Thought experiment on India & China relationship

[Ginvincible]

Was chatting with a friend of mine and we were theory crafting a world where the relationship between India and China could change/improve and what that would mean for the greater strategic calculus of both nations and others.

Suspend your disbelief for this scenario and let's have a thought experiment.

Imagine that India and China are able to negotiate a border agreement, and both are committed to faithfully honoring it.

Let's say it goes something like:


1. LAC is finalized as the current recognized border give or take a few kms here or there. Some ancient treaty or new national mythos can be used to justify this and satisfy both China's desire to rectify the 'century of humiliation' and India's hangups over inheriting treaties from the British Raj. Basically, both sides are happy enough with the arrangement and both can save face.

2. Both agree to a demilitarized zone say ~50km on either side of the border. Both agree to limit any deployed forces in the region to regular police, border checkpoints and SAR teams.

3. Any infrastructure in the region (existing and in progress) should be re-prioritized towards civilian use. All future infrastructure projects in the regions should be aimed at civilian use.

4. China won't recognize who has what sovereignty over J&K between India and Pakistan, only the territorial limits of its own western borders wrt India/Pakistan. Likewise, India doesn't recognize Chinese claims in the SCS or further claims in Central Asia.

5. We'll throw in some economic benefits to sweeten the treaty. Say some trade deals, easier border access for religious pilgrims to cross on both sides, maybe some joint investment for hotels/resorts/research stations. Perhaps a treaty on water sharing and limits.


Assume something like this happens within the next year. How would this change India's strategic calculus and defense priorities? Likewise for China. How would this change the outlook of the US and western nations knowing there is no longer a territorial disupute between India and China?

 

[Parthu]

Was chatting with a friend of mine and we were theory crafting a world where the relationship between India and China could change/improve and what that would mean for the greater strategic calculus of both nations and others.

Suspend your disbelief for this scenario and let's have a thought experiment.

Imagine that India and China are able to negotiate a border agreement, and both are committed to faithfully honoring it.

Let's say it goes something like:


1. LAC is finalized as the current recognized border give or take a few kms here or there. Some ancient treaty or new national mythos can be used to justify this and satisfy both China's desire to rectify the 'century of humiliation' and India's hangups over inheriting treaties from the British Raj. Basically, both sides are happy enough with the arrangement and both can save face.

2. Both agree to a demilitarized zone say ~50km on either side of the border. Both agree to limit any deployed forces in the region to regular police, border checkpoints and SAR teams.

3. Any infrastructure in the region (existing and in progress) should be re-prioritized towards civilian use. All future infrastructure projects in the regions should be aimed at civilian use.

4. China won't recognize who has what sovereignty over J&K between India and Pakistan, only the territorial limits of its own western borders wrt India/Pakistan. Likewise, India doesn't recognize Chinese claims in the SCS or further claims in Central Asia.

5. We'll throw in some economic benefits to sweeten the treaty. Say some trade deals, easier border access for religious pilgrims to cross on both sides, maybe some joint investment for hotels/resorts/research stations. Perhaps a treaty on water sharing and limits.


Assume something like this happens within the next year. How would this change India's strategic calculus and defense priorities? Likewise for China. How would this change the outlook of the US and western nations knowing there is no longer a territorial disupute between India and China?

Obviously it would allow India to refocus most of our strategic thought back onto Pakistan, and maybe divert some forces that went to LAC back toward LoC/WB/IB on Western borders.

But other than that, I doubt much will change. Because it won't just be about what they're saying/doing now - it's about what they've said & done in the past as well. And about what they're CAPABLE of doing. You only need to look toward the way relations between Russia & the US evolved post Soviet collapse till date.

We might shake a few hands here & there but end of the day, China remains a nuclear power that's sitting on Tibet - a region that controls most of the river water that irrigates the Indo-Gangetic plain, the heartland of Indian civilization. We cannot afford to not hold any cards against them - in the event things change in the future.

It's the nature of Great Power politics. There's no lasting peace - not as long as one of the two remains a coherent nation state.

Your scenario would have opened up a somewhat bigger book of worms if you introduced another variable in your thought experiment: a Free Tibet that acts as a buffer state between the two powers. The entirety of which shall be a DMZ.

 

[Gautam]

Suspend your disbelief for this scenario

I am really struggling with this. Allow me to vent a little.

LAC is finalized as the current recognized border give or take a few kms here or there. Some ancient treaty or new national mythos can be used to justify this and satisfy both China's desire to rectify the 'century of humiliation' and India's hangups over inheriting treaties from the British Raj. Basically, both sides are happy enough with the arrangement and both can save face.

A few kms here & there can cause massive shits in tactical advantages in such a mountainous terrain. There are many areas across the LAC where we hold major advantages & vice versa. In a low trust environment, I doubt anybody is going to concede anything.

2. Both agree to a demilitarized zone say ~50km on either side of the border. Both agree to limit any deployed forces in the region to regular police, border checkpoints and SAR teams.

Such an arrangement exists today. Troops of both sides are required not to carry weapons to the LAC. And yet deadly clashes happen. Yet another arrangement will achieve nothing new.

