Quantcast
Channel: Bharatkalyan97
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 11039

Samudra Manthan in Hindumahasagar

$
0
0
The only ocean named after a nation has along its rim 59 sovereign states. A United States of Indian Ocean Countries will create an Indian Ocean Community to counterpoise European Community. It takes vision to make this happen drawing upon the civilizational strengths of maritime contacts of several millennia and exemplified by the largest Vishnu temple in the world, the Angkor Wat and enshrining Hindu Dharma-Buddha Dhamma as twin facets of a global ethic, inviolate. See more at: https://sites.google.com/site/indianoceancommunity1/

Kalyanaraman


India and China Are Not Destined to Clash

C. Raja Mohan, Samudra Manthan: Sino-Indian Rivalry in the Indo-Pacific (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2012).
The bilateral relationship between India and China remains a fringe topic among academics of international relations around the world. And yet, Sino-Indian ties will shape the 21st century like few others over the coming decades. In fact, the triangular relationship between the United States, China and India, soon to be the three largest economies in the world, will be as important as U.S.-Soviet ties during the Cold War. Increased tension and the prospect of conflict between New Delhi and Beijing could seriously affect the global economy – strong cooperation between the two, on the other hand, could pose a real challenge to U.S. global supremacy.
In this context, Raja Mohan’s Samudra Mathan is a welcome contribution. Mohan, one of India’s leading foreign policy analysts and one of the few scholars based in the Global South with a global reach, contends that the growth of India’s and China’s naval capabilities will expand the security dilemma between the two countries. It will no longer be limited to the lands of inner Asia, but will now extend to the waters of the Indian and Pacific Oceans. The author thus agrees with Robert Kaplan, who argued in a recent bookMonsoon: The Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power, that the Indian Ocean will turn into the new center of power in global politics, and the stage for the “new Great Game” where global power dynamics will be revealed.
Policymakers in both New Delhi and Beijing are unlikely to publicly agree with Mohan’s argument. After all, both governments frequently point out that “Asia is big enough for two global powers.” And yet, the author’s claim that as China and India’s economies globalize and the two states acquire interests far beyond their own territorial and regional waters, “their naval footprint will grow, overlap, and generate the basis for potential conflict in the Indo-Pacific” seems to make sense at first glance.
A few important caveats apply, however. First of all, the usefulness of the concept of the “Indo-Pacific” is debatable, and some will argue it artificially inflates the degree of overlap between India and China. After all, the presence of India’s navy in the Pacific is still very low. And despite recent investments, China’s navy is still far too small to rival that of the United States in any region of the world. The assumption that the border conflict between both countries will inevitably lead to similar conflicts over maritime borders is equally open to contestation – after all, China’s and India’s navies could just as well cooperate.
This leads to a larger question: Will Sino-Indian ties in the coming decades be marked by cooperation or conflict?  Mohan’s prediction that it will be the latter will lead some observers in the Global South to accuse him of buying into a Western narrative and argument of enduring U.S. hegemony – namely, the assumption that China, India, Russia and other emerging powers will rather focus on competing against each other than unite against the United States.
There are plenty of reasons to be pessimistic, however. First, China and India have been at war before – in 1962 – and the resulting border dispute is yet to be resolved. Second, Asia lacks strong regional institutions that could serve as a platform to resolve future problems (many exist already, ranging from issues around the Dalai Lama and Pakistan to the Nuclear Suppliers Group). Third, both countries are extremely resource-hungry and could soon clash over how to share strategic resources in times of scarcity. Fourth, both countries possess nuclear weapons, which points to potentially disastrous consequences for its combined 2.5 billion inhabitants.
And yet it seems unlikely that future Indian and Chinese leaders will repeat the mistakes European leaders made a century ago. Trade ties between both countries are vast, and both societies will focus on eradicating poverty for many decades to come, with little interest in destabilizing the region. Even though China is not democratic, the Communist Party leadership is keenly aware that its legitimacy depends on strong economic growth, not merely on increased military power.
The title is perhaps the most controversial aspect of Mohan’s entire book, as it implicitly describes the Sino-Indian relationship as a battle between angels and demons, with the United States acting as a God-like arbiter between the two.
With Samudra Manthan, Mohan has clearly positioned himself when it comes to the future of Sino-Indian relations. It is up to policymakers in New Delhi and Beijing to prove him wrong.
Oliver Stuenkel is Professor of International Relations at the Getulio Vargas Foundation in São Paulo. He writes about emerging powers on his blog, Post Western World.
Socrates
