Geopolitics

China: Threat or Challenge?
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
Issue Book Excerpt: China: Threat or Challenge? | Date : 17 Jun , 2020

China’s sustained double digit economic growth over three decades transformed China. It has lifted 700 million Chinese people out poverty – an unparalleled feat in human history. Its economic development has been able to fund a substantive programme for the modernisation of its military machine. The one Party government has deftly managed the aspiration of the various regions which were left behind in the development process and through all means at its command ensured internal stability.

Consequently the overall development of China has been clubbed under a common banner of ‘China’s rise’. Post the 2009-10 period, when China underwent a sudden change in its foreign policy agenda and became fairly assertive in its dealings with its neighbours and the world in general, it was then a rising China began to be seen as a potential potent threat. China soon realised this negative wave building up and initiated steps to redeem its image. Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao, together, re-christened China’s ‘rise’ to ‘peaceful rise’ and further diluted it to ‘peaceful development’ in a conscious effort to ‘photoshop’ its image and dispel any lingering apprehensions of it being a threat to its neighbours in particular.

Post the 2009-10 period, when China underwent a sudden change in its foreign policy agenda and became fairly assertive in its dealings with its neighbours and the world in general, it was then a rising China began to be seen as a potential potent threat.

The guiding principles proclaimed during the Jiang Zamin regime were the ‘Three Represents’. The official statement of the ideology stipulates that the Communist Party of China should be representative to advanced social productive forces, advanced culture, and the interests of the overwhelming majority. Hu Jintao advocated building a ‘Harmonious Society’. He understood that the days were gone when the party could maintain political stability by the fear of the gun. He sought a softer approach in resolving social conflicts. In addition, he also believed that overly ambitious political reforms could disrupt the power balance, offending the political elite.

Now Xi Jinping has enunciated a new ideological directive, the ‘Four Comprehensives’. It has been added to the Party’s stock of guiding concepts in political philosophy. These are to comprehensively – build a moderately prosperous society; deepen reform; govern the nation according to law; and strictly govern the Party. In addition Xi Jinping has coined a signature nebulous slogan of “Chinese Dream” relating to national prosperity. The Chinese Dream, according to President Xi, refers to the collective aspiration of ‘the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation’ as well as the personal dreams of the individual citizens of China to attain productive, healthy and happy lives. Xi has emphasised that the ‘China Dream’ is a dream of the Chinese people that can only be attained through ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’.

On the face of it none of these enunciations are threatening or ‘dangerous’ to regional or global peace. Internationally, the Chinese Dream is being viewed as a continuation of the country’s peaceful development strategy. It is a key component of China’s soft power campaign, which seeks to counter the theory that China is a threat to regional peace and security and promote instead a benign and positive image of the country. To quote Xi Jinping: ‘We Chinese love peace. No matter how much stronger it may become, China will never seek hegemony or expansion. It will never inflict its past suffering on any other nation.’

Does that allay the apprehensions of the neighbours?

China’s rise has willy-nilly forced South-Eastern states to seek to balance China by the US in both the military and political-economic spheres. The de facto expectation is that these countries will want to balance against China on the basis that a rising China is threatening.

When one is confronted with a dichotomous situation it is pragmatic to go back to the basics. The basics of any relation between countries are dictated by power. Power in turn manifests into a threat or a challenge. Undoubtedly, the paramount factor in international relations devolves around power. The dictionary defines power as – the ability to influence people or events; the right or authority to do something; a country seen as having international influence and military strength. Based on this definition the old school of thought explained power as constituting a country’s geographic location, size of the landmass, natural resources available, a stable ethnic population, economic strength and military power. This definition of power makes it more tangible so it could be easily measured and is predictable. Since power is an instrument of the state wielded to obtain preferred outcomes while war in the 21st Century is becoming a more distant arbiter, power also needs to be seen in its relational or behavioural avatar.

Relational power has three aspects as suggested by Joseph Nye: commanding change, controlling agendas and establishing preferences. The first dimension is to command others to change their behaviour against their initial preferences; the other is the ability to affect others’ preferences so that they want what you want and you need not command them to change. For discussion purposes this theoretical construct is acceptable. However, realism still maintains that in the anarchic conditions of world politics, countries have to rely on their own devices to preserve their independence and that when push comes to shove, the use of force is then the ultimate explication. In all fairness, a pragmatic realist in his assessment will surely take into account persuasion and attraction so as to complete the full spectrum of power.