3. Any infrastructure in the region (existing and in progress) should be re-prioritized towards civilian use. All future infrastructure projects in the regions should be aimed at civilian use.

All infra along the border, on our side at least, are dual use in nature. The bridge across the Brahmaputra can carry both tanks & cars. The recently opened Sela tunnel for example is open to public & is also used by the military. Again, such an agreement will achieve nothing new.

4. China won't recognize who has what sovereignty over J&K between India and Pakistan, only the territorial limits of its own western borders wrt India/Pakistan. Likewise, India doesn't recognize Chinese claims in the SCS or further claims in Central Asia.

China was "gifted" a part of the J&K by Pakistan. If they de-recognized Pakistan's sovereignty over J&K then legally they would need to move out. I don't see that happening.

India doesn't recognize Chinese claims in the SCS & Central Asia anyway.

5. We'll throw in some economic benefits to sweeten the treaty. Say some trade deals, easier border access for religious pilgrims to cross on both sides, maybe some joint investment for hotels/resorts/research stations. Perhaps a treaty on water sharing and limits.

After the US, India probably runs the highest current account deficit in the world. India can become a very large market for Chinese goods, even bigger than what it is now. This will come at the cost of our own industry. Unlike the European or American companies, the Chinese refuse to hire local staff &/or get local companies to do contracting for them. Companies like Oppo & Vivo have large markets in India but they have only recently started to get local contractors. This too is only happening because ED keeps harassing these companies. Buck for buck, European or American companies add a lot more value to the local economy & are a lot more respectful of local laws than the Chinese. I struggle to find what exactly is so sweet about trading with the Chinese.

About religious pilgrimage the less said the better. To expect commies to respect our religious sentiments is just silly.

Treaty on water sharing is frankly unnecessary. Most of the water flowing through the Brahmaputra is added to the river via a large number of smaller streams in Arunachal Pradesh & the famous/infamous monsoon of the NE. If China were to block all of the water of the Brahmaputra flowing from Tibet that river would still be flowing in India, at a lower discharge level of course. Bangladesh would take a far bigger hit in this hypothetical scenario than India.

The big concern from our side is that China is building dams that allow them to do a sudden discharge causing a flooding in the entire Brahmaputra basing. The solution to this is building numerous smaller dams with reservoirs along the Brahmaputra basin. These reservoirs should be able to absorb a sudden surge in flow to a certain extent. On the Pakistan front, we are trying to get out of the IWT. Getting ourselves into another water sharing treaty at this stage is counterproductive.

Joint investment in resorts/hotels? Where in India? Not happening. Market is too competitive. Corporate cultures are too different. Joint investment in research facilities? That is happening already. ITER project in France, or this is observatory in Hawaii:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1766436217217077586

Assume something like this happens within the next year. How would this change India's strategic calculus and defense priorities?

If China is not a threat, then the next big threat is the US. Funny how that works.

 

[Ginvincible]

Obviously it would allow India to refocus most of our strategic thought back onto Pakistan, and maybe divert some forces that went to LAC back toward LoC/WB/IB on Western borders.

I was of the opinion that India would actually reverse course on defense in general as it would have more leeway with ones less border to really worry about. At the very least it would have more breathing room as Pakistan is currently unstable and unlikely to stabilize and present a serious threat to Indian sovereignty for a while.

We both agreed that it would also de-incentivize, or at least slow down, India from buying into Western defense equipment and groupings.

But other than that, I doubt much will change. Because it won't just be about what they're saying/doing now - it's about what they've said & done in the past as well. And about what they're CAPABLE of doing. You only need to look toward the way relations between Russia & the US evolved post Soviet collapse till date.

It's the nature of Great Power politics. There's no lasting peace - not as long as one of the two remains a coherent nation state.

I guess this is always the nature of geopolitics. Plan for their capabilities, not their intentions. My buddy is actually from mainland China and we were trying to figure out what could be an acceptable off-ramp from tensions and towards eventual peace.

Neither of us are sure that there can ever be a level of trust between India and China like say between Norway & Sweden...but neither of us think that conflict has to be true... because ultimately both China and India don't care about evangelizing others about their political doctrines.

There isn't really a global ideological mission between them like there was between the US and the USSR. India and China are more interested in securing resources and markets than trying to proselytize.

We might shake a few hands here & there but end of the day, China remains a nuclear power that's sitting on Tibet - a region that controls most of the river water that irrigates the Indo-Gangetic plain, the heartland of Indian civilization. We cannot afford to not hold any cards against them - in the event things change in the future.

I was under the impression that this was overblown, and Indian rivers were majority fed from the Indian side.

Your scenario would have opened up a somewhat bigger book of worms if you introduced another variable in your thought experiment: a Free Tibet that acts as a buffer state between the two powers. The entirety of which shall be a DMZ.

We wanted to keep it realistic. There is no way that the Chinese will give up Tibet. In the next decade they're probably going to cause some weird schism when the current dal-lai lama passes by introducing their own puppet version versus an authentic one from the exile community. They'll go through whatever lengths to keep the land. Similarly, there is no way that India will relinquish Arunachal Pradesh without a fight.

