Indo-China Relations: Power Play or Power Dilemma?

China-India Brief #102

Centre on Asia and Globalisation                                                             Published Twice a Month
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy                                                    September 27 – October 10, 2017                                     

India and China, two of the world’s oldest civilisations and simultaneous rising powers, are engaged in a geopolitical power-play. Competition between the two, however, is not inevitable and as past experience has shown, constructive engagement can bring great benefits to both sides. Both countries cooperated successfully, along with other members of the BRICS, to establish the New Development Bank. The India-China climate alliance was another example of bilateral cooperation for a mutually beneficial cause. Besides high-level engagements, people-to-people exchanges are also increasing with greater numbers of people from both sides visiting, working, and studying in the other’s country. Today, globalisation has brought the two neighbours closer together than at any other point in history. Yet, it has also made their relationship far more entangled and complex.

Both India and China are undergoing a process of power accumulation with the ultimate aim of re-establishing themselves as great powers within the international system. As contiguous neighbours, they will need each other’s help to fulfil their ambitions. However, their relationship continues to be marked by distrust. Many in India and China perceive their relationship as a zero-sum game, whereby strategic policies which serve the national interests of one are seen to be detrimental to the other.

We can analyse the power accumulation process in China and India by focusing on three aspects of power – political, economic, and military.

Political power largely comes from membership in powerful international organisations and groupings, such as the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), Group of 7 (G7), and voting rights in economic institutions including the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and strategic alliances. Permanent membership in the UNSC has also vested China with veto power. The Asian superpower has been economical in using this right, exercising it only 11 times since joining the UNSC in 1971. Yet, closer inspection of China’s behaviour reveals a more recent and disturbing trend – out of these 11 vetos, 10 were cast in the last twenty years between 1997 and 2017. This increasing willingness to exploit its political power to maximise its interests would undoubtedly make New Delhi more apprehensive of Beijing.

In 2016, India’s GDP was $2.264 trillion, a fraction of China’s, which stood at $11.199 trillion. Additionally, in 2016, China was rated as the world’s largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP) by both the IMF and World Bank. There is also a clear disparity in terms of defence spending as China allocated $151.43 billion in 2017 towards defence, compared to India’s allocation which was roughly one third of that at $53.5 billion. A comparison of their overall military strength shows that India would require substantial financial investment, technological upgrading, and administrative overhauling to catch up with China.
Click Below:
http://lkyspp2.nus.edu.sg/cag/publication/china-india-brief/china-india-brief-102

Indian professor in China explains how public libraries are benefiting Chinese society

They not only serve as 'knowledge depositories' for research, but also as centres for spreading knowledge.

What could be the best way to construct a better society? Imparting free education and opening the gates of learning centres to all. Libraries are repositories of knowledge, and as was argued by Francis Bacon centuries ago, knowledge is power.

The rise of China is not only about asserting its political and economic might, but more precisely in investing in knowledge-building. China's growing influence in the world has been marked by the spectacular performance of its universities in global rankings, a growing numbers of patents, and scientific research that has challenged hitherto Western-dominated domains of knowledge and social sciences by providing alternative concepts and theories.

Public libraries in China are serving not only as "knowledge depositories" for research, but also as centres for spreading knowledge across segments of society. Access to libraries is free and requires only an identity proof - passport for foreigners. A smart library card makes the reader's experiences convenient and hassle-free while enjoying the library's facilities. Membership is free and for life. For borrowing books, users need to deposit a security amount, which is refundable.

Compare this to any public library in India, where administrative hurdles seem designed to restrict the access to knowledge, historically a privilege for a few. For instance, to get a membership of the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial and Library, commonly known as Teen Murti Library, in New Delhi, you need identity cards (PAN card, Aadhaar card, official id, student id) and a reference letter from your institute, or prove that you are an independent researcher. You also need to pay for packaged membership options. To put it differently, common citizens are discouraged from accessing public libraries.

China has invested generously in its libraries, also taking care of the buildings' aesthetics - not just Chinese, but even reputable international architects are brought in to design library buildings.

Click here:https://www.dailyo.in/arts/public-libraries-china-india-knowledge-depositories-education-political-and-economic-might/story/1/19741.html

BILATERAL RELATIONS

Does the Doklam stand-off signal the beginning of the end of the Asian Century?

It has the potential to puncture the efforts of successive governments in both countries over the years.

The stand-off between Asian powerhouses India and China in the Doklam plateau has not only challenged the contours of a cordial bilateral relationship but, if not dealt with properly, may also signal the beginning of the end of the shared dream of the Asian Century.

After the Sino-Indian War of 1962, relations between both countries went into hibernation for 26 years, only to awaken when Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi visited China in December 1988. During that visit, Deng Xiaoping, one of the most powerful figures in China at that time, famously told Gandhi that “Only when China and India have developed will [emphasis added] a real Asian century emerge. I have high hopes and great optimism for the prospects of China-India relations!”.

