The theme song almost everywhere these days is “Will India catch up with China”? The prominent French daily, Le Monde had a special 8-page supplement on “Chindia” in October this year. Eric Le Boucher predicted that by 2035 China would have overtaken the US and India would have the third largest economy. Even though there were going to be problems in both countries the 21st century would belong to them. Jean-Francois Huchet talked of the advantage the Chinese had with their access to energy sources while India had the advantage in its youthful population. The difference is that by 2035 India will be dependent up to 95% on imported energy while China’s dependency will be 75%. A country that is almost totally dependent on external sources of energy is obviously going to be at a disadvantage. There are also several predictions that while China may keep winning the sprints, India will win the marathon.
For those of us who are taken in by these rosy projections about the future, it would be useful to remember a few random statistics. The Chinese today produce thrice as much electricity than we do, their railways haul five times more freight traffic than ours do and their container traffic is fifteen times higher. Nearly half our roads are unpaved while 90% are paved in China. Their foreign exchange reserves are six times ours and manufacturing adds twice as much to the value to China’s GDP than in our case. China has a huge trade surplus, while India has had a continuous trade deficit for over 50 years. More than that, the Chinese produce major weapons systems that they then supply to their friends quite often at cut rate prices and use their deep pockets to buy influence globally. So, while there is a lot to exult about in India, the reality is that we have a long way to go. Mere aggregated GDP figures does not make for a major power usually defined as one whose voice is heard and reach felt across the globe.
China became a major power in a couple of decades because there was a tenacity of purpose, a clear long-term perspective uninhibited by contrary political pressures and their own world-view of their position in the world. Having decided what they wanted they went about it systematically; the state committed itself to health and education, reduced its size of governance and made foreign investment attractive. Rapid economic growth brings its problems. Shanghai today is China’s showpiece and has twice as many skyscrapers than in New York City. But it is also known that these modern day Potemkins hide the desolation of poverty and inequality in the interior.
The rise of China and India and the emergence of Japan as a ‘normal’ country is taking place at the same time for the first time in history. But this is happening amidst unresolved territorial disputes and historical animosities accompanied by competition for new resources, markets and rising military expenditures. The transformation of Japan into a country capable of rapid militarisation along with an enhanced military and naval presence of the US from the Mediterranean to the western Pacific makes China want to break out and ensure its future. China sees the growing warmth in the India-US relations as a part of this encirclement.
Today China considers US as sinister and Japan as antagonistic but keeps its economic relations with both very strong. On the other hand, China treats India with some disdain, never willing to accept it as an equal and ensuring India does not have a seat on the High Table of international affairs. This is partly our fault for we revel in equality with Pakistan; Havana was just another landmark. China seeks to be treated with awe and respect. India, on the other hand, seeks approval and acceptance from the West while wanting to be loved and liked in the neighbourhood. China has exercised strategic military options with Pakistan and North Korea and strategic market options with India and Japan. Consequently, China has two nuclear allies in Pakistan and North Korea, having helped them to get there in the pursuit of its own big power ambitions and the West, for all its machismo has been unable and, at times, even unwilling to prevent this.
The Chinese have always believed that neighbouring states must be respectful and obedient. This may not cower India but the game to hem India to the Asian sub-continent remains part of Chinese policy. The tactics were simple, keep borders with India tranquil but do not solve the dispute; trade with India but arm Pakistan and wean away Nepal, Bangladesh and Myanmar. As India retreated strategically from Tibet over the past sixty years, Han Chinese and missiles moved in -- the former to change the demography and the latter as an exhibition of Chinese muscle and future intent.
The recently inaugurated rail link from Qinghai to Lhasa is more than just a spectacular engineering marvel. It is an exhibition of Chinese determination and the rail-road will reach Xigatse near Nepal by 2010 and maybe up to Kathmandu. The road infrastructure along the entire India-Tibet border has strategic implications for India in the context of an unresolved border. The Chinese aim to use their ‘soft’ economic power to reach our northeastern states, Chittagong and Myanmar through these trade links via Nathu la. The lateral roads from China into Pakistan and Myanmar, along with access to the ports in Pakistan, Myanmar and possibly Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are designed to put India in pincers.
It can be argued that these so-called threats are really challenges and every challenge can be an opportunity. Since it does not make economic sense that Chinese freight trains and trucks that come to the border should go back empty the opportunity will be with Indian entrepreneurs. That is perfectly rational if one side views this as purely an economic venture and the other is ready to exploit this. The answer to both is - no.
President Hu’s visit to India may be a part of the India-China friendship year but it is also part of a four-leg tour that includes Vietnam, Laos, and finally Pakistan where at least 20 agreements will be signed at a time when more and more Pakistanis seem virulently anti-American. One would expect the border issue, trade and Tibet would be discussed when the Chinese leader is in India. There are no quick solutions to the first because the Chinese do not seem to be in a hurry. But if the Chinese want a consulate in Calcutta then surely the least we can expect is one in Lhasa.
All this hoop-la about growing trade misses the point that the Chinese are flooding our consumer markets with manufactured goods (some quite shoddy), while taking away our raw materials like iron ore and steel for their growth industry. We need to correct this. Tibet is also more than just a territorial and emotive issue. It concerns Asia’s environment as well. The Indus, the Sutlej and the Brahmaputra originate in Tibet. Should the Chinese decide to divert the Brahmaputra to feed their arid north and generate some 40,000 mw of electricity, all of our northeastern states will become dry. A river water agreement with China is perhaps more urgent for India than a border settlement. This issue, along with improving the quality of life for all Indians, rather than being led into a steeplechase with China, should be some of our major concerns.