Manifestation of power is in the form of a threat. Threat is a declaration of an intention to inflict harm or punishment. The question of threat is not merely academic. A threat has certain necessary implications with regard to political action which are all the more severe the greater the threat is perceived to be. Military superiority does represent a threat. In the public mind a military threat is often equated to a national emergency. Historically, China is deemed to be an aggressor. It has illegally occupied Tibet, East Turkistan, Inner Mongolia, Paracel and some of the Spratly Islands. China has invaded Vietnam 17 times in its recorded history. China’s continued irredentist claims are, therefore, a cause of legitimate concern to the affected countries.

The old Chinese saying that “One Mountain Cannot Contain Two Tigers” literally means that in an area, there cannot be two very strong personality people leading – it applies to India and China in Asia. Just like in a mountain, there will only be one leader.

There are conflicting views on whether China is a ‘threat’ to India or a ‘diplomatic challenge’. For this group, China is no unstoppable, all-threatening juggernaut, nor is it an inevitable heir to solo superpower status. It is a country like any other, may be bigger, with complicated problems and internal challenges, an emerging power but not necessarily a metastatic one. China need not be feared; reassurance lies in much greater engagement, and much less western hubris. The necessary trick is to persuade China to play by the rules, and whatever the new rules turn out to be. Diplomats prefer to use the term ‘challenge’. First, it does not convey that element of fear; second, it jives’ this community into finding more affable solutions which gives them the necessary adrenal rush.

The challenge for the diplomatic community lies in not being paranoid about China’s rise but rather to help shape its choices so as to deter regional aggression and encourage China’s active participation in international initiatives that benefit Asian nations and without compromising their respective national interests. While China is already strong enough to destabilize East Asia and to influence economic and political affairs worldwide, it benefits enormously from the current global order and should have no intention of overthrowing it; but that is not enough. China’s active cooperation is essential to global governance. Never before has a developing country like China been asked to contribute so much to ensure international and regional stability.

The contrapuntal is that on a range of other fronts, China now appears in the process of challenging, and rejecting, not only American and western geopolitical leadership but also the legal, institutional and security framework of the post-war international order upon which that leadership was founded. A recent paper published by Chen Jimin of the Communist Party’s Central Committee school, titled The Crisis of Confidence in US Hegemony, reflects a widely held assumption evident in much Chinese thinking: that the US is in irreversible retreat, and growing weaker as China grows stronger. The issue, as seen in some Beijing quarters, is not how to manage China’s rise but how to manage, and profit from, America’s decline. Such an antagonistic undercurrent carries with it the more serious possibility of conflict which shall determine the outcome of this seismic and hazardous transition of who will ultimately run the 21st century. This latent rivalry bodes ill for India which has now developed a broad spectrum comprehensive relationship with the US. India will have to be prepared to stand its ground against substantive pressures from China – both diplomatic and military.

The old Chinese saying that “One Mountain Cannot Contain Two Tigers” literally means that in an area, there cannot be two very strong personality people leading – it applies to India and China in Asia. Just like in a mountain, there will only be one leader. If there are two tigers (two strong states in one region), you can be sure, they will fight it out. Either that or one of the tiger leaves that mountain. The theme develops further where there can be another outcome. It is where one of the tiger pretends to be ‘not-a-tiger’ for a while. This leads to the second part of another Chinese Idiom “Pretend to be a Pig, to eat the Tiger”. India needs to understand this saying more thoroughly!!

For the time being for Southeast Asia, there is a consensus among analysts that the sub-region has adopted a twin strategy of deep engagement with China on the one hand and, on the other, “soft balancing” against potential Chinese aggression or disruption of the status quo.

China’s rise has willy-nilly forced South-Eastern states to seek to balance China by the US in both the military and political-economic spheres. The de facto expectation is that these countries will want to balance against China on the basis that a rising China is threatening. South-East Asian States have adopted a strategy of hedging to secure their interests against Chinese domination or hegemony; keeping US involved in the region and enmeshing regional powers so that they have a stake in a stable regional order. India is not yet seen as a power that can adequately provide a viable counterweight due to a very limited financial clout and an archaic defence industrial complex. India’s role here becomes very crucial and should be the benchmark of its Foreign Policy plank of “Act East”.