And relations did improve. Over the next few years, India-China came close, among other things, to secure and defend the interests of developing countries at climate change negotiations. In 2006, the two emerging economies came together again, to set up the BRICS grouping along with similar economies – Brazil, Russia and South Africa. The establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank in 2014, and the New Development Bank under the aegis of BRICS in 2015, marked the beginning of a new era of the world economic order.

Despite the fact that the two countries shared an unsettled boundary and a trade-deficit favouring China, both countries were moving ahead in a synchronised manner to claim the leadership role in the promised “new world order”.

Prime Minister Modi in New Delhi and President Xi Jinping in Beijing seemed determined to further strengthen the bilateral relationship. Xi’s visit to India in September 2014 and Modi’s visit to China eight months later was viewed as cementing the bond between the two Asian giants. During Modi’s visit to China, the Chinese media and analysts saw “new hope” in India-China relations.

Click here for more : https://scroll.in/article/847471/does-the-doklam-stand-off-signal-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-asian-century

CHINA ONLINE

In China, social media is shaping the public discourse on Doklam stand-off

A peek into the discussions on Weibo and WeChat.

The border stand-off in Doklam has predictably animated discussions in mainstream and social media in both India and China. For the most part, commentators and social media users are busy bolstering their respective side’s position even if it means being economical with the facts.

China’s English media is well known for whipping up hysteria over India, but the Chinese language media, though far less bellicose, is not immune to it either.

Take Huanqiu Shibao, the mothership of the pugnacious Global Times. After Sushma Swaraj asserted that the world community was with New Delhi on the Doklam dispute and that both India and China must withdraw from the region to ease the tension, the paper, in an editorial, accused the Indian foreign minister of lying to her country because it was India that had illegally entered Chinese territory.

The paper also reminded India that its “inferior military strength” was no match to the People’s Liberation Army.

On July 7, Xinhua News ran an article “demystifying the truth” about the stand-off. It maintained, among other claims, that India has illegally entered Chinese territory on the pretext of protecting Bhutan. It lamented that New Delhi has made Doklam a disputed territory even though it has always belonged to China, referring to Thirty Six Stratagems, a set of Chinese military directives that lists “creating something out of nothing” as a key strategy of warfare. Further, the contentious road that Beijing is building in Doklam is within its own territory, the article asserted, so it cannot be a threat to India’s security.

Such articles, of course, omit or distort facts. For one, the Chinese media has not cared to inform its readers that China and Bhutan have signed agreements, in 1988 and 1998, to keep peace on the border until the boundary is settled for good. The two countries have also agreed to maintain the status quo on the border, including the Doklam plateau, as it existed before March 1959. In essence, the Chinese media should acknowledge that the region is disputed and give space to the opposing views as well.

Amplified on social media – including Weibo, the Chinese equivalent of Twitter which has over 340 million users, and WeChat, a sort of a hybrid of WhatsApp, Facebook and Paytm with close to 889 million users – the distorted views might come to dominate the discourse about India.

Click here for more : https://scroll.in/article/844795/in-china-social-media-is-shaping-the-public-discourse-on-doklam-stand-off

VIEW FROM CHINA

Murky signals: By focusing on China’s English media, Indian analysts are misreading Beijing

The bellicose Global Times editorial does not reflect Beijing’s thinking. Beware.

As the border stand-off in Doklam defies resolution, the Indian commentariat is increasingly analysing what appears in China’s English media, presumably for insights into Beijing’s thinking. It is a misguided enterprise.

Only about 1%-2% of the Chinese media is in English, and much of it peddles hypernationalism as a market strategy, not unlike a section of the Indian media. The Global Times, for one, spews venom against India the same way as Times Now does against Pakistan. Unsurprisingly then, most of the so-called experts who populate the columns of the Global Times carry little heft, intellectual or political.

Since reputed Chinese scholars publish mostly in their own language, they are not read widely across the border.

Instead, commentators in India overanalyse bellicose articles threatening to “teach a lesson” and “reconsider China’s policy on Sikkim”; retorting, in a dig at Army chief Bipin Rawat’s remark that India was ready to fight a “two and a half front war”, that the “Chinese look down upon their military power”; or warning that a “third country can enter Kashmir” on Pakistan’s request.

By giving undue importance to such articles by amateur scholars – merely because they write in English – India’s strategic experts and policy advisers enable them to influence New Delhi’s China policy.

Falling for the trap

If Indian scholars could look beyond the inflammatory editorials in the Global Times, they would realise that the Chinese media’s coverage of India has changed for the better. Save for Huanqiu Shibao, the Mandarin edition of the Global Times, the Chinese language media perceives India positively.

Last week, People’s Daily, the Communist Party newspaper, republished its editorial of September 22, 1962 to remind India of the “bitter lesson” of the 1962 India-China war and warn that China would inflict “greater losses than 1962”. It was, however, soon withdrawn. The Chinese edition of the daily did not carry the editorial, or even a report on the Doklam stand-off that day.

The state news agency Xinhua carried an English commentary asking India “to rectify its mistakes and show sincerity to avoid an even more serious situation creating more significant consequences”.