Source : Hindustan Times 13th Nov 2006
For those of us who are taken in by these rosy projections about the future, it would be useful to remember a few random statistics. The Chinese today produce thrice as much electricity than we do, their railways haul five times more freight traffic than ours do and their container traffic is fifteen times higher. Nearly half our roads are unpaved while 90% are paved in China. Their foreign exchange reserves are six times ours and manufacturing adds twice as much to the value to China’s GDP than in our case. China has a huge trade surplus, while India has had a continuous trade deficit for over 50 years. More than that, the Chinese produce major weapons systems that they then supply to their friends quite often at cut rate prices and use their deep pockets to buy influence globally. So, while there is a lot to exult about in India, the reality is that we have a long way to go. Mere aggregated GDP figures does not make for a major power usually defined as one whose voice is heard and reach felt across the globe.
China became a major power in a couple of decades because there was a tenacity of purpose, a clear long-term perspective uninhibited by contrary political pressures and their own world-view of their position in the world. Having decided what they wanted they went about it systematically; the state committed itself to health and education, reduced its size of governance and made foreign investment attractive. Rapid economic growth brings its problems. Shanghai today is China’s showpiece and has twice as many skyscrapers than in New York City. But it is also known that these modern day Potemkins hide the desolation of poverty and inequality in the interior.
The rise of China and India and the emergence of Japan as a ‘normal’ country is taking place at the same time for the first time in history. But this is happening amidst unresolved territorial disputes and historical animosities accompanied by competition for new resources, markets and rising military expenditures. The transformation of Japan into a country capable of rapid militarisation along with an enhanced military and naval presence of the US from the Mediterranean to the western Pacific makes China want to break out and ensure its future. China sees the growing warmth in the India-US relations as a part of this encirclement.
Today China considers US as sinister and Japan as antagonistic but keeps its economic relations with both very strong. On the other hand, China treats India with some disdain, never willing to accept it as an equal and ensuring India does not have a seat on the High Table of international affairs. This is partly our fault for we revel in equality with Pakistan; Havana was just another landmark. China seeks to be treated with awe and respect. India, on the other hand, seeks approval and acceptance from the West while wanting to be loved and liked in the neighbourhood. China has exercised strategic military options with Pakistan and North Korea and strategic market options with India and Japan. Consequently, China has two nuclear allies in Pakistan and North Korea, having helped them to get there in the pursuit of its own big power ambitions and the West, for all its machismo has been unable and, at times, even unwilling to prevent this.
The Chinese have always believed that neighbouring states must be respectful and obedient. This may not cower India but the game to hem India to the Asian sub-continent remains part of Chinese policy. The tactics were simple, keep borders with India tranquil but do not solve the dispute; trade with India but arm Pakistan and wean away Nepal, Bangladesh and Myanmar. As India retreated strategically from Tibet over the past sixty years, Han Chinese and missiles moved in -- the former to change the demography and the latter as an exhibition of Chinese muscle and future intent.
The recently inaugurated rail link from Qinghai to Lhasa is more than just a spectacular engineering marvel. It is an exhibition of Chinese determination and the rail-road will reach Xigatse near Nepal by 2010 and maybe up to Kathmandu. The road infrastructure along the entire India-Tibet border has strategic implications for India in the context of an unresolved border. The Chinese aim to use their ‘soft’ economic power to reach our northeastern states, Chittagong and Myanmar through these trade links via Nathu la. The lateral roads from China into Pakistan and Myanmar, along with access to the ports in Pakistan, Myanmar and possibly Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are designed to put India in pincers.
It can be argued that these so-called threats are really challenges and every challenge can be an opportunity. Since it does not make economic sense that Chinese freight trains and trucks that come to the border should go back empty the opportunity will be with Indian entrepreneurs. That is perfectly rational if one side views this as purely an economic venture and the other is ready to exploit this. The answer to both is - no.
President Hu’s visit to India may be a part of the India-China friendship year but it is also part of a four-leg tour that includes Vietnam, Laos, and finally Pakistan where at least 20 agreements will be signed at a time when more and more Pakistanis seem virulently anti-American. One would expect the border issue, trade and Tibet would be discussed when the Chinese leader is in India. There are no quick solutions to the first because the Chinese do not seem to be in a hurry. But if the Chinese want a consulate in Calcutta then surely the least we can expect is one in Lhasa.
All this hoop-la about growing trade misses the point that the Chinese are flooding our consumer markets with manufactured goods (some quite shoddy), while taking away our raw materials like iron ore and steel for their growth industry. We need to correct this. Tibet is also more than just a territorial and emotive issue. It concerns Asia’s environment as well. The Indus, the Sutlej and the Brahmaputra originate in Tibet. Should the Chinese decide to divert the Brahmaputra to feed their arid north and generate some 40,000 mw of electricity, all of our northeastern states will become dry. A river water agreement with China is perhaps more urgent for India than a border settlement. This issue, along with improving the quality of life for all Indians, rather than being led into a steeplechase with China, should be some of our major concerns.
Source : Hindustan Times 13th Nov 2006
0 comments:
Post a Comment