 

[Parthu]

We both agreed that it would also de-incentivize, or at least slow down, India from buying into Western defense equipment and groupings.

I would agree as well.

I guess this is always the nature of geopolitics. Plan for their capabilities, not their intentions. My buddy is actually from mainland China and we were trying to figure out what could be an acceptable off-ramp from tensions and towards eventual peace.

Neither of us are sure that there can ever be a level of trust between India and China like say between Norway & Sweden...but neither of us think that conflict has to be true... because ultimately both China and India don't care about evangelizing others about their political doctrines.

There isn't really a global ideological mission between them like there was between the US and the USSR. India and China are more interested in securing resources and markets than trying to proselytize.

China has thousands of kms of buffer territory between its heartland & India in the form of Tibet & Xinjiang...lived in by extremely small minorities & mostly wasteland that India possibly cannot push an offensive campaign through.

And yet, for some reason best known to PRC, they keep trying their worst to make an enemy out of India when in reality they can easily ignore their Western borders and be perfectly fine, at least until they solve their more pressing goals in the East like Taiwan.

It all goes back to Mao's 'Five Fingers of Tibet' doctrine:

Five Fingers of Tibet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not to mention, China's role in nuclear-arming Pakistan. That was an egregious act, one which the Chinese absolutely did not need to do, that can only ever truly be answered by us when we assist either Taiwan or Vietnam in becoming nuclear weapons states.

China under the PRC may not be a state that wishes to impose it's ideology on everyone else - but it sure has all the hallmarks of a bad actor all the same.

I was under the impression that this was overblown, and Indian rivers were majority fed from the Indian side.

Not by much. Especially if we move back by 50 kms.

We wanted to keep it realistic. There is no way that the Chinese will give up Tibet. In the next decade they're probably going to cause some weird schism when the current dal-lai lama passes by introducing their own puppet version versus an authentic one from the exile community. They'll go through whatever lengths to keep the land. Similarly, there is no way that India will relinquish Arunachal Pradesh without a fight.

It'll get interesting for sure. The next Dalai Lama as recognized by the Tibetan govt-in-exile in Dharamsala will in all likelihood be an Indian or American citizen.

 

[D68]

This is a nice idea and would be great to see but honsetly not happening anytime soon. The Chinese are in a rush to get as rich as possible, this means exploiting Africa and choking India's growth at every turn. In their eyes, there's not enough pie to go around.

 

[Ginvincible]

A few kms here & there can cause massive shits in tactical advantages in such a mountainous terrain. There are many areas across the LAC where we hold major advantages & vice versa. In a low trust environment, I doubt anybody is going to concede anything.

The few km here or there suggestion was really more of a way to for both sides to save face and say they got something for their domestic bases. In reality it is just drawing a line in the sand and formalizing the current LAC.

Such an arrangement exists today. Troops of both sides are required not to carry weapons to the LAC. And yet deadly clashes happen. Yet another arrangement will achieve nothing new.

If the border is formalized there won't need to be as much military presence as there is. There will be no need for fights with bats and sticks as there won't be any more salami slicing and encroachment. The only military presence will just be whatever border patrol is needed for customs/rescuing hikers/catching enterprising drug smugglers.

All infra along the border, on our side at least, are dual use in nature. The bridge across the Brahmaputra can carry both tanks & cars. The recently opened Sela tunnel for example is open to public & is also used by the military. Again, such an agreement will achieve nothing new.

Fantastic. In this scenario all the pictures of that infrastructure would only be showcased by tour buses and adventurous hikers instead of MRAPs and military cargo trucks.

China was "gifted" a part of the J&K by Pakistan. If they de-recognized Pakistan's sovereignty over J&K then legally they would need to move out. I don't see that happening.

Realistically if Pakistan collapsed tomorrow and the IA moved in to occupy PoK, the LAC would just extend to whatever the border between China and Pakistan is now. Again, I'm sure some face-saving concessions can be made for both sides on this.

India doesn't recognize Chinese claims in the SCS & Central Asia anyway.

Similarly, it's not like China recognizes the entirety of Kashmir to be Pakistani. While they are generally supportive of Pakistan at the UN and whatnot their views are more nuanced. It is just keeping the status quo. Formalizing their border without expectations on anything else.

After the US, India probably runs the highest current account deficit in the world. India can become a very large market for Chinese goods, even bigger than what it is now. This will come at the cost of our own industry. Unlike the European or American companies, the Chinese refuse to hire local staff &/or get local companies to do contracting for them. Companies like Oppo & Vivo have large markets in India but they have only recently started to get local contractors. This too is only happening because ED keeps harassing these companies. Buck for buck, European or American companies add a lot more value to the local economy & are a lot more respectful of local laws than the Chinese. I struggle to find what exactly is so sweet about trading with the Chinese.

Doesn't have to be some crazy free trade deal, the main thing is formalizing the border. The rest is just fluff to make the pill easier to swallow for both sides populations.