It appears the psychological war launched by China’s English media is solely intended to invite counter attacks from the Indian media. It is working rather well, if the coverage of the stand-off by TV news channels and Hindi newspapers is any evidence. This “media war” only serves to deepen the common Indian’s negative perception of China, and vice-versa. Young Chinese hold little or no antipathy towards India, but the hysteria over the Doklam stand-off could have them reorder their list of the most hated nations..................................

Click Here :

https://scroll.in/article/844158/picking-up-the-wrong-signals-by-focusing-on-its-english-media-indian-analysts-misread-china

How Can China Convince India to Sign Up for 'One Belt, One Road'?

New Delhi has its concerns with OBOR. Are they entirely insurmountable?

India, for various reasons, known and unknown, is reluctant to join China’s ‘One Belt, One Road’ (OBOR) Initiative. In the beginning, Chinese media and academics were advising India to join this ambitious project in re-connecting and sharing the benefits of China’s development with the world arguing that it can profoundly help India to transform its infrastructure and achieve domestic developmental goals.

Recently, Chinese academics and media, especially the English daily Global Times, have shifted their stance from attracting to petrifying India, insinuating that if it does not join the OBOR, it’s likely that New Delhi will be isolated as many countries around the world are supporting and joining the OBOR. The reasons put forward are that India’s friends, Russia and Iran are interested in joining the initiative; as are India’s neighbours, Nepal, and Sri Lanka which have enthusiastically supported the OBOR.

In the case of the Global Times, it’s worth recalling the Lowy Institute’s Peter Cai’s observation that “any discussion of editorial positions which in the end lack real substance and are not the voice of government.” Moreover, some Chinese scholars consider its nationalist strategy as nothing but gimmick to stay in the business. Global Times, nevertheless, read widely inside and outside mainland China, does reflect part of the range of the policy discourse in China....

Click here :https://thediplomat.com/2017/05/how-can-china-convince-india-to-sign-up-for-one-belt-one-road/

Paris Agreement: Triumph for Developed, Compromise for Developing Nations

The world gathered at Paris to protect the lives on the earth. The esteemed gathering was attended by the leaders of developed nations and small and developing nations, more prone to the ramifications of climate change. This was the 21^st meeting of Conference of Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and France was confident to help the world to combat climate change. The governments of the world signed a historic agreement on climate change in Paris at COP21 by enacting a universal and binding agreement to reduce the green house gases (GHGs) in post Kyoto-space of 2020.

            The Kyoto Protocol[1] was signed on December 11, 1997 and ratified by all parties to UNFCCC except Andorra, Canada, South Sudan and the US. The most vocal and assertive advocates of climate change, the US and Canada[2] are not parties to the Kyoto Protocol. The US was assigned six per cent reduction relative to the 1990 level under the Kyoto regime. The Kyoto Protocol assigns ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ to countries based on their economical growth categorized under non-annex parties without any targets to reduce GHGs. 

The tragedy of climate change politics was that though it necessitated common efforts to ensure reduction in GHGs; countries, both developed and developing, begin to engage bilaterally rather than committing multilaterally. Non-annex parties were not ready for reduction of GHGs, which is the historical responsibility of ‘stocked nations. Developed nations, less prone to impacts of climate change and better equipped to mitigate the ramifications, hold developing nations responsible for climate change.  

Since 1997 Kyoto protocol, the world has experienced tremendous transformations and so the conditions of countries have changed. Some have figured well in Human Development Report of United Nations Development Programme, a few are in a transition period and a few are still floating in the same condition. Countries transforming their economies and stepping up growth rate, mostly developing countries, eventually increased carbon emissions. China (22.3%) and India (5.1%) became the biggest emitter and the fourth biggest emitter of GHGs, respectively, in 2011. Nonetheless, in per capita emissions, India was the 10^th largest emitter while China was the seventh largest emitter of GHGS. But these two countries were targeted by developed nations to reduce emissions and compromise with their development – an antidote for ramifications of climate change. Eventually, both India and China formed an alliance together with South Africa and Brazil, BASIC, to secure the interests of developing countries in climate change negotiations at UNFCCC and preserve and maintain the ‘common but differentiated responsibility’ clause of UNFCCC. But developed nations constantly tried to weaken the alliance, and sometimes they succeeded too.    

  The second commitment period of Kyoto Protocol will expire in 2020.[3] The leaders sat again to formulate a legally binding agreement to curb the emission of GHGs in Paris in the post Kyoto-space. At the Paris Summit, leaders of the world agreed to ‘Nationally Determined Contributions’ (NDC) to ‘keep global temperature rise in this century well below 2 degrees Celsius and to drive efforts to limit temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels’. This is the first time when all countries, irrespective of their contribution to ‘stocking the GHGs’, have been brought into the ambit of the global climate change regime to reduce emissions. This is a welcome step in combating climate change, and France, together with developed nations, succeeded in its approach to include all nations, which were left out in the Kyoto Protocol. The Paris agreement though accepted the ‘common but differentiated’ responsibilities of the nations, but diluted the original mandate of Kyoto whereby developed nations had legally assigned quota for emission reductions. Thus, developed nations will be at their will to fix the quota for reductions.

