As China and India rise in tandem, their relationship will shape world politics. Shame they do not get on better

Yes, “This paranoia is overdone” by this Economist article.

Just when the world economy is picking up paces again by virtue of economic growth of China, India and other emerging economies, the old British trick of playing up one against other is now in place in full swing as shown in this unbecoming Economist article, apparently in a devious effort to wishing China and India will slug out each other so as to stem and surpress their coming to the age, like staging a Roman gladiatorial games.

But this time, I am sure, post colonial Indians and Chinese will be smart enough not to be swayed by such chicanery of imputing one another, notwithstanding that they do have serious differences to work out, peacefully.

The joke is on this Economist article and what it stands for.

"Shame they do not get on better"

Ha, that's a hypocritical statement if there were one.

Shame should be on the Western political elite that drives a wedge between them.

Shame should be on the Western political elite that edges india on as a "Counter" to China.

Shame should really be on the brits who drew the original MacMahon Line.

Shame on the economist writer who is oblivious to these facts!

Let me address a few points in order.

1. China is a threat to the West

2. India will "compete" with China in a war of giants.

3. New world order and time to drop "the West" as a cohesive decision-making and cultural bloc.
-1-
The fact that China is a threat to the West is mostly in the heads of delusional foreign policy strategists and editors of this newsmagazine. China's political culture from the beginning of time has shunned colonization, world domination, or any other type of expansionist tendencies. The biggest empires in Chinese history happened to be ruled by non-Chinese nomadic invaders - the Mongolians (Yuan) and the Manchus (Qing). When the Ming set foot in North America it didn't even have colonialism in its vocabulary. The real threat is thus not military. Even when China becomes the most powerful geopolitical force in the world, it will not go around the world planting its armies and imposing its values. It has been clear about "non-interference of internal affairs of other nations" from Day 1. Besides, the world economy is so intertwined that large-scale military confrontation between nation states basically impossible. So then, you ask, what is the real threat?

The real threat is more psychological than anything else. At no point since modern history began has any power come to greater prominence than those based on European ("Western") ideals and values. This is not good on Western egoes that one day they may, in fact, feel inferior.

Ironically, the China-threat theory just fans the flames of Chinese nationalists and strengthens the position of hardliners in the Chinese military, causing the exact type of expansionist fervour that it is trying desperately to contain.

-2-
I wrote in a comment yesterday that India needs a reality check. India boasts some strategic advantages over China - such as the common law legal system, the ability to speak English, etc. But these are truly only helpful when it comes to dealing with traditional, Western markets. Another thing often pointed out by Indian supporters is, of course, China's aging population. I find this argument to be absurd. For one, population structures of most developed-world countries are quite "flat" while those of Sub-Saharan Africa is pyramid shaped. India's larger younger population is actually an indication of underdevelopment. India's infant mortality rates are not much better compared to Africa, while in China life expectancy is higher than most middle-income economies (and in urban areas similar to the developed world). This is not to mention that an "older" population structure is much better geared towards more productive output boosters mostly concentrated in services, while younger hands can only be better towards agriculture and manufacturing (China's model today). So when China moves away from the manufacturing model as it is already doing, India is only coming in to fill the gap.

I make this statement with full knowledge that India graduates some of the best and brightest IT professionals and engineers in the world. But in terms of the bigger picture China still dominates by far.

-3-
Smart Western diplomats should start considering this new multipolar world order and move away from this outdated political model based on the "West and the Rest". The West will no longer be united on international geopolitics come China's global dominance, and it's better to prepare early. For a Westerner, the question one should be asking is not whether China or India will be a threat to the West as a whole, but WHO in the West it is going to threaten. Yes, it will threaten the dominance of the United States, that is a given. But should Finland and Norway really care that China is rising? Should Canada and Australia, two countries with high homegrown populations of Asian origin, take this as an opportunity for strategic re-alignment? Should the EU consider taking a more independent foreign policy and remain neutral on military issues that involve bickering between China and the United States?

China picks off its antagonists one by one, because they do not accept the idea of democracy. As the article states China views India as a sloppy form of democracy in the first place. How then can we expect China to work with other countries, much less be a larger player in shaping global governance, when China rejects the idea of multiple voices in the first place? China must politically evolve. Until then, India will be the country of choice for the west to work with and overtake China.