Though, my buddy was hopeful that India could someday become China's China. The PRC knows deep down that they can't stay as a manufacturing economy forever if they want to transition to a high-end economy (if they are able to survive the coming housing and demographic crises anyway).

About religious pilgrimage the less said the better. To expect commies to respect our religious sentiments is just silly.

They may be commies, but they are also pretty ruthless capitalists. If a buck can be made off increased religious tourism at a now peaceful border, why not? More tourists and tourist bucks help increase their own legitimacy in the region and improve the economy of Tibet, which they are struggling to do.

Treaty on water sharing is frankly unnecessary. Most of the water flowing through the Brahmaputra is added to the river via a large number of smaller streams in Arunachal Pradesh & the famous/infamous monsoon of the NE. If China were to block all of the water of the Brahmaputra flowing from Tibet that river would still be flowing in India, at a lower discharge level of course. Bangladesh would take a far bigger hit in this hypothetical scenario than India.

That's what I thought too (regarding river origination), but just to alleviate anybody's concerns on China's ability to restrict water some sort of on paper agreement to respect the environment or whatever could be drafted up.

The big concern from our side is that China is building dams that allow them to do a sudden discharge causing a flooding in the entire Brahmaputra basing. The solution to this is building numerous smaller dams with reservoirs along the Brahmaputra basin. These reservoirs should be able to absorb a sudden surge in flow to a certain extent. On the Pakistan front, we are trying to get out of the IWT. Getting ourselves into another water sharing treaty at this stage is counterproductive.

Then maybe some agreement or procedure for Chinese water management officials to send data and flow plans to their Indian counterparts so they can plan appropriately during sudden rain surges. It doesn't have to be all doom and gloom.

Joint investment in resorts/hotels? Where in India? Not happening. Market is too competitive. Corporate cultures are too different. Joint investment in research facilities? That is happening already. ITER project in France, or this is observatory in Hawaii:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1766436217217077586

I guess I meant more towards their shared border region as a whole. Himalayan research stations or mountain resorts that cater to both sides. Private enterprises can deal with the logistics of working together, bougie hotels aren't exactly a strategic industry.

It is nice that there is are cooperation tech elsewhere though.

If China is not a threat, then the next big threat is the US. Funny how that works.

I don't know if the US is a threat until either China collapses or India becomes a large enough economy to assert itself globally.

I am really struggling with this.

Its a naive hope that both sides faithfully honor their treaties after all.

 

[Ginvincible]

China has thousands of kms of buffer territory between its heartland & India in the form of Tibet & Xinjiang...lived in by extremely small minorities & mostly wasteland that India possibly cannot push an offensive campaign through.

I think even if they don't have to worry about some crazy overland invasion it is more of a pride thing since these lands were stripped from them when they were weak. Even the ROC did not recognize Tibetan independence while they were in control. Ultimately a demilitarized border zone on both sides is likely the best show of faith that can be had. Many Indian empires rose and fell over the millennia and I don't think any of them faced threats from over the Himalaya, I think the current India will do just fine.

And yet, for some reason best known to PRC, they keep trying their worst to make an enemy out of India when in reality they can easily ignore their Western borders and be perfectly fine, at least until they solve their more pressing goals in the East like Taiwan.

The whole point of the thought experiment was for how to get China and India to resolve their border dispute and ramp down tensions. Most of China's antics in this field are because they are distrustful of India's ambitions. Many in China view India as a pawn for Western powers to continually destabilize China. They see India's anti-China stance as artificial, a colonial leftover. Really both sides are distrustful of each other but at least a border deal and show of good faith from both sides can help alleviate some of this and allow both powers to concentrate on other things.

It all goes back to Mao's 'Five Fingers of Tibet' doctrine:

Five Fingers of Tibet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not to mention, China's role in nuclear-arming Pakistan. That was an egregious act, one which the Chinese absolutely did not need to do, that can only ever truly be answered by us when we assist either Taiwan or Vietnam in becoming nuclear weapons states.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind right? What happened in the past happened in the past. Besides, greater nuclear weapon proliferation is never a good thing, and I don't think escalating tensions like that with China is wise for regional stability in general. I know there are those within China who regret assisting the nuclear program of a religiously fundamentalist near failed state on their border for short term objectives. The nuclear umbrella shielding non-state actors against India can very easily do the same to them.

Selling conventional weapons and systems to nations like Vietnam and Taiwan is to be expected so long as China sells to Pakistan. Maybe in the future China and India can negotiate on who or what can/can't be sold in the interest of each other's defense.

China under the PRC may not be a state that wishes to impose it's ideology on everyone else - but it sure has all the hallmarks of a bad actor all the same.

Ultimately bridging the trust deficit on both sides is critical. I don't think it's wise for either China or India to pray for the collapse of one another. Both started out with a lot in common and I think as the future progresses, they will again find more common ground.

Not by much. Especially if we move back by 50 kms.

Not sure what you're implying.

China would also be required to pull their forces back as well. Even then, I'm not sure how China and India pulling back their militaries from the border regions changes the flow of the rivers or the patterns of rainfall/snow melt. The goal is to make the region a neutral ground with a defined border, not change the physical geography.

