched and benefits from personal anecdotes from the author’s travels in China and India. For instance, Bajpai highlights China’s phenomenal infrastructural transformation in three decades based on his travel from Beijing to Shanghai on the bullet train and compares it with his New Delhi to Mumbai trip on Indian Railways. However, the absence of Chinese language resources throughout the book is surprising. This is even more so as the ‘first P’ of the ‘four Ps’ framework is about China and India’s perceptions of each other.

What is the book intended to be? It’s a synthesis that draws on the works of various scholars and, is not an in-depth examination of the various dimensions in each of the areas of dissonance. Neither is it a cross-examination of history with blame and shame being apportioned to the leading players of the time. The essence of the book is to outline the reasons for India and China maintaining an adversarial outlook even while seeking to cooperate. The book is certainly not for those who are looking for answers to the complex questions that form the core of the disagreements between the two nations. Nonetheless, the book fills a seeming gap in developing the framework for understanding China-India relations.

I would recommend this book as a first-time read for the uninitiated on the vexed relationship between India and China; akin to a primer. If you want a more informed assessment of the various aspects of the complex India-China relationship then you need to look elsewhere. Probably, the answers would reside in the more scholarly works of Maxwell, Rao, Garver, and others in that league. In all fairness, the book never pretends to offer anything beyond its basic scope and, interestingly Juggernaut publications had reached out to Kanti to write a relatable, readable, and almost non-academic treatise on India-China challenges. Overall, I enjoyed his four Ps (Perception, Perimeter, Partnership, and Power) approach to shaping his arguments and being mindful of the restrictive scope of the discussion.

Certainly a worthy one-time read, that could help the reader develop an allencompassing broad-based view of the complex relationship between India and China.