December 22, 2013 at 20:24
It does not need New Delhi and Beijing leaders to prove him wrong but I myself and people around North East and South East Asian countries prove him wrong immediately.
No other countries including India know Chinese more than Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese ,Myanmarian, Thailandese, Cambodian, even Indonesian and Malaysian.
If Western powers did not appeared in N-S East Asian seas in 16th century ,all N-S East Asian countries might have become today greater China already because Han Chinese is Expansionist /Chauvinist in nature.That means they would expand their territory whenever they are strong and retreat whenever they are weak.
Look back Chinese history after WWII and after Mao siezed power in 1949 .China at the time was still in tatters after hundreds years mumiliated by Western powers, Japan occupation and civl war.But it was still enthusiastically to intervene into Korean War in 1950, then invaded Tibet in 1961 and then invaded India in 1962 as well as fought 2 bordered wars with USSR at the same time.
Now even Russia also have been seriously worrying about China expansionism as China surrendered millions km2 its territory to Russia in 19th century when Qing dynasty was still in power.
India luckily was in tact in that period because China Qing dynasty was defeated by Britain in Opium war and 8 Nations Alliance war .
Besides ,Qanlong emperor of Qing dynasty had invaded Tibet before Britain came to China.If Britain did not appear in China at that time ,Tibet was annexed by Qing dynasty since then…and India must have been the next target and who can tell if India could fend off the invasion of Qing empire army or not ?
With its recent history as above said.Who think China would peacefully coexists with its neighbours when it’s now a 2nd biggest economy with the world 3rd most powerful army at its disposal.
Further still, since 2000 years ago, Chinese emperors had assumed that only Great Han Chinese empires are capable and human resources to rule the world. And that assumption was repeated occasionally one dynasty after another until Sun Yat Sen, Chen Kai Shek, Mao Ze Dong and now Xi Jing Pin when he declared that CCP must accomplished “China Dream. And China Dream which Xi meaned in the speech is that China rules the world ( China must replace USA as the world hegemony) but not the prosperity for Chinese populace as the author thought.
WHAT A NAIVETY !
Bankotsu
December 22, 2013 at 23:30
What drivel on China! lol.
Valbonne
December 23, 2013 at 13:57
Well done! At least, Mr. Socrates speaks from the bottom of his heart as an Indian and express how Indian look at China and how he himself hate anything Chinese.
BeWay
December 24, 2013 at 19:51
There is a common saying from South East Asia people that in case when you see an Indian and a cobra, who do you kill first?
Answer : Indian.
Reason : Throughout history, SE Asians have always perceived the Indians with distrust for being self-centered, cunning and even miserly. We will have thought it’s only SE Asians who may have the wrong perception but when you examined it more closely, practically all the India’s neighbors have almost the same perception of how India and Indians behave in general
Take typically the incorrigible piece of opinion penned by Socrates (an Indian??), it is the case of the usual con job propagated to deceive the naïve, gullible and clueless Indian simpletons alike.
Throughout history even before Admiral Cheng Ho much publicized voyages, it was recorded that the Chinese, Indians and even the Arabs have been traded with each other along the Silk Road as well as throughout the South East Asia regions peacefully for centuries. We didn’t see any Chinese territorial expansion over anywhere in SEA, India or Central Asia. Then came Admiral Cheng Ho seven voyages which not only brought forth more abundant and flourishing trades covering the whole of South East Asia nations, Sri Lanka, India, Middle East as well as East Africa. When the mighty Chinese expeditions sailed throughout all these regions, the Chinese didn’t invade nor setup military bases in any country. Due to Chinese internal issue, the Chinese stopped sending any expedition outside the country way before the Western Imperialists arrived. It’s unfortunate that the Chinese turned inwards rather than progressed forward to protect India and South East Asia nations from being colonized by these Western Imperialists.
Intervention into Korea is a good cause to stop the insane abuses by the America military
Reunification of Tibet is a good cause to protect China own sovereignty rights
Invasion of India is a good cause to show the Indians that the Chinese were not fearful nor afraid of Nehru arrogance in pushing its aggressive forward policy against China. The Indians have been taught a painful lesson never to step on the dragon tail then or anytime in future.
The Chinese nation has progressed and developed well for the last 30 years despite all the naked intimation and blustering by U.S and its lackey Japan. It stands tall for its principle, neutrality and most of all, for its resilience and determination to succeed. Where are the Indians then? Well, they are still hiding under the skirt of its white master, throwing little rocks at everyone, just to show it still exist as little pauper.
—-
Bankotsu
December 22, 2013 at 14:38
I think India is destined to clash with the U.S. in the Indian ocean and China is destined to clash with U.S. in pacific ocean.
That is why India and China must join forces.
India looks to expand strategic footprint in Indian Ocean