It'll get interesting for sure. The next Dalai Lama as recognized by the Tibetan govt-in-exile in Dharamsala will in all likelihood be an Indian or American citizen.

Honestly it will be a huge headache and I have no idea how the GOI is going to respond to it if they decide to do anything about it at all. The continuation of a single Tibetan temple will probably not happen and the whole culture could just slowly lose whatever steam is left and just fade away. Not looking forward to the heartburn it will cause all around.

 

[Ginvincible]

This is a nice idea and would be great to see but honsetly not happening anytime soon. The Chinese are in a rush to get as rich as possible, this means exploiting Africa and choking India's growth at every turn. In their eyes, there's not enough pie to go around.

You'd think the Chinese of all people would have learned that the pie can always grow larger and everyone can get a bigger share. While the West lost industry, it's not like the West lost prosperity when China rose. The same will have to be true for China as well if they want to transition into an advanced economy.

 

[Parthu]

I think even if they don't have to worry about some crazy overland invasion it is more of a pride thing since these lands were stripped from them when they were weak. Even the ROC did not recognize Tibetan independence while they were in control. Ultimately a demilitarized border zone on both sides is likely the best show of faith that can be had. Many Indian empires rose and fell over the millennia and I don't think any of them faced threats from over the Himalaya, I think the current India will do just fine.

The empires over the millennia did not have airpower, tanks & long-range missiles.

The issue is that the Indian heartland lies immediately below the Himalayas. The Chinese heartland is thousands of kms away.

We have far bigger reasons to be apprehensive of China than they have about us.

The whole point of the thought experiment was for how to get China and India to resolve their border dispute and ramp down tensions. Most of China's antics in this field are because they are distrustful of India's ambitions. Many in China view India as a pawn for Western powers to continually destabilize China. They see India's anti-China stance as artificial, a colonial leftover. Really both sides are distrustful of each other but at least a border deal and show of good faith from both sides can help alleviate some of this and allow both powers to concentrate on other things.

The Chinese create a self-fulfilling prophecy. They create a view that India could be a Western pawn, then act as though India is a Western pawn. It results in India being driven further into the Western fold.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind right?

No, once you take out the other guy's 2nd eye, he can go longer find your one remaining eye.

And in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

What happened in the past happened in the past. Besides, greater nuclear weapon proliferation is never a good thing, and I don't think escalating tensions like that with China is wise for regional stability in general.

I don't read much into concepts like 'nuclear proliferation'. Terms coined by the P5 to suit their worldview in the Post-WW2 world.

As per the established rules of NPT, it is illegal for the world's most populous democracy to possess a deterrent.

India had no role in shaping the world order as it exists, as those rules were drafted when we were still either a colony, or a failing famine state. China had a much bigger role thanks to their participation in WW2, not as a colony but of their own accord. We can play along with them as long as it suits us - but we cannot be behooved to those rules, until & unless we ascend to be in a position to shape them (or prevent them from being shaped against us).

If China wants to pursue a good-faith relationship & expect India to play by the rules of non-proliferation, they can demonstrate their intent by lifting their objection to India becoming a permanent UNSC member. Currently, PRC is the only one keeping the door closed for us.

Besides, they've already made their move (arming Pakistan). Now if they don't want us to retaliate, they have to make the deal sweet.

I know there are those within China who regret assisting the nuclear program of a religiously fundamentalist near failed state on their border for short term objectives. The nuclear umbrella shielding non-state actors against India can very easily do the same to them.

What is your point?

I think you're looking at things too much from the Chinese perspective & too little from India's.

Selling conventional weapons and systems to nations like Vietnam and Taiwan is to be expected so long as China sells to Pakistan. Maybe in the future China and India can negotiate on who or what can/can't be sold in the interest of each other's defense.

Yes but how to force them to the table to carry out such negotiations? The threat of nuclear-arming one of their Eastern adversaries has to be present.

Ultimately bridging the trust deficit on both sides is critical. I don't think it's wise for either China or India to pray for the collapse of one another. Both started out with a lot in common and I think as the future progresses, they will again find more common ground.

Yes - allowing India into the UNSC would be the perfect move on the part of China to build trust.

Not sure what you're implying.

China would also be required to pull their forces back as well. Even then, I'm not sure how China and India pulling back their militaries from the border regions changes the flow of the rivers or the patterns of rainfall/snow melt. The goal is to make the region a neutral ground with a defined border, not change the physical geography.

I'm not talking about changing the geography - but about the tactical realities. If we move back from the frontline, we fall off the Himalayas. But the Chinese will still remain on the Tibetan plateau highlands. In case the Chinese decide to renege on their promises & seek to push the LAC again, it'll be extremely easy for them to capture most of these glaciers from which the Ganga & Brahmaputra get their tributaries.

But for us it'll be an uphill battle.

Can we really afford to play with the future of the lives of over a billion people?

Of all the proposals you mentioned, moving back 50kms is the most unacceptable from a tactical & strategic standpoint.