Feels like this whole article was written around the Daily Chart from a few days ago that showed how big India and China used to be over the last 2000 years. Aside from that obvious observation, it’s somewhat low on useful facts and high on conjecture.

Currently, one of the most important factors in this conflict (whether it is real or not), is not so much the behaviour of China and India, it is the behaviour of the US and the EU (and also Japan).

Both US and EU have three times the economic weight of China and nearly ten times that of India in nominal dollars. (The numbers are two and five respectively at PPP.) Whatever they do will have a major impact on them and thus their relationship. If we worry about their relationship, we should certainly not favour the one over the other, implicitly or explicitly.

There is no surer way to turn rivalry into wars than to provide one side with constant suspicion and the other with military aid.

Though an Indian, I really doubt if India would challenge China in economic terms any time soon. However, resolution of the border dispute is a important concern and would remove the grouse on either side. The border dispute is possibly the only issue that can result in a war which would be disastrous for both countries.

India and China have co-existed peacefully for millenia. The recent sourness in relations is not typical. Culturally both these countries do not have an instinct for extra-territorial aggression. However, the competition for energy resources will probably become quite nasty.

Prepare for hordes of Chinese and Indian jingoists to descend upon this thread.
This is an amateurish article, short on facts and long on conjecture, more suited for the tabloid sensibilities of Foreign Policy magazine than a leader for the Economist. How embarrassing.
China and India have co-existed peacefully over millennia. Granted, during most of this time, both nations were really fractious collections of feuding fiefdoms, but they harbor no ancient cultural bitterness. The national interests of China and India can be pursued independently and without conflict. The Himalayas make for an excellent boundary, though there is dispute over the exact line, neither nation will risk economic and political instability to fight for bits of desolate snowy rock.
Potential flashpoints are Pakistan, competition for SE Asian influence, and control of sea lanes in the Indian Ocean. These are serious problems, but one must remember that both nations benefit greatly from the current international situation, and neither is eager to change it. In the case of all three potential flashpoints, the actions of the US towards the Chinese are more important than the actions of India. China chafes under US containment, and rightly so. The forward deployment of US forces in S. Korea, Japan, and Guam, though positioned for the Cold War, are equally constricting to China now.
China-India relations are a sideshow for now. The central question for the 21st century, how the US will handle China’s ascent. Will the US cede influence, and make concessions, as the UK did to a newly assertive America, post-Monroe-doctrine? Or will the US seek to counter-balance China, as the UK contained Germany, by seeking alliances with Russia and France? The US-China relationship and the US-India relationship will be the primary drivers of the China-India relationship.

I frankly do not see India as much of a threat to China. China has all the discipline that India lacks, and for that reason will never be more than second fiddle.

They can have all the population they want, but India´s strict class system will always mean that they underutilise their human capital.

We've seen countries like China grow before, albeit on a smaller scale. While going from rich to poor, those countries (Japan, South Korea, Singapore, to a lesser extent Malaysia and Thailand) have established democratic institutions and eventually, solid democratic traditions of multiple parties and alternating governments (exception Singapore). Can China be Singapore? I think not, too heterogeneous, too big, too many competing demands, too large a bureaucracy to control. Could it be like Japan, where one party ruled for 50 years, but democratic institutions like a free press and independent courts were developed and maintained? I think that is more likely. Will it need to solve Japan's current problem of demography? Yes, but China is 20 years behind Japan in time on that one. Will the state directed Chinese economy hit a wall like the state directed Japanese economy? Yes, but not for a generation or more.

Will India develop at a fast pace? Maybe, and not all at once. A growing middle class will demand better government and will achieve it at the state level first. India needs to dismantle the remaining bureaucratic barriers to growth, while establishing alternate mechanisms to provide services for the people. Transferring the power to regulate industry and labor to state governments would be a huge step forward, as regulatory arbitrage by industry would quickly convince state governments to reduce the regulatory burden relative to their neighbors down to a sensible minimum. India's democratic advantage is that its central government can delegate power from the center without fearing loss of control and rebellion (as Beijing fears). India as a looser federation of striving states will progress in pieces much faster than the monolith of China under the CPC. Flexibility and economic variety are required to advance from poor to middle class and rich, which will be a challenge to actively manage from Beijing. By contrast Indian chaos, if allowed free reign by progressive state governments, could produce the fastest moving and most competitive economy in the world. Eventually (10 years), demographics and the service oriented nature of the Indian economy will make it the more exciting and attractive destination for international investment over stodgy manufacturing oriented China.