The agreement sets two time frames to set nationally determined contribution. First, a time frame up to 2025 to communicate by 2020 a new nationally determined contribution by agreed parties. Second, a time frame up to 2030 to communicate or update by 2020 these contributions.

The global climate change regime is moving backward from global regime to bilateral arrangements. The voluntary reduction target of ‘bilateral arrangement’ is echoing in the Paris agreement. Developed nations have tricked developing countries to enter into a universal legal agreement without defined targets of reductions for them. This serves two purposes for developed nations. First, they are without any legally binding reduction target. Secondly, the developed nations will compel developing countries to set a target for reductions and could deploy subtle means of coercion. The Paris agreement, for the time being, also served the interests of developing countries. Firstly, they are not assigned to any legally binding reduction target. Secondly, the agreement accepts that parties are free to set their targets in the ‘light of their national circumstances’. But the agreement makes crystal clear that Parties should “strive to include all categories of anthropogenic emissions or removals in their nationally determined contributions and, once a source, sink or activity is included, (they would) continue to include it (emphasis added).”

Both India and China were instrumental in including the provision of ‘common but differentiated’ responsibilities in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreement and thwarted the attempt of developed countries to set ‘universal legal binding reduction targets’ of emissions. In fact, India and China are the torch bearers for “nationally determined contributions” by voluntarily announcing to reduce their carbon intensity ahead of Copenhagen Conference of UNFCCC, 2009. India announced 20-25 per cent carbon emission intensity cuts by 2020 on the 2005 levels, while China proposed to reduce by 40-45 per cent the intensity of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 2020 compared to the level of 2005. Leaders of both countries, though, have welcomed the outcome at Paris and hailed it as a historic agreement, the developing countries have failed to set a legally binding reduction target for developed countries. The ‘nationally determined contributions’ are originally meant to bring the developing countries to commit for emission reductions based on their national circumstances. The US, which never conceded for reduction target set by Kyoto and even did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, happily agreed for NDC provisions as the US doesn’t want to commit reduction target under the global climate regime.

The divisive climate politics of developed nations, engaged in favouring ‘bilateral commitment’, has already weakened the India-China climate alliance. The US-China Climate agreement sets bilateral target for combating the ramifications of climate change. At bilateral negations table, the US can easily convince the other party to enter into an agreement to reduce the emissions. India could not commit to high target of reduction as China because India has a young population and it will continue to grow till 2050 when its urban transition and industrialization will be almost complete and its annual emissions would stabilise. Unlike India, China is in the last leg of urbanization and at the height of industrialization. 

The Paris agreement, though hailed as a historic climate deal, fails to penalise the offenders of its provisions. The biggest beneficiaries of the agreement are developed nations, which have been set free from the provisions of the Kyoto protocol and, now, they are without any legal target of reductions. The agreement though includes the notion of ‘climate justice’, but only some aspects.  Another disappointing provision of the agreement is promoting non-market approaches to assist in the implementation of their nationally determined contributions. Kyoto Protocol’s market based approach supported developing nations to promote sustainable development, with the help of certified emission traded in carbon market. The agreement, though support sustainable development and poverty eradication and thereby calls to “continue their existing collective mobilization goal through 2025 in the context of meaningful mitigation actions, (which) shall set a new collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per year, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries.”

Overall, the Paris agreement is a diplomatic triumph for developed nations’ climate diplomacy, and not a total defeat, but ‘compromised solutions’ for developing countries. It would have been a victory for developing countries, provided the agreement included ‘defined reduction targets’ for developed nations and ‘nationally defined contributions’ for developing countries. The post Paris-space definitely opts for ‘universal defined legal reduction targets’, thereby abolishing the ‘common but differentiated responsibility’ principle of UNFCCC.

                   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

[1] The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005. The detailed rules for the implementation of the Protocol were adopted at COP 7 in Marrakesh, Morocco, in 2001, and are referred to as the "Marrakesh Accords." Its first commitment period started in 2008 and ended in 2012.

[2] Canada withdrew from Kyoto protocol in 2011.

[3] In Doha, Qatar, on 8 December 2012, the "Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol" was adopted and agreed on the Second commitment period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2020. 

Indian Dream: Empowered Individual, Inclusive and Prosperous Society and World's Guru

The Annual General meeting of UN General Assembly in USA, this year is sparking an unequal comparison between NARENDRA MODI, Prime Minister of India and XI JINPING, President of China about who has got more media coverage and how success were their visits. One thing being clear, Xi was on state visit to USA and participate in UNGA while Modi only to participate in UNGA meeting. So no comparison of media coverage, as state guest should be covered by national media. Other things being equal, Xi had lady's luck, Peng Liyuan was commanding the another frontier of diplomacy. But among other participants at UNGA, Modi was truly a star. 