 

[Saaho]

Was chatting with a friend of mine and we were theory crafting a world where the relationship between India and China could change/improve and what that would mean for the greater strategic calculus of both nations and others.

Suspend your disbelief for this scenario and let's have a thought experiment.

Imagine that India and China are able to negotiate a border agreement, and both are committed to faithfully honoring it.

Let's say it goes something like:


1. LAC is finalized as the current recognized border give or take a few kms here or there. Some ancient treaty or new national mythos can be used to justify this and satisfy both China's desire to rectify the 'century of humiliation' and India's hangups over inheriting treaties from the British Raj. Basically, both sides are happy enough with the arrangement and both can save face.

2. Both agree to a demilitarized zone say ~50km on either side of the border. Both agree to limit any deployed forces in the region to regular police, border checkpoints and SAR teams.

3. Any infrastructure in the region (existing and in progress) should be re-prioritized towards civilian use. All future infrastructure projects in the regions should be aimed at civilian use.

4. China won't recognize who has what sovereignty over J&K between India and Pakistan, only the territorial limits of its own western borders wrt India/Pakistan. Likewise, India doesn't recognize Chinese claims in the SCS or further claims in Central Asia.

5. We'll throw in some economic benefits to sweeten the treaty. Say some trade deals, easier border access for religious pilgrims to cross on both sides, maybe some joint investment for hotels/resorts/research stations. Perhaps a treaty on water sharing and limits.


Assume something like this happens within the next year. How would this change India's strategic calculus and defense priorities? Likewise for China. How would this change the outlook of the US and western nations knowing there is no longer a territorial disupute between India and China?

There is a fundamental flaw in this all. The flaw is simple. Chinese for a long time have considered Indians to be inferior to them.. At a very fundamental level. They believe they are genetically superior. Their entire society thinks like this. They also believe that we were the ones who brought whites to Asia and then worked with whites to undermine Asia.

Its not unique to China, this feeling has been also present in Japanese too at sometime. They used to believe Americans to be inferior during world war 2. It took 2 nuclear bombs to cure that dillusion.

The upshot is, Asians and especially east Asians at a very fundamental level are extremely racist people. Their society is extremely racist. They can NEVER bring themselves to negotiate with us, inferior Asians. Unless we do something really really really horrible to them. Thats how they know we are worth talking to.

If Xi or CPC does ANY kind of deal with India, they will be seen as extremely weak in front of their own people. They will lose face. And asians and especially Chinese HATE losing face.

You know, till now, China has never given the real claim lines. That should be indicaiton of how they work.

You want to negotiate with China, do a Chinese genocide. Then they will talk. Otherwise, they will not even talk.

Why do you think MoD and MEA had 20-30 rounds of talk on border after Galwan clash with no results? Because counter party thinks you are not worth enough to even talk.

Its a very east asian mentality.

 

[Ginvincible]

The empires over the millennia did not have airpower, tanks & long-range missiles.

The issue is that the Indian heartland lies immediately below the Himalayas. The Chinese heartland is thousands of kms away.

We have far bigger reasons to be apprehensive of China than they have about us.

The Chinese create a self-fulfilling prophecy. They create a view that India could be a Western pawn, then act as though India is a Western pawn. It results in India being driven further into the Western fold.

I think deep down everyone recognizes that as India grows and develops the its threat perception in the eyes of the West will grow and inevitably cause a confrontation. This is happening between China and India right now to some degree - the Chinese want to ensure that India doesn't become a threat to it while it challenges US hegemony in East Asia - but India and China are neighbors and don't have the luxury of destabilizing the region from a safe distance.

I don't think anybody believes that China has designs on New Delhi anymore than Indians covet Beijing. India and China have been neighbors for thousands of years and will be for many more millennia. Irrespective of the tools of war or technology, they need to learn to get along or again be dominated by outside powers that will play them off each other.

No, once you take out the other guy's 2nd eye, he can go longer find your one remaining eye.

And in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Self destructive philosophies always lose to cooperative ones in the long run.

I don't read much into concepts like 'nuclear proliferation'. Terms coined by the P5 to suit their worldview in the Post-WW2 world.

More nuclear weapons in more hands objectively increases the odds that they are used. It is nobody's benefit for nuclear war no matter how much hate you bare for the other side.

As per the established rules of NPT, it is illegal for the world's most populous democracy to possess a deterrent.

Sure, countries that are large enough, powerful enough, or motivated enough will acquire anything regardless of laws or rules. The goals of NPT are to limit and eventually work to decommission nuclear weapons and promote peaceful nuclear power. I recognize that it is unrealistic and that MAD has more or less prevented WW3.. but don't think its a bad ideal to want to move away from weapons of mass destruction as the sole reason for peace.

India had no role in shaping the world order as it exists, as those rules were drafted when we were still either a colony, or a failing famine state. China had a much bigger role thanks to their participation in WW2, not as a colony but of their own accord. We can play along with them as long as it suits us - but we cannot be behooved to those rules, until & unless we ascend to be in a position to shape them (or prevent them from being shaped against us).