China has stated in its White Papers on National Defence that it strives for a ‘harmonious world order’ and that its military forces are there to merely ensure that peace prevails regionally and globally. Heralded as China’s official foreign policy strategy, ‘harmonious world’ first rose to prominence internationally in 2005, during a keynote speech made by Hu Jintao at the UN’s 60th Anniversary Summit. In this speech, Hu outlined a four-point proposal advocating (1) multilateralism for common security; (2) win-win co-operation for common prosperity; (3) inclusiveness for the coexistence of all civilizations and finally (4) UN reform, to improve efficacy and maintain authority. The details of this foreign policy approach were further reinforced in a white paper entitled “China’s Peaceful Development Road” in the same year, and again reiterated in Hu’s speech to the 17th National Congress of the CCP in November 2007. It seeks to project China’s soft power.

Reality is however quite different. There are limits to China’s soft power. (1) Language will be a major barrier in China being accepted globally; (2) Chinese culture, drama, films, music or dress is not endearing to the rest of the world; (3) Talented youth seeking green pastures do not head for China; (4) People of diverse ethnic and cultural background do not see China a country to migrate to; (5) Its ideological isolation and projecting a uniqueness under the rubric of ‘Chinese Characteristics’ for its economy or method of governance makes it a global alien; (6) The world sees China as harbouring and supporting the global renegades and ‘rogue’ states which takes away the sheen of its soft power claim; (7) Its veto power in the UN has been generally seen as retrograde in nature on various global commons and security issues. Exotic cuisine of ‘Birds Nest Soup’ and ‘Peking Duck’ are hardly sought after. Therefore, it is quite evident that to influence the global community by its soft power China has a very long way to go.

Despite the above, China remains a developing country with enormous, unfulfilled human needs, a potentially explosive democratic deficit, a large post-2008 debt, a slowing economy, a chronic dependence on imported raw materials and energy, a yawning urban-rural, rich-poor divide and a worsening threat from violent ethnic minority unrest.

For the time being for Southeast Asia, there is a consensus among analysts that the sub-region has adopted a twin strategy of deep engagement with China on the one hand and, on the other, “soft balancing” against potential Chinese aggression or disruption of the status quo. The latter strategy includes not only military acquisitions and modernization but also attempts to keep the United States involved in the region as a counterweight to Chinese power. India needs to define its role to support these strategies.

China’s creation of Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, New Development Bank established by the BRICS, ‘One Belt One Road’, China ASEAN Free Trade Agreement and Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP) endorsing it to make a geostrategic statement, give credence to the view that China is bent on changing the ‘old world order’ and rewrite the rules of engagement.

According to an important OBOR vision document released by the Chinese government in March 2015, the initiative is intended to facilitate regional trade and investment, promote more widespread use of the Chinese currency, Renminbi, in cross-border trade, and foster greater exchanges between Chinese citizens and the peoples of OBOR countries. Through dialogue with participating countries, China also aims to remove technical barriers to trade, such as conflicting customs procedures.

While the Chinese government has couched the initiative in altruistic terms, OBOR is chiefly designed to benefit China’s economy. Most importantly, China seeks to spur economic development in its poorer western and southern regions, which lag far behind the prosperous coastal provinces. There are apprehensions that under the guise of OBOR China could relocate some of its heavily polluting industries to the neighbouring states.

http://www.lancerpublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=1575

Buy Now: This book is sequel to “Threat from China”.

As conceptualized by Beijing, the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road starts in the major port cities of southern China and passes through the South China Sea before extending across the Indian Ocean to East Africa and northward through the recently expanded Suez Canal to Europe. Infrastructure investment along the route will involve the construction of new ports and upgrades to existing facilities. Beijing’s objective is to facilitate greater Chinese commercial (and perhaps naval) activity in the Indian Ocean region. China is often at pains to reiterate that Indian Ocean is not India’s ocean probably out of a sense of vulnerability.