This is going to be ugly (but entertaining...)

Every Communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
Chairman Mao -"Problems of War and Strategy" (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 224.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
No empire intoxicated with the red wine of power and the plunder of weaker races has yet lived long in this world. - MK Gandhi
No power on earth can subjugate you when you are armed with the sword of ahimsa. - MK Gandhi

@ Ohio

First you must ask if democracy is really the best system for the whole world. It is certainly good for some countries, but one size don´t fit all.

I live in a free democracy European country and I can tell it is a bad system, political corruption, business corruption, difficult to almost impossible to change any policy to correct the failure which made decade ago. We need a strong leader, not many parties blocking each other´s policy. Bring Europe in forward, not stepping at the same pace.

Soaring growth rates of recent years, with the gross domestic product more than doubling to $1.2 trillion since 2003, are to a great extent a product of India's economic liberalisation over the past two decades. India's potential as a market for foreign goods, the growth of its services and manufacturing sectors, and its critical geopolitical position between China and Central Asia combine to make the nation a central player in 21st century international relations, a position reflected in a raft of free-trade agreements and its exemption from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nonetheless, India's growing global stature fuels the Naxalite resurgence, which, many Indian policymakers don’t say publicly but thinks maybe a creation of China. On the surface, the problem appears intrinsically internal, former links to Nepalese Maoists were thought to be severed after the latter entered peace negotiations in 2006. While, on records, earlier support from China is thought to be degenerated in the face of ‘improving Sino-Indian relations and the embrace of capitalism in both countries,’ some suggests it re-appeared to trim down India’s growth.

The Maoist insurgency now raging through India's rural heartlands should also be seen as a vicious by-product of India's emergence as a global player. India’s prime minister Manmohan Singh repeatedly describes the Maoists, otherwise known as Naxalites after the village of Naxalbari in West Bengal, where the movement's first uprising took place in 1967, as India's ‘gravest internal security threat.’ It is ironic that India's mineral deposits exists in the regions that are earmarked as Maoists-prone areas, and also the poorest regions in India, where the Maoists are strongest, represents a direct threat to the country's growth trajectory at a time when it struggles to meet demand for coal, iron ore, steel, Bauxite and other commodities. While economic growth has benefited millions of its citizens, Indian government’s promises to make that growth more inclusive of the poor through improved infrastructure, social-security programmes and work-guarantee schemes have scarcely been realised. Most recent figures from the Indian government's Planning Commission show that 41.8% of the rural population still lived below the poverty line in 2004-05, and that is what the Maoists find an abundance of potential recruits, represents a direct threat to the country's growth trajectory.

While obstacle to foreign investment in India remains stifling bureaucracy and rigid regulations on foreign ownership, but the Naxalite insurgency and the violent trend of anti-globalisation is a growing source of disquiet for investors. China is capitalist and commanding. India is a democracy, and you know the difference. So, while the Indian government sees its resources as vital to boosting foreign investment, ensuring future energy security and meeting the needs of the growth trajectory, many of its population, together with many in academia and civil society view globalisation largely as a source of intrusion, dispossession and environmental pollution. So, what can India do to compete with China? China’s GDP is 4-times larger than India’s, and China can have a hand in its internal matters because of its political system, but can India have the same edge? No. Not even because they have a good relation with the Americans and the West. So, it is right for India to focus on poverty-reduction measures at home that are crucial to softening the impact of global economic processes on India's most vulnerable citizens. Does India know that its endemic corrupt political and bureaucratic machinery undermines these measures? The case for a globalised India, with vibrant growth to compete with China has little to recommend it to the millions still below the poverty line. Thanks to The Economist for this mind-blowing article that allowed us to enter to this discussion. As a Bangladeshi, we want both China and India grow, and no fighting!

