India and China, the new Great Game?

[hellheaven1987]

An interesting BBC article.

"Beware India!" shouts the headline in one Indian paper.

"China to open first military base in Indian Ocean."

Nothing to worry about, says the defence ministry in Beijing. The base - in the Seychelles - is just for supplying passing Chinese navy ships.

But seen from Delhi, it is another move in what a former Indian defence minister has called China's policy of "strategic encirclement".

Even as Indian diplomats insist they want "cordial ties", tensions are rising everywhere between the two giant Asian neighbours, in what looks increasingly like a new "great game" - with the US and other powers upping their stakes.

Willliam Burns, America's number two diplomat, is in Delhi this week to try to rekindle relations after a period of stagnation, and a stalled deal on nuclear co-operation.

Next week, Washington hosts diplomats from India and Japan for a first ever "trilateral dialogue" of the "three leading Pacific democracies".

An increasingly assertive China is clearly their main focus.

The Great Game was a term coined for the shadowy battle for influence and control in central Asia between Russia and the British empire.

Yet even as the latest round plays out in Afghanistan, this new and less-noticed Asian great game could be of far greater global importance - and pose more dangers.

Source

What do you think? Great Game between two nations that have nearly infinite manpower sounds way too fun.

[The_Valiant]

It's completely possible. After all, you have to look at the current alliances. China and Islamabad are the best of friends - just look at how Islamabad shared the wrecked American helicopter with Beijing after the May Bin Laden raid. China + Pakistan vs. India.

My guess is that India will respond with stronger economic and political ties with Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan, followed by increased rhetoric on Tibetan liberation, all of which will weaken China's position at home.

China will probably pursue alliances with Bangladesh, stronger ties with Pakistan, various Southeast Asian countries, and probably more Indian ocean bases, especially in East Africa or the Arabian peninsula.

The game changer, of course, will be how the US flips. Right now, India is held in much higher regard here than China. Americans may mock the Indians for their curry and accents, but China is a serious object of distrust (we also distrust Pakistan). I bet the US will try to mediate peace, if war does break out they will condemn both parties, but will eventually side with India.

[saglam2000]

The only two upstart powers with recent strong GDP growth, both vying for influence in overlapping spheres of influence while sharing a land border while one of them is actively supporting the enemy of the other. Of course these guys are going to be part of the new great game.

[bushbush]

Both countries need to look at their economies first though. India's GDP growth last quarter dipped to 6% while inflation is still near 10%. China's GDP growth also slows to around 8% and another round of stimulus might be necessary. I doubt both countries' leaders can afford to play diplomatic game at this critical time.

[The_Valiant]

Both countries need to look at their economies first though. India's GDP growth last quarter dipped to 6% while inflation is still near 10%. China's GDP growth also slows to around 8% and another round of stimulus might be necessary. I doubt both countries' leaders can afford to play diplomatic game at this critical time.

No, but economic depression has lead countries to war before, example being Germany in WWII.

India will have to modernize, slow pop. growth a bit, and open to more foreign investment, while China will have to spur pop. growth (which is arguably much harder than slowing pop. growth), keep her current allies (is NK starting to drift to the West? A deal on nukes? WHAT?) and maintain her current economic growth; only then they might starting playing the Great Game.

[Erwin Rommel]

Indian Naval base in Danang...............Vietnam.

Now.

Do it now, for teh lulz.

[Condottiere 40K]

Since an actual armed conflict won't benefit either side, this seems a rather remote possibility.

The securing of energy resources in third countries seems the most likely area where friction could spark off an actual war, nothing else seems that worthwhile.

[The_Valiant]

Since an actual armed conflict won't benefit either side, this seems a rather remote possibility.

The securing of energy resources in third countries seems the most likely area where friction could spark off an actual war, nothing else seems that worthwhile.

Chinese Kashmir. Arunachal Pradesh. The two countries have fought wars over them.

Otherwise, I agree. China's looking to Africa for economic leverage and India probably will be (if they haven't, I'm not sure).

[hellheaven1987]

Otherwise, I agree. China's looking to Africa for economic leverage and India probably will be (if they haven't, I'm not sure).

India does not need that because they already hijack Middle East. For example, in Oman 2/3 of population is in fact Indians. In some Caribbean countries Indians also form a very large minority (I remember in Jamaica 1/3 of population is Indians).

I would not surprise those nations become part of India in near future.

[Babur]

India does not need that because they already hijack Middle East. For example, in Oman 2/3 of population is in fact Indians. In some Caribbean countries Indians also form a very large minority (I remember in Jamaica 1/3 of population is Indians).

I would not surprise those nations become part of India in near future.

There are 465,660 Indian workers in Oman out of a population of 2,773,479

that doesn't sound like 2/3 to me

The proportion of Indo-Jamaicans is even tinier at just 61,500 out of a population of 2,847,232

my sources:

http://www.indiandiaspora.nic.in/dia.../chapter19.pdf

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/jm.html

http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/country-p...profiles_1.htm

http://85.154.248.117/MONE2010/#view...Rows=2,5,7,8,9

It is not a secret that Indian minority has caused considerable problems in some countries - Sri Lanka is a good example for that.