Despite the above, China remains a developing country with enormous, unfulfilled human needs, a potentially explosive democratic deficit, a large post-2008 debt, a slowing economy, a chronic dependence on imported raw materials and energy, a yawning urban-rural, rich-poor divide and a worsening threat from violent ethnic minority unrest. Some of China’s recent foreign policy actions, especially towards close neighbours, have been self-defeating in part because the military and the security apparatus have too much autonomous power. President Xi has been centralising authority around himself. But he faces opposition from the old guard, including former presidents, especially in his campaign to root out endemic official corruption. Xi has warned that, unless checked, the spread of corruption will “doom the party and the state”. In this many-fronted struggle it is not certain he or the party will prevail. These pressures of the explosive internal situation does give China a sense of paranoia which it could link with deterioration in an internal situation as having been instigated by outside powers prompting China to take recourse to military action.

http://www.lancerpublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=886

Buy Now: Threat from China

This compilation of articles are presented to help those dealing with China in the corridors of power and ‘China watchers’ in interpreting ‘what are China’s national interests?’, analysing ‘what does China want?’, deciphering ‘what is this new normal?’ and assessing ‘what will China do?’ with its newfound global and rising economic power, which is openly being translated into soft/hard power and growing political influence in the region and in major international organisations. Nations are justified to pursue their national interests. But they cannot ride rough shod over the sensitivities and interests of others. Compromises by both sides can smoothen any rough patches in inter-state relations. However the government is responsible to its people to provide a secure environment for the people to grow in and prosper. It is prudent to err on the plus side and therefore be fully prepared for the worst case contingency – a war. If it is avoided it will be because the country was prepared for it. So it is wise to pay heed to this age old Latin adage – “Si vis pacem, para bellum” translated as, “If you want peace, prepare for war”.

Rate this Article
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
The views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of the Indian Defence Review.

About the Author

Lt Gen (Dr) JS Bajwa

is Editor Indian Defence Review and former Chief of Staff, Eastern Command and Director General Infantry.  He has authored two books Modernisation of the People's Liberation Army and  Modernisation of the Chinese PLA

More by the same author

Post your Comment

20 thoughts on “China: Threat or Challenge?

  1. General,

    I came across the following statement by the Chief Air Marshal:

    “Chief of Air Staff has laid out very clearly the position of Govt of India, territory of India would be protected at all costs. It should happen preferably diplomatically because that would be in good interest of everyone esp China & India

    Air Vice Marshal (Retd) Manmohan Bahadur”
    https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-china-face-off-live-updates-aap-rjd-not-invited-for-all-party-meet/liveblog/76454838.cms

    The question arises why does he want to please “everyone”? The sovereignty of India needs to be secured at all costs independent of diplomacy, and not “preferably” to please someone, like it or not. If someone is not pleased, better to tell him to get lost – or is IAF not sure to be able to safeguard the nation’s sovereignty!

    What is the position of the Army in the context? To my mind, the Airforce seems to be in the “appeasement mode” as almost all political masters and the officials in Delhi (e.g. NSA) which I find disturbing.

    Could you please comment on behalf of the Army how the Chief of Staff would take his position in the matter – to please everyone or not?

    In my evaluation, IAF got a bloody nose when one fighter was downed by a PAK missile in the Balakot incident which implies that the countermeasures (ECM) failed in their armoury. Furthermore, IAF scored a self-goal according to news, when their helicopter was shot by their own missile killing all personnel, which implies IAF’s Command and Control system is dysfunctional.

    • Shankar, This issue with China pertains to identifying a mutually acceptable boundary. The question first arose in 1954 when India pointed out some anomalies in a Chinese map of that time. The Chinese said they have to study India’s complaint and are not aware of it. The matter kept oscillating between the two till in 1959 Chou Enlai stayed that there is a dispute and there exists a Line of Actual Control. Officials met in 1960 to clear the matter but failed. The ‘62 war was on this issue. Then after diplomatic relations were revived in 1976 Border Talks started from 1981 to 1988. Joint Working Group from 1988-2005, and Special Rep from them to date. No resolution. Even the alignment of the LAC has not been clarified by one to the other. De facto meaning that there are two LAC’s which run but one does not know the others alignment. A quaint situation. Five treaties/agreements signed to maintain peace and tranquility, no use of force and status quo as fundamental pillars. So trying to resolve the boundary issue by force is like shredding the treaties and agreements. The Chinese have used the dispute as a leverage. Need to stand up to such measures which do not respect the treaties in letter and spirit. It is a vexed issue and will not be resolved in a hurry. So there is no appeasement by anyone. It is giving peace a chance.