The China that had a role after WW2 was not the China of today, it was the ROC. The current China wasn't recognized until 1971 and had no influence over the drafting of the early UN.

If China wants to pursue a good-faith relationship & expect India to play by the rules of non-proliferation, they can demonstrate their intent by lifting their objection to India becoming a permanent UNSC member. Currently, PRC is the only one keeping the door closed for us.

Eventually it will have to happen. You said it yourself. If India continues growing at the pace we've seen then it's only a matter of time before it becomes a wealthy, highly industrialized nation. If such a nation was not given a seat at the table it would simply start creating its own competing international institutions. The UN is already pretty weak but such an event would truly shatter it. I imagine the current powers at the table don't want it to become completely irrelevant.

Ironically, I can see China eventually relenting and allowing India a seat at the security council in an effort to call the US' bluff that it would have no issue with Indian membership.

What is your point?

I think you're looking at things too much from the Chinese perspective & too little from India's.

It is not a Chinese perspective. How many powers in history have armed various groups/nations to destabilize their adversaries only to have it come back to bite them? It is a story as old as time. A nuclear armed Vietnam might be good for India now, but can you say in 50 years there won't be a Vietnamese AQ Khan selling tech to groups that seek to undermine India? You can't guarantee that India and Vietnam will forever have great relations.

It is short sighted policy that ensures future generations of Indians will live in a riskier, less stable world.

Yes but how to force them to the table to carry out such negotiations? The threat of nuclear-arming one of their Eastern adversaries has to be present.

The tools and levers India has to negotiate today will not be the same tomorrow. Such detentes are not going to occur until India is a more developed and industrialized nation.

I'm not talking about changing the geography - but about the tactical realities. If we move back from the frontline, we fall off the Himalayas. But the Chinese will still remain on the Tibetan plateau highlands. In case the Chinese decide to renege on their promises & seek to push the LAC again, it'll be extremely easy for them to capture most of these glaciers from which the Ganga & Brahmaputra get their tributaries.

But for us it'll be an uphill battle.

Can we really afford to play with the future of the lives of over a billion people?

Of all the proposals you mentioned, moving back 50kms is the most unacceptable from a tactical & strategic standpoint.

I guess the point of this thread was to discuss world order and politics if China and India could come to an agreement and settle their border issues. After that there would no longer be a tactical environment to seriously consider.

Again, maybe a demilitrized zone has to be tiny, but then realistically it might as well not exist at all. I think without a demil zone tensions will probably never dissapate, even with a border agreement.

 

[Ginvincible]

There is a fundamental flaw in this all. The flaw is simple. Chinese for a long time have considered Indians to be inferior to them.. At a very fundamental level. They believe they are genetically superior. Their entire society thinks like this. They also believe that we were the ones who brought whites to Asia and then worked with whites to undermine Asia.

Its not unique to China, this feeling has been also present in Japanese too at sometime. They used to believe Americans to be inferior during world war 2. It took 2 nuclear bombs to cure that dillusion.

The upshot is, Asians and especially east Asians at a very fundamental level are extremely racist people. Their society is extremely racist. They can NEVER bring themselves to negotiate with us, inferior Asians. Unless we do something really really really horrible to them. Thats how they know we are worth talking to.

If Xi or CPC does ANY kind of deal with India, they will be seen as extremely weak in front of their own people. They will lose face. And asians and especially Chinese HATE losing face.

You know, till now, China has never given the real claim lines. That should be indicaiton of how they work.

You want to negotiate with China, do a Chinese genocide. Then they will talk. Otherwise, they will not even talk.

There is huge gap between submitting to Chinese whims and enacting genocide on them. Regardless of political party Indian leaders have shown that they can have spines and negotiate. Genocide and barbarism has no place in the modern world.

The Chinese and whole world may have racist superiority complexes when it comes to Indians, but ultimately their opinions don't matter. PRC leadership are well traveled and well educated. Even if they have their own biases their actions and negotiations will be secular. This isn't the 1930s anymore where foreign policy and wars are waged on the basis of racial studies and eugenics.

In general leaders will take unpopular measures if it means long term benefit. It is especially true in China's case since they are an authoritarian regime. The feelings of the lay Chinese person doesn't matter and if they protest the PRC is more than willing to wash their remains into the street gutters. Not that I think the general Chinese people care that much about fringe border territories. There weren't mass uprisings when China officially gave up most of their Qing Empire based claims in Central Asia. Even after the fall of the USSR the PRC emphasized their recognition of Mongolia's sovereignty, which I imagine has a lot more impact on the feelings of the average Chinese person considering the history.

Why do you think MoD and MEA had 20-30 rounds of talk on border after Galwan clash with no results? Because counter party thinks you are not worth enough to even talk.

Are the contents of those dialogues even known? I think it's hard to make a claim that they believed India was unworthy of discussion when the nature of the meetings is unknown.

Ultimately, would you rather have recognition of a border through war/conflict like had to be done with Sikkim, or would you rather a peaceful resolution?