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-12-16/india/45254209_1_indian-ocean-maldives-security-advisor
Socrates
December 23, 2013 at 12:58
My man,
Let wake up and be frank ! US obviously poses NO threat to India national integrity and vice versa ,but China has been obviously and serously doing.
That’s why India and Japan have signed a strategic total aspects partnership recently to counter China assertiveness in N-S East seas and Indian Ocean.
Besides, if it’s the case .It might take Indian navy another century before it can confidiently confront with US navy as Indian navy consists most out of date warships and subs including carrier it has recently possessed.
TDog
December 22, 2013 at 13:10
India has a long way to go before it will compete with China. With a much smaller GDP, a military that is inferior in many ways to the PLA, and no permanent UN Security Council seat, India is not in a position to cause China problems either at home or abroad.
India needs to stop defining itself within the context of a relationship, adversarial or cooperative, with another nation. Whether India views itself as China’s nemesis or China’s competitor or China’s partner or whatever, India needs to stop it. India right now is running around in circles and spending itself stupid over the profound inferiority complex it feels vis a vis practically the entire world, to say nothing of how pronounced that affliction is when one mentions China.
India’s come a long way since independence, but it has a long way to go. Decades of protectionism and choosing to side with the losing side during the Cold War have kept India back and its dysfunctional bureaucracy continue to do so today.
In foreign policy, India needs to decide what is best for it, not what is detrimental or contrary to someone else. India’s foreign policy is designed around competing with or ingratiating itself with others and that is an inherently reactive and submissive policy, one that is unbecoming a nation as dynamic as India.
India should solidify and grow its economy before worrying about others. Its border disputes with China are over territory you couldn’t grow a turnip in and Pakistan is a basket case. India should concentrate on itself before it cares what others say, think, or do.
Mike
December 24, 2013 at 01:49
China’s economy has only overtaken the Indian economy in the last 30 years or so. And this lead will not necessarily be permanent.
Also China’s growth was not due to intrinsic Reasons. It was largely due to massive western/Japanese investment investment in China. Starting with low skill/low cost manufacturing.
This investment was offered by Nixon/Kissinger to ensure that China never fell back into Soviet orbit and became a STRATEGIC PARTNER of the US.
After taking massive western/Japanese aid and investment in the 1980s/1990s, China is no considered a STRATEGIC RIVAL by the US.
All this shows how thankful China is to the west and Japan for the massive investment, technology transfer and building skills of the Chinese workforce over the last three decades.
Nurtured to economic success and strength by the West and Japan, China has now wants to confront its benefactors.
India is a superpower
December 24, 2013 at 14:58
I agreed. India is a superpower.
TDog
December 24, 2013 at 19:02
Mike,
A few observations:
1. China’s GDP was 50% larger than India’s in 1970 and remained larger since then. Even in 1960, India’s GDP was valued at about $37 billion while China’s was about $60 billion. In other words, China’s been outperforming India for about fifty years, not thirty.
2. A Low cost/Low skill manufacturing workforce IS an intrinsic advantage given that China did not exactly import low-skill workers. That China has moved on from low skill labor to high skill labor (computer assembly, biotechnology manufacturing, aerospace) while keeping costs down only demonstrates China’s inherent flexibility.
As for China being a strategic rival of the US and Japan, China didn’t start it. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, it was the US that initiated hostile activities against China for some odd reason. In fact, it was President Clinton who first coined the term “strategic competitor” when referring to China during his 1992 presidential campaign. US domestic politics and not Chinese foreign actions were what first resulted in this notion that China was The Enemy. Given that America has for so long defined itself as anti-Russia, it was only natural we would go casting about for a new enemy, if not to unify our nation then definitely to paint our political opponents as “being soft” on.
China is not the one who initiated this confrontation. We used them as a counterweight to Soviet ambitions not only in Asia, but also in Africa. When the Cold War ended, we did what we did with most of our allies – we cast them aside and turned them into enemies. We did it with Manuel Noriega, we did it with Saddam Hussein, we did it with the Iranians after they helped us against the Taliban, and we did it with China.
We are very poor allies. That we tend to place the blame on them for it does not change the fact that we often encourage the sort of blowback we then rail against.
Mike
December 25, 2013 at 00:47
TDog, could you tell me about your source of GDP data. I am used data from the World Bank. And that shows India and Chinese diverging from around 1990 onwards. Thanks
http://thediplomat.com/2013/12/india-and-china-are-not-destined-to-clash/

Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 11039

Trending Articles



<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>