Now the facts, MODI was invited to FACEBOOK HQ, both Modi and Zuckerberg were giving 'jhappi' of digital India and internet.org respectively. Why not Xi at Facebook HQ then ? Laughable indeed. Facebook is ban in China. For good or bad. Good for Chinese to innovate indigenously. China has own MADE IN CHINA avatars of Facebook and Twitter. Interestingly, PM Modi is a member of weibo, Chinese version of Twitter. Chinese social media, such as We Chat, Weibo, QQ and  e-retail giant Alibaba are becoming global. Why not to Google ? We can proudly say that an Indian is a CEO of Google. Google has Chinese brothers, BAIDU and SINA, which both have Chinese CEOs and importantly are Chinese Companies. The fact of matter is India is craving for foreign companies to make in India. Chinese companies are going global. Weibo and We Chat are not restricted to Chinese only. To make in India in the truest sense, Sundar Pichai, Satya Dahl and others need to establish companies in INDIA. Make in India, Make for India. PM Modi went to bring business, promote make in India and digital India. The story of China's success can be emulated. CHINA also brought money and technology from USA, what is termed as reverse or stolen technology. The close market of China and language barrier invariably encouraged the home companies to invest and innovate. 

Chinese think differently. Chinese babus in Foreign Affairs Ministry, planned Xi's visit to USA as state visit. One visit serves two purposes. Xi as state guest enjoyed the delicacies of White House and then gave lecture to world leaders at UN. Xi announced to increase peacekeeping forces and pledge to build $1 billion UN Peace Fund. Xi also launched the China South-South Climate Cooperation Fund of $3.1 billion to help developing countries to fight climate change. Off course, India will get its due share from this. 

Ironically, departure of China from India-China Climate Alliance is a diplomatic failure of India Climate Diplomacy. USA together with other developed nations have successfully dent into Great Wall of Climate Alliance. Now China will sit together with 'stocked nations' on the other side of the table at Climate Negotiations  at UNCCC in Paris to formulate policies. The mounting pressure of developed nations on India and other developing nations to do away with 'common but differentiated' principle and accept 'common emission cut' undoubtedly hamper development ambitions of India. 

No doubt, China in the past decade, has taken a great leap both in economies and international politics. The structural differences between India and China have heightened. China is rising while India is developing. While China is acting, India is talking. China is dethroning America from Super Power, India is begging for United Nations Security Council membership. No one make you 'panch' (judge) even in villages, when you are weak and poor. When one-third of population is illiterate, farmers are committing suicide, poor are sleeping on pavements, children begging on traffic signals, claim to elite club of UN looks distant and unjustified. One can asserts that being largest democracy, we are entitled to be a member of the Security Council. Our own house is not in proper order. Women are not proportionally represented in Parliment or state legislative bodies. Members of lower strata of societies have not adequate share in executives, legislative and judiciary. How come we claim to be represented in world body when we have not provided representation to our own people. These facts are omnipresent. No hide and seek. 

India, to re-establish as World's Guru needs to enlighten its own people, as Buddha did, before going abroad. The enlightenment of education, equality and employment. Unless the dream of common man is not fulfilled, India's dream will be hard to realise. India's dream is not inclusive of dreams of its people. The inclusiveness of society would succeed the arrival of India as super power.

Prime Minster Modi in China: What Beijing can Offer

Mr. Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India is visiting China from May 14-16,  2015. After astonishing and spirited visit of Mr. Xi Jinping to India in last year September, this again is a golden opportunity for both leaders to exploit their personal chemistry to coagulate and deepen the mutual trust and postulate an era of strategic partnership.          

Charismatic personality and cordial environment at home, Mr. Modi’s China visit is set to herald an new era of engagement with China, provided Beijing stimulate the process by diplomatic and political pliability. Bhartiaya Janta Party (BJP) hitherto objected to previous government’s policy toward engaging with China. Now at Centre with absolute majority in lower house of the parliament, BJP led by Mr. Modi has determination to change existing foreign policies as evident from his proactive and fast diplomacy. 

Therefore, when Modi visits China, India has certain expectations from China which if fulfilled will go long way in defining China-India relations in the history.

First, China being a permanent member of United Nations Security Council should explicitly and enthusiastically support India’s membership to UNSC. It will not only boost the trust level between the two countries but gives an honourable gesture in Indian masses about Chinese support. The reason is with the re-structuring of UNSC, India is bound to become a permanent member and if China could not come openly in support of India’s claim to UNSC permanent membership sooner, China will lose a golden opportunity to win the hearts of millions of Indians and illustrate, thereby a major failure of Chinese diplomacy. 

Second, China should not use territory claims as deterrence to India’s policy toward China. Let special representative for boundary disputes peacefully functions and suggests some measures to settle the disputes. Frequent territory claims by China only hamper its credibility and intentions to solve the boundary disputes. The claims are only exploited by hawkish strategic thinkers in both countries and ‘news crazy media’-jeopardising any engagement with China. Chinese ancient strategies choice of creating something out of nothing is not appropriate when two countriesare normalising   bilateral relations and progressing toward strategic partnership.