      • Thank you, General, for expressing the Indian military’s present position on the border problem in clear terms. I realize that the military must toe the line of the Delhi Government in place who are their political master. In my mind still, a nagging question remains, that India inherited from the British Raj at the time of independence the “treaty” of protecting Tibet in whatever formulation it was in those days. But when Communist China invaded Tibet, and the Tibetan authorities appealed to Delhi for military help to protect, the Indian State reneged on that. Had the PM (Nehru) then honoured that treaty, the Indian Army would be facing the PLA somewhere far interior of Tibet now, not on Himalayan borders. I am afraid now Galwan heights will be lost forever, just as the Doklam Plateau has been recently by China unilaterally changing the boundary between Tibet, Bhutan and India. It is in the archives in Delhi Nehru-Chou en Lai exchanges that all three countries, Bhutan, India and China must agree to define the boundary of where they Tibet.

  2. China ki Maa C ho d dalo!!!! Nuke these yellow communist thugs and their Pakis terrorist counterparts simultaneously. They are not going to change.
    Only Indias actions will matter and we must Finish them off before they finish us!!!! Common Sense.

  3. General,

    This is a historically watershed moment on Indian sovereignty in the Himalayas which has safeguarded the nation from time immemorial against invasion from the north. The loss of Galwan Valley is going to endanger the country far more than the loss of Aksai Chin. There has appeared an eye-opening strategic analysis on this state of affairs which I am quoting:

    “Considering this road supplies the army’s Bana Post on the Siachen Glacier and affords the Indian army easy access to the Karakorum Pass, the first thing the army should have done after the Border Roads Organization laid down the alignment for this road some ten years back was to protect this asset by pre-emptively securing the foothills and, hence, the heights on the Galwan, Cheng-chenmo, and Shyok rivers. It would have closed out PLA’s options on the Indian highway. The army blundered by not implementing so basic a precautionary military measure.” (refer: https://bharatkarnad.com/…, “India’s squeamish attitude towards China is a liability”).

    Could you please throw some light on how such a monumental blunder happened in the leadership of the Army for not having any foresight? Or alternatively, do you think that the Army can mount an action to dislodge the PLA now from Galwan Valley?

      • Thank you General for setting the record straight that Karnad is wildly way off the mark here. It is really problematic for many such experts to operate without a link with the military at the ground level. In the context, one thing is clear that China could not care less with protocols and agreements which they may sign, they will flout whenever it suits their ultimate goal. I hold the view that borders between nations are settled by fighting wars and not by ‘negotiations’ by diplomats. I hope the present Indian armed forces will impress on the political masters this fundamental reality. In the past agreeing to Tibet as falling under the sovereignty of China was the biggest blunder committed by Modern India and the nation is carrying this heavy baggage ever since. Amazingly, “Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai’ has been raising its head in recent years in Indian policy formulation. Hopefully, there will be corrective action in the political domain now.

  4. The PLA have the perfect propaganda – like in the Sino-Soviet wars – propaganda on dead Chinese soldiers – when the PLA won that war ! dindooohindoo

    Once PLA blood is shed – then it is game over.

    Now PLA will not retreat and will not give up so=called Indian Land, Which is what the PLA always wanted – the perfect excuse – in blood.And that is what they got.

    Now that PRC blood is shed,on so-called Indian land – and that is precisely what, the PRC wanted – as a part of the propaganda – now ,PRC will not retreat, even 1 mm.

    The battle is won by the PLA and PRC and the land is taken – AND NOW THERE IS NO ROOM FOR NEGOTIATIONS. dindooohindoo

    That is the PRC model – from the times of Mao and Chou En Lai Now they will spread the domino all across the North East.

    It is goodbye to Sikkim,Arunachal,Nagaland,Ladakh and the UNSC.

    If I was the PLA chief – I would use the Taliban,and also,after a Naval Skirmish with the Hindoo Limpets – use the sea brigades,of the Jaish on the Dindoos.

    This has to happen – as it is a logical corollary, of Chinese warfare.The sea brigade could easily target Karwar (guarded by the limpet Goans)! The Hindoos do not have any assymetric capability w.r.t PRC.

    The PLA use of the Talban and Jaish,and inevitably the IRP – Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is the culmination of the Ghazwa Prophecy,of the annihilation of the Hindoos !

    The PLA were just waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting !

    If I was a PLA Honcho I would light up the DMZ (using DPRK) – diversion for the world and the USA – and then takeover the North East

    This is also the time for DPRK to strike – a population of 1 million with Nil COVID – can extract the maximum concessions from the world and provide a cover to PLA in India .