 

[Parthu]

I think deep down everyone recognizes that as India grows and develops the its threat perception in the eyes of the West will grow and inevitably cause a confrontation. This is happening between China and India right now to some degree - the Chinese want to ensure that India doesn't become a threat to it while it challenges US hegemony in East Asia - but India and China are neighbors and don't have the luxury of destabilizing the region from a safe distance.

I don't think anybody believes that China has designs on New Delhi anymore than Indians covet Beijing. India and China have been neighbors for thousands of years and will be for many more millennia. Irrespective of the tools of war or technology, they need to learn to get along or again be dominated by outside powers that will play them off each other.

You have to act based on what they're capable of, not what you think they would or wouldn't do. We made that mistake once and lost Aksai Chin.

The problem, especially when dealing with China, is that you cannot even be reasonably certain that the autocratic leadership will choose what's in the best interest of their own people. And the PLA swears its allegiance to the Party, not to the country or the people.

Self destructive philosophies always lose to cooperative ones in the long run.

All good & fine as long as you are comfortable with the status quo. And right now, we are the underdog in the status quo. When and if we rise to the position of changing that - conflict is inevitable.

No civilization in the history of humankind has been able to avoid that, neither can we.

More nuclear weapons in more hands objectively increases the odds that they are used. It is nobody's benefit for nuclear war no matter how much hate you bare for the other side.

No two nuclear armed states have ever fought a full blown conventional war against each other.

Kargil was probably the closest - but even that was a covert campaign using deniable units. And even that was probably a direct result of the fact that even though India & Pakistan had tested nukes, neither had properly deployed their deterrence yet. That gave an opening to people who thought it was now or never if they wanted to change any status quo.

The China that had a role after WW2 was not the China of today, it was the ROC. The current China wasn't recognized until 1971 and had no influence over the drafting of the early UN.

Same people. Just a different nation & different ideology in charge.

It was like USSR's seat being inherited by Russia. PRC's path to it was a bit more convoluted, but they were still Chinese.

Eventually it will have to happen. You said it yourself. If India continues growing at the pace we've seen then it's only a matter of time before it becomes a wealthy, highly industrialized nation. If such a nation was not given a seat at the table it would simply start creating its own competing international institutions. The UN is already pretty weak but such an event would truly shatter it. I imagine the current powers at the table don't want it to become completely irrelevant.

You recognize what needs to happen, and what will happen. You just seem to think it will happen by itself.

It won't. You have to make it happen. And in the process of doing so, you will make enemies.

Ironically, I can see China eventually relenting and allowing India a seat at the security council in an effort to call the US' bluff that it would have no issue with Indian membership.

Don't count on it. The Chinese do not even want to entertain the idea that India is a country that can be treated as their equal at any table.

It is not a Chinese perspective. How many powers in history have armed various groups/nations to destabilize their adversaries only to have it come back to bite them? It is a story as old as time. A nuclear armed Vietnam might be good for India now, but can you say in 50 years there won't be a Vietnamese AQ Khan selling tech to groups that seek to undermine India? You can't guarantee that India and Vietnam will forever have great relations.

It is short sighted policy that ensures future generations of Indians will live in a riskier, less stable world.

What's the guarantee it won't proliferate even if you don't do anything?

You cannot let some premonition of a butterfly effect paralyze you from taking actions & counteractions. If you do, you remain nothing but a passive observer to the course of events which will always be set by others.

I guess the point of this thread was to discuss world order and politics if China and India could come to an agreement and settle their border issues. After that there would no longer be a tactical environment to seriously consider.

Again, maybe a demilitrized zone has to be tiny, but then realistically it might as well not exist at all. I think without a demil zone tensions will probably never dissapate, even with a border agreement.

What is the incentive for China to settle the border issue? Currently they're happy to keep salami-slicing our territory. It's a very low-cost way of shaping the LAC according to their view over the long term.

We only started turning up the heat since 2020 with economic sanctions. Letting them know their actions will not be without consequence. But that alone isn't enough - we have to do so much more.

You have the right idea that India & China need to solve their border differences - you just aren't thinking realistically about how to get there.

 

[D68]

The onus is not on India to initiate peace or a DMZ. It's the Chinese that claim an entire Indian state! It's the Chinese that arm and support the pariah state of Pakistan, it's the Chinese that occupy the disputed territory of Askai Chin (not to mention building CPEC through it). It's the Chinese that are surveying the Indian Ocean and buying up puppet governments to surround India. It's the Chinese that sucker-punched India at Galwan and killed 20 of our soldiers. It's the Chinese that veto Indian entry into UN permanancy, the NSG. The list goes on and on.

Any overture of peace from India will be seen as a sign of weakness. We have no choice.

 

[Saaho]

Are the contents of those dialogues even known? I think it's hard to make a claim that they believed India was unworthy of discussion when the nature of the meetings is unknown.

Ultimately, would you rather have recognition of a border through war/conflict like had to be done with Sikkim, or would you rather a peaceful resolution?

Ever wonder why China has never been forthcoming about where their opinion of border lies?

You don't negotiate with a crook. Because crook's greed knows no bound.