Third, China should take India into confidence and alleviate India’s hesitations toward Xi’s ambitious plan ‘One Belt One Road’. Taken into confidence India can be a good partner in China’s efforts in building Asia and Asian century. As for instance, India is a founding member of Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). China could not afford to let India a major player in the region to opt out from ‘One Belt One Road’ initiative.

Fourth, China has signed a climate change deal with USA in November last year. Although, the agreement has no binding clause but does weaken the existing Sino-India alliance on climate change. India could not afford to sign such agreement with USA and its developmental goal has yet to be achieved. China, though has realised the full industrialisation and expected to fully urbanized by 2020, Chinese economy still has not migrated fully to green economy. Therefore, it’s inevitable for China to align with India at COP21 at Paris to secure the interests of developing nations. China, thus explicitly state that Beijing will not bandwagon with developed nations to compromise the interests of developing nations at Paris when the world leaders sit to discuss the climate change.

Last, China being an upper riparian country in the case of Brahmaputra River, can propose the establishment of a Brahmaputra River Commission with India and Bangladesh as members for sustainable and inclusive development of the river basin. The Brahmaputra River Commission among other things will share data about flow of water and any constructions on the river by any country to demonstrate the transparency. In addition, the BRC will alleviate the anxieties of lower riparian countries about damming the Brahmaputra but also illustrates the responsible image of rising China. Apparently, China has to act as a rising power to reduce the apprehensions of her neighbors and confided with other major powers of the regions if Beijing wants its path to be SILK(y) in accomplishing the status of great power.    

Talking Points: Indian and Chinese Way of Interactions

In China, people discuses everything under the sky except politics. Social gathering is meant to eat, drink and talk anything but politics. The common topic for discussion is food, TV Serials, Novels, Movies, etc. People travel to distant places to eat the specialty of the region. And the standard Chinese language Putong Hua 普通话 ensures the smooth dialogue with local peoples. Being an Indian, feel awkward when no body talk politics in train journey. It can be rightly inferred that Beijing has engaged or provided people other avenues to divert attention from politics.

People in India talk nothing under the sky but politics, whether they are on tea stall or any social gathering. Common peoples have not traveled out of their village except now in the search of jobs. Youth at most travel from their home town to the city of school or University. Domestic travel is negligible and so our understanding of cultures of different regions. The only  thing that links different regions and peoples in India is Politics, common topic for chat.

Thus, people in India have engrossed themselves so much in politics or its politics to engross people in politics that they forgot everything.

In both the cases, peoples have been deprived of , either hard way or soft way, a healthy society.

Make for India: Learn from China

My Chinese friends always praise that  Indian IT is very good but also ask do you have 'we chat 微信', 微博 Wei Bo' , ren ren 人人，QQ”， like this in India. And the reply,  we have " Facebook , Whatsapp, Skype and Twitter". But these are American social sites, surprised Chinese friends ask again.

Well, though IT in India had progressed a lot we have not built indigenous social sites. We Indians trust American, built software program for a fee and rely on them. Even Koreans have 'kakao talk' for calling. Former  Soviet Union territories uses VK.

In China, every university has it's own presence on we chat and other social sites, even the departments have their own. In India many universities still don't have working websites, presence on social sites are still far away.

Payment services like Alipay  支付宝、 微信钱包 We chat Wallet  is easy and convenient. They are in the process of going global and challenging western payment services like PayPal,  etc.

And we still say, Indian IT is superb. Yes, it is but we work for America. Hope 'Make in India' also begins the era for 'Make for India'.

A Brief Content Analysis of the Sunday Edition (14th December 2014) of The Hindu (Delhi Edition) and People’s Daily (人民日报, Chinese Version).

Cover page of both the Hindu and People’s Daily highlights the important national news. Where terrorism related news draw attention in today’s Hindu, the Nanjing Massacre is the focus of People Daily. A sensitive issue in China-Japan relations, Nanjing Massacre and a visit to Yasukuni Shrine by any Japanese politicians, is repeatedly written and telecast by Chinese Print and Television.

If one carefully assesses the distribution of news in the Hindu, will be surprised to see that there is no coverage of North-East region under any heading. People’s Daily consider to be mouth piece of Communist Party of China, have edge over the Hindu in the sense that it does not divide news in region-wise and ignore some regions in the news covering.

It also strikes to mind that the Hindu being a left and poor oriented newspaper in India has no exclusive page on rural life. A very impressive feature of People’s Daily is coverage of social and agricultural transformation and environmental awareness in the villages. The Hindu ironically, has four pages covering City only.

Another striking feature of People’s Daily is weekly page on defence which brings forth the various aspects of the life and work of defence personnel, thereby educating civilians on these issues.

Both the newspapers are left oriented.  However, it is argued that the Hindu has more editorial freedom over news selection than the People’s Daily. Nevertheless,   it can be contended as this freedom is not reflected in its news coverage.