Not only requires "concessions from the West", it requires commitments from everyone. The safest way is to truly empower the U.N., and not just a regional Asian association, of course that requires commitment of, for example, democraticing the Security Council and making the powers subjects of international law and sansions if they brake or overpass the U.N.´s laws and decisions (by for example, attacking unilaterally, say, Irak). A commitment to debate by words, and not by arms, can only be asked from China and India when the other players (U.S., Europe, etc.) commit to play by the same rules. Asking the guys on the other side to behave when at the same time trying to retain privileges is also a way to the beginning to the XX Century.

@True Indian
"A good article. China is indeed an aggressor .... so must China be brought to its knees."

You realize that had it been India challenging US supremacy, the US would back China, Pakistan etc. to bring India to its knees. Do not be played by such simple diplomatic maneuvers. The US will contain and limit the power of any contenders to its economic or political hegemony - case in point, Japan.

"For the past 60 years, China has has appalling human rights. By contrast, India has been growing steadily as a democratic superpower. India has democracy, and that is the key to success."

I can draw up a very long list of developing countries that tried democracy only to find that it was not the key to success that they were looking for. Furthermore, on the matter of human rights please reflect upon the Indian caste system.

"China is build on slave labor, while India is build on creativity of its people."

Having a developing IT sector is really good and is something China can take lessons from. But both countries are dirt poor and majority of population is either in agriculture or low-tech industry.

"India is working more with the West to contain china. i envision a superpower India working with the West and democratic East Asian nations to keep China in place."

Refer to first paragraph. Assuming that you DO manage to contain China, India is next.

"Also, economically speaking, while India is a bit behind China currently, India is quickly catching up. India's economy is expected to grow faster than China's in a few years. Many Indian economists expect India to overtake China by 2020."

India is catching up, but it faces much more impediments and pressing challenges to growth than China does. Furthermore, economic predictions are about as good as mildly-informed guesses when we're venturing beyond a few years into the future.

"Also, note here how the Chinese are blaming the West for the fiction between India and China. In fact, the West is not responsible for any of the bad relations. It is China's communist dictatorship that is trying to hurt India's superpower status."

India does not constitute a very strong superpower, due to its limited political and economic influence on the global stage. It should take advantage of its relatively low profile and speed up development before US neo-cons decide to mess with it as well.

"India will become a superpower, and many Chinese are jealous. (just read Chinese dragon's post.) well, they just have to deal with it."

Ironic ending - I like it. Your entire post smacked of bitterness and sour grapes.

The title of the article does not make sense when it says there is a contest between China and India.

Why? Plain simple.

Hardly any Chinese I know ever regards India as a competitor. They all regard either Japan or U.S. as the competitor of China. You can see so many "feel-good" posts under the topic on China beats Japan in the 2nd quarter GNP.

But does any Chinese poster care about India's ranking? Hardly anyone.

Ooh..., this is going to be fun. The standard set of ostriches are already pouring in. Welcome.

@VwBuggy
"The saddest part is someone claiming that Chinese have a higher IQ than most of the world using a wikipedia link"

Actually that is not at all sad. That is funny as hell. Prof Rushton seems to be the poster boy of the young pioneers on this forum who push the "high IQ" agenda wherever they can. I doubt any of them have even read him in entirety. He also mentions a lot of unflattering comments about the Chinese people in his study sample, things like they have less than average sized gonads and other stereotypes. Sometimes I wonder if they even read what they post. Its all brainless copy paste. Must be the high IQ :).

@MuslimMan
"I support a blockade followed by invasion of India by China and its allies to bring this warmongering country down and so that the poor can be freed from their Hindu slavery."

Will that be after or before Somalia offers you food aid? I mean, Afghanistan has already offered $1mn aid. The next step would be aid from Mogadishu.

@Chinese dragon

Points 2, 5, 6 are stuff that one can immediately see as complete bull. I won't bother to point out why since I doubt that would help anyway. However I do like this statement of yours.

"Most Chinese don't even care about India! It is the Indians who are constantly talking about China!"

I hope you realize that by posting a highly emotionally charged comment with a long list of dubious claims, you are displaying exactly how you don't care about India.

As Ignacio M points out we have a rules-based international order in the UN, but the successors of two of the founding figures, Roosevelt and Churchill, tore up the rule-book during the last decade. And not only that, but they oversaw and fostered the process whose inevitable collapse is destroying the prosperity of millions in developed economies. We do indeed seem to be replicating the irrational behaviour of the early decades of the last century and a polarised US and an ineffectual EU offer little help.