I see a simplification of the Tamil issue in Sri Lanka here, both sides have committed attrocities

[Condottiere 40K]

A post-war effort by European members of the Legislative Council to repatriate ethnic Indians to India, starting with sixteen-year-old males and fourteen-year-old females, was not successful, but reflected the tensions between Fiji's ethnic communities.
Differences between ethnic Fijian taukeis and Fijian indians complicated preparations for Fijian independence, which the United Kingdom granted in 1970, and have continued to define Fijian politics since. Prior to independence, Indians sought a common electoral roll, based on the principle of "one man, one vote." Ethnic Fijian leaders opposed this, believing that it would favour urban voters who were mostly Indian; they sought a communal franchise instead, with different ethnic groups voting on separate electoral rolls. At a specially convened conference in London in April 1970, a compromise was worked out, under which parliamentary seats would be allocated by ethnicity, with ethnic Fijian taukeis and Fijian indians represented equally. In the House of Representatives, each ethnic group was allocated 22 seats, with 12 representing Communal constituencies (elected by voters registered as members of their particular ethnic group) and a further 10 representing National constituencies (distributed by ethnicity but elected by universal suffrage. A further 8 seats were reserved for ethnic minorities, 3 from "communal" and 5 from "national" constituencies.
Ethnic Indians outnumbered indigenous Fijians from 1956 through the late 1980s. This was due to the death of 1/3 of the indigenous population, mainly male and children, that died from small pox contracted when King Cakabau and other chief leaders returned from a trip from Australia during which they caught small pox. The percentage of Indigenous female population increased as a result, and the native male population was scarce at one stage,[17] but by 2000 their share of the population had declined to 43.7%, because of a higher ethnic-Fijian birthrate and particularly because of the greater tendency of Fijian Indians to emigrate. Emigration accelerated following the coups of 1987 (which removed an Indian-supported government from power and, for a time, ushered in a constitution that discriminated against them in numerous ways) and of 2000 (which removed an Indian Prime Minister from office).
Political differences between the two communities, rather than ideological differences, have characterized Fijian politics since independence, with the two communities generally voting for different political parties. The National Federation Party founded by A.D. Patel, was the party favoured overwhelmingly by the Indian community throughout most of the nation's history, but its support collapsed in the parliamentary election of 1999, when it lost all of its seats in the House of Representatives; its support fell further still in the 2001 election, when it received only 22% of the Indian vote, and in the 2006 election, when it dropped to an all-time low of 14%. The party currently favoured by Indians is the Fiji Labour Party, led by Mahendra Chaudhry, which received about 75% of the Indian vote in 2001, and won all 19 seats reserved for Indians. Originally founded as a multi-racial party in the 1980s, it is now supported mostly by Indians

[hellheaven1987]

It is not a secret that Indian minority has caused considerable problems in some countries - Sri Lanka is a good example for that.

[Exarch]

the MIT professor for political science, MT Fravel has this to say:

In this chapter for Strategic Asia 2011-12, I examine how Chinese foreign policy elites view the rise of India. I make two main arguments:

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, China views India’s rise as a positive development that promotes China’s own core interests and strategic objectives more than it threatens or challenges them. Enhanced cooperation with a rising India allows Beijing to avoid a potentially costly confrontation that would harm the growth of both countries, block the formation of a close U.S.-India relationship, and reduce the overall influence of the U.S. over China.
China’s strategy toward a rising India combines engagement with deterrence. China pursues comprehensive political, economic, and international engagement with India to advance its broader strategic objectives. China also seeks to deter India from undermining Chinese interests by withholding cooperation or maintaining its policies on specific issues, such as its ties with Pakistan.

Source: http://taylorfravel.com/2011/10/chin...s-indias-rise/

translation: if it ever came to conflict of sorts, it'll be a combination of the yellow journalism of the indian media, pressure from the US or Russia lobby in Delgi or variant.

[Col. Tartleton]

I still think its funny that Pulitzer was THE yellow journalist and his name is the golden standard of writing.

[Condottiere 40K]

It will be funnier when Murdoch starts a foundation to give out prizes for excellence in TV journalism.

[Mythos]

You can't contain India without a rather big carrier fleet, something that China does not have and is not going to develop anyway, because the Japan-Taiwan-Philippines-Indonesia US containment line would render it rather useless.

[Exarch]

You can't contain India without a rather big carrier fleet, something that China does not have and is not going to develop anyway, because the Japan-Taiwan-Philippines-Indonesia US containment line would render it rather useless.

i would argue that india does a good job of containing itself; furthermore, the japan-taiwan-filipino-indonesia US containment line is a myth, a fantasy to make americans and australians feel safer. pretty much all the countries in your 'freedom bloc' have a hefty proportion of the business/power elite in favour of closer cooperation with China, and you're not going to be able to contain China, not now. if you wanted to contain China, your chance was in 1993 when bill clinton could've continued embargoing China after tiannenmen, instead of opening trade with them. all this talk of 'rollback' is jingoistic diction to make the reading public feel safe and comfortable so that they don't piss their britches as they so often do. The Chinese are here to stay, and there's naught anyone can do about it and even the power/financial elite in the West are starting to live with it as well.

btw, when the US was just starting to develop in the 19th century, the europeans pissed their britches as well; the european powers were saying americna products were crappy and cheap and americans were uncivilised, lacking sophistication and butt ugly as well. tada! sure sounds like 2012 AD now with the substitution of China for the US in this respect. if you don't believe me:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_.../NB29Dj02.html

[Condottiere 40K]

There probably is going to be a wave of Chinese immigrants looking to try their entrepreneurial skills in economies outside of China.

[Exarch]

There probably is going to be a wave of Chinese immigrants looking to try their entrepreneurial skills in economies outside of China.

a new wave, certainly; remember that there have been Chinese communities/Overseas Chinese throughout the entire globe for the past 200+ years. There's even a Chinese diaspora in India as well, not dissimilar to your Chinese diasporas in indonesia, thailand, Australia, Africa, san francisco etc etc

[Condottiere 40K]

But this time, a good proportion of them will come backed up with financial muscle.