1.      The Hindu has 18 pages with extra 4 pages of Sunday Magazine while People’s Daily has altogether 12 pages.

2.      Besides the cover page, The Hindu dedicates three pages to city news ‘City’ (p.2 and 3), City/NCR (p.4) focusing on Delhi and NCR.  The fifth page covers ‘State’ where again focus is on Delhi exclusively. Subsequent pages bring news region-wise: Northern (p.8), Southern (p.9) National (p. 11) and again mix news under ‘News’ (p.10) heading. International News (p.14) is regular feature.  Whereas People’s Daily covers news under Important News (要闻) (page 2,3,4) and International News (p.7).

3.      The Hindu has regular pages on Business (15) and Sports (p. 16-17).

4.      The Hindu has special ‘Sunday Anchor’ (p.12), Open Page (p. 13), Variety (p. 18) and also have special ‘Sunday Magazine’(4 pages) : covering different perspectives like art and culture, talking points on everyday lives and food. People’s Daily has special features on (Party) Theory (p.5), Defence (p.6), Holiday Life/Travel (p.8), New Village Weekly (p.9) , New Village (p.10-11), and one regular page  ‘Supplement’ (p.12).

5.      The Hindu has Classified Pages (p.7-8) for Matrimonial and other advertisements; People’s Daily prints no such page.

            …………………………………………………………………….

  

Deciphering the aims of Zangmu power project on the Brahmaputra River

Abstract: Does run-off-the river power project serve the Chinese interests?  The answer is negative. Although, China does require electricity but water is essential.  There are five dams under construction, for time being on middle reaches not to exclusively generate the electricity but to store the water and then channelize the water to northern regions through western route of South-North Water Diversion Project.

  ……………………………………………………….

Dr. Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister of India assured the Rajya Sabha on ongoing construction of dams on the Brahmaputra River that it is a run-of-the-river project, intervening in the reply to a question addressed to the external affairs minister. He also sought to put to rest the controversy and said ‘unnecessary provocation’ on either side can hurt the relations between the two countries. There is no doubt that this shows maturity of Indian strategic thinking to construct ‘sustainable confidence’ and boost up the Indo-China relations. But at the same time, it also suggests the failure of Indian diplomacy and reminds us of consequences of blind trust in Chinese dragon. Chinese assurances on the issue of staple visa have fallen flat. India, therefore must not acknowledge Chinese assurance without having credible and authentic information about the ongoing project.

Zangmu Power Project, compromises a series of five dams namely Dhongzhong, Guoduo, Xiangda, Ruxi and Linchang, which will be constructed on the middle reaches of the main stream and would have installed capacity of 510MW. 

Being upper riparian, China has to take into confidence the lower riparian countries, India and Bangladesh, before going ahead with the proposed project.  But Beijing unilaterally chose to construct a series of dam on middle reaches of the river to produce electricity to develop the ‘occupied’ region of Tibet.  Nonetheless, the project will have devastating effect on Tibetan ecology.

China is in dire need of water for its thirsty northern region and to fulfil its developmental goals. Further, it desperately seeks to solve the siltation problem of the Three Georges Dam and more water from the south i.e. diversion of water through its South-North Water transfer project will definitely ease the crisis.  Earlier it was believed that damming the Brahmaputra River on the Great Bend near Namcha- Barwa will easily divert the water to northern regions of China. However, technical difficulties and ecological ramifications were much higher than anticipated.

Brahmaputra is a trans-boundary river. Damming her could have international dimensions. It could trigger ‘limited confrontation’ with lower riparian countries, India and Bangladesh.  Beijing is not in position to hamper relations with its neighbours as it is imperative for peaceful rise of China.

Survival is primacy concern for any nation-state and interest changes according to circumstances.  China needs water but at minimum cost. China thus slightly modified, for time being, it’s previous plan of South-North Water transfer Project and have put a little less complicated plan to dam the Brahmaputra River by constructing a series of dam instead of diverting the whole water flow towards northern regions by changing the path of river at the Great Bend. It serves twin objectives for Beijing.  Firstly, a small hydro project minimises the concerns of lower riparian countries by claiming that it is meant for electricity generation and it is run-off project. And here Indian strategists failed to understand the hidden objectives of

China and once again affirmed the faith in her giant neighbour.  Secondly, Zangmu Power project will provide water to its northern regions. Does run-off-the river power project serve the Chinese interests?  The answer is negative. Although, China does require electricity but water is essential.  There are five dams under construction, for time being on middle reaches not to exclusively generate the electricity but to store the water and then channelize the water to northern regions through western route of South-North Water Diversion Project.   

India once again has not learnt from the past experiences and has affirmed faith in Chinese assurances. India must explore all the possible ramifications of Zangmu Power project before giving green signal to the project and not endanger her own national interests for the sake of a so called ‘responsible and peaceful neighbour’.

India, with Bangladesh must raise the issue at highest political level with Chinese authority to secure their legitimate rights to water as lower riparian states. Any further delay and misapprehending the gravity of the situations will impede the national interests of both India and Bangladesh and simultaneously suggest the lack of strategic thinking in the Indian establishment.