    It will also ACTUALLY test NATO and US presence in the Sea of Japan and South China Sea

  5. What is the response of the Chaiwala ?

    He wants to impose eco-sanctions !

    This is all bunkum!

    If Chaiwala is serious – ban all PRC imports !

    Y hike import duty ? dindooohndoo

    That will add to Indian Input Costs and bankrupt several industries and then the banking !

    If PRC exports to India are USD 100 Billion and duty is hiked by 20% – then 20 billion USD of profits of Indian companies are gone.In addition,the supply chain of those users,will also be wiped out,on upstream (suppliers of materials and inputs to Indian entities, which import Chinese materials) and downstream (users of Indian products made, from Chinese inputs) as they will either not offer cost reductions or not absorb cost hikes !

    On a duty hike of 20% on Chinese exports to India of 100 Billion – at least 150-200 Billion USD of Indian entities will be destroyed.If 200 Billion USD of Indian sales are wiped out – it is safe to assume that the Debt to Sales ratio is say 0.25:1,and so USD 50 Billion of bank and other debt will be NPA.

    Y not also impose an Export tax on exports to PRC. Again a dead end – as PRC will import from elsewhere.

    Y not ban Chinese flag ships from Indian Ports – No problem – PRC will do the same from PRC and HK and some African Ports.

    India needs PRC.

    PRC could short Indian paper and securities,in the NASDAQ/NYSE or short the INR,in the NDF or just kick out the Indians,from HKSAR – now PRC.It Could also kick out the Indians from many nations in Africa – Idi style

    It is certain that PRC will use the Taliban and Pakistan based marine outfits – in the next phase

    India has no options ! The PRC will now enter the whole of the North East

    India cannot handle Nepal – they could not stop them from changing a map – how will they handle PRC.Indians still have not perfected the art of making galvanised steel – how will be take Galwan ?

    Just handover Ladakh,Sikkim and Arunachal to the PRC

    And then back to Cow piss Cola !

  6. I am sorry I had to disagree to the bravado here. Gen kindly remember we do not live the 90s. Youth are more and more moving towards East. China is the land of opportunity these days. Moreover, more and more youth started learning Chinese language and its popularity is growing . Am not saying it might come to dominate the world but I am telling Indians, GET REAL. THET ARE COMING however uncomfortable it is.. African Asian failed rouge nations already cheering a world led by dragon…pls do not discount reality..25000 indian youth study in china ..mind you India failed to provide them opportunities

  7. Sir, this book is extremely relevant to the happenings at Doklam. China is a threat not only to India, it is a threat to the present global order. Its skewed views of international relations are not in consonance with modern times. For instance, on the basis of an imaginary nine dash line it claims the entire south China Sea; so also it claims Arunachal Pradesh referring to it as south Tibet. Its rise in anything but benign and if need be India and other like minded states must counter its belligerence with ‘force.’

  8. Thanks for the article.
    China, having second largest GDP, is emerging as a super power in global scenario – We can’t ignore it.

    While China, talks about peaceful coexistence with India and maintained peace along the border with India, on the other hand China’s strategic ties with Pakistan is concern for us. Military help extended to Pakistan is major concern for us.

    West, on the other hand eager to put India as a counter balance for China.

    However, I think we have to maintain peace and dialogue with China despite of our concerns. We have to talk with China directly regarding our concerns. Peace and harmony across the border to be maintained.

    At the same time we have to be self-reliant on defense technology as per the MAKE IN INDIA CONCEPT and have to build minimum deterrence for security of our country silently as did by China. Collaboration with the other parties if required for the above are to be done.

    However war of words waged by media should be avoided.

  9. Sir enjoyed reading the article and your views on wide ranging issues were all relevant. China to me is both a challenge and a threat as far our country is concerned. Their policy statements and the real life actions / reactions are different.
    Will we be able to check at any stage the passing of CPEC through our territory, or reclaim Akshai Chin?
    Then their open support to Pak is a concern, therefore China needs to be engaged appropriately, the answer may lie in your book. Will love to read the whole book for my satisfaction.
    With regards

  10. Dear Raja,
    Your observations are relevant and do need consideration. In this Book – “China: Threat or Challenge?” which I have prefaced with this piece above, I have compiled articles by various authors to address these issues.
    We will continue to keep a vigil eye on geo-political developments in the region.
    Warm Regards

More Comments Loader Loading Comments