China, on its part, must invite Indian and Bangladeshi empowered delegation for friendly visit (say inspection) to ongoing construction site of Zangmu power project.  It serves two purposes for Beijing. Firstly, a visit to the site will confirm that China is indeed not undermining the legitimate rights of lower riparian and the project is just a run-off-river project and put to rest any trepidation on the ongoing project in India and Bangladesh. Secondly, it will further enhance the Chinese image at world level and in neighbourhood as a responsible actor.  (published on Watershed: http://www.watershed.com.br/article/228/deciphering-the-aims-of-zangmu-power-project-on-the-brahmaputra-river.aspx)

“Water pact will ease fears over Tibet Dam”

Published: South China Morning Post Hong Kong, December 22, 2010.

DAMMING THE BRAHMAPUTRA: SETBACK TO SOUTH ASIAN STABILITY?

A series of confrontations have intensified the rift between India and China; the issue of visa to certain Indian citizens, assisting Pakistan in construction developments in Pakistan occupied Kashmir etc. The news of damming the Brahmaputra River (Yarlung Tsanspo) further deepens the ‘trust deficit’ between the two countries. SM Krishna, External Affairs Minister of India’s visit to Beijing in the month of April was an attempt to smooth out the relationship and build confidence; however, no significant progress was made.

Any attempt by China therefore, to construct a dam on the Brahmaputra would only further deepen the crisis.  The National Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA) has confirmed that China is constructing a dam on its side of the Brahmaputra River. Earlier, Beijing used to instantly and sharply react to the reports and categorically reject any claims of a dam being constructed on the Brahmaputra.  This time, however Yang Jiechi, the Chinese Foreign Minister, assured SM Krishna that the hydel project at Zangmu will not affect the natural flow in the Brahmaputra River (Business Standard, 22 April 2010). 

A satellite image from Geoeye, a company involved in satellite photography, confirmed that a dam is being constructed on the Brahmaputra River. The proposed hydel project, Zangmu Power Project, compromises a series of five dams namely Dhongzhong, Guoduo, Xiangda, Ruxi and Linchang, which will be constructed on the middle reaches of the main stream and would have installed capacity of 510MW. 

The Brahmaputra is a major river of South Asia and has substantial significance in India and Bangladesh. Brahmaputra water accounts for nearly 30% of the total water resources and about 40% of the total hydropower potential of India. For Bangladesh, the River is even more crucial as it provides for fresh water and the annual gift of the fertile silt for farming. The river therefore, is trans-national in nature and any attempt to obstruct its natural flow would have an international dimension. 

China nevertheless, has its own ambitious plan to divert by damming the river at the Great Bend, the river water to its thirsty North through the western route of South-North Water Transfers Project. Ironically, the plan has less benefits and more harm for Beijing. It is a potential threat to the peace and security of the region. First, the diversion of water will destabilize the biodiversity of the area. Other environmental consequences of the project are much higher than the gains. Moreover, the failure of Three Gorges Dam in preventing floods questions the viability of the plan; 273 people have died in this month's flooding, destroyed 330,000 homes and dislocated tens of thousands of residents.

Second, the northeast regions of India are largely dependant on the Brahmaputra River for the livelihood of the habitants. Large scale diversion of water would adversely hit the economy and affect the surface water table. Shortage of water in the main stream would adversely hit fisheries, navigations, hydropower etc. Preventing natural flow in the river creates silting problems which badly affects the agriculture. Third, the strategic location of very dam, at Namcha Barawa, undermines the security of India. China can use the dam as a military asset, in the event of war, to divert the ‘stored’ water towards India causing great disaster in the region. 

Fourth, diverting the river will create a manmade disaster in Bangladesh. Bangladesh will experience water crisis and agriculture production will substantially drop to create a food crisis which will force millions of people to migrate towards India. India is wary of this, as it is suffering from the same problems.

To protect the interests and sovereignty of India, it becomes essential for India to engage in dialogue with China on the issue. Even China, if it intends to normalize her relations with India and seeks peace and security in the regions, has to give proper considerations to the lower riparian. Unilateral advancement on the part of China leads to political confrontation in the region. A confrontation will further hinder the relationship.    

It would impede, to a great extent, China’s position in South and Southeast Asia and even in world politics, as turmoil in the neighborhood would thwart the economic and political development of China. China, to achieve its great power dream, needs a peaceful neighbourhood and harmonious relations with her neighbours.  Moreover, any conflict in the region will not remain confined to belligerent states, i.e. involvement of the global players cannot be denied. Even growing environmental awareness among Chinese civil society and masses, as seen in the cases of the Three Gorges Dam, recent series of jolts of earthquake, frequent floods etc. pressurize Beijing to rethink the strategic move.    

Countries of the Brahmaputra basin, China, India and Bangladesh must opt for joint river management for sustainable development of the basin and combat the ‘climatic cataclysm’ in the Himalayan region as well as enact legally binding agreements for sharing water resources and development of the economic potentials of the river. 
Published on IPCS, 12 August 2010
http://www.ipcs.org/article/china/damming-the-brahmaputra-setback-to-south-asian-stability-3211.html