Why Indian members give so much attention to China?

[amoy]

Probabaly in real life there's few Indian talking abt China off DFI. Similarly not much attention paid to India by ordinary Chinese simply becoz of little relevance to daily life. Turning on TV, u see more coverage on the US's QE or PIIGS in crisis, or Sino-Russia row over gas price, rather than India. We may catch sight of a few Indians on the street but not really many, unlike Japanese or Koreans whom Chinese are in close contact with despite well known 'feuds'.

To be frank I hope that someday it comes true that every body starts to say "China this, India that". Right now there's no fundamental change anticipated to the "cold peace" btwn China and India. Each would continue to pursue the best of its interest, and form "alliances" subject to different agendas.

For China, practically it has to quit every illusion abt India given the impasse in the bilateral relationshp. Instead China has to keep on growing rapport with S. Asian states both economically and militarily, not in the wild fantasy of encroaching India or contending the US hegemony, but in the aspiration to secure the necessary resources/routes and explore untapped markets. In the coming decades deteriorating domestic frustrations / grievances have to be vented outward rather than becoming self desructive. China's Socialism (or State Capitalism, in contrast to weak individual enterprises) will be able to unleash great potential in advancing China's interest overseas in order to facilitate a real rise for the well being of Chinese

 

[no smoking]

I don't think that would be a very correct analysis.

India was the leader in the NAM with the troika - Nehru, Nasser and Tito.

The US hated the NAM since it was too moralistic and yet were ready to take assistance without joining any bloc. Being newly independent countries or left leaning in policy, though neutral in statement, more often than not, they supported the USSR line of geostrategic thought.

1962 Conflict did affect the psyche for some time, till the incidents at Nathu La, Chola and Sumdorong Chu where the Chinese were also taught a 'lesson' that the Indian Army was not the same as 1962 and instead could give the Chinese a bloody nose.

Indeed, after 1962, Nehru lost his stature and a concerted effort by the West ensured that he became somewhat irrelevant to the world stature he commanded and with that the clout of the NAM too declined.

China was nowhere in the reckoning since it too lost 'face' during the Chinese military adventure against Vietnam.

However, with the death of Mao, the rise of Deng, who jettisoned Communism for Capitalism, China soared and became an economic power to reckon with given the huge Western infusion of technology, manufacturing and money.

That apart, China in a quiet way under the 'China's Peaceful Rise' propaganda, quietly, through various means ensured that their military grew in matériel and became a formidable force.

India does not hold Chinese ascendancy to be something to be envious about. China deserves every bit of the progress that it has achieved since it has been achieved by the vision of Deng and the hard work of the Chinese people.

What India is concerned about is the unresolved border dispute that 'flares up' occasionally and the claims of China on yet more Indian territory and the Chinese hunger to claim more and more territory around China's neighbourhood to include common seas!

If China collapses, there will be total chaos that will also affect India.

Therefore, India wishes China well and hopes that China show greater responsibility towards the neighbourhood.

Typical indian way of thinking!
By the way, the so called "lossing face" war against vietname happened after Mao's death. It was initiated by Deng.
And in China, nobody think it is a lossing face. It was a failure considering the death toll. But it was not a lossing face. I think you misunderstood what the meaning of "face" in east asia.

 

[Known_Unknown]

The day China ends its alliance with Pakistan and allies with India, will be the best day for Asia and the world. Think about the possibilities, a FTA between China and India would benefit half of all humanity. China and India can lead a new Asian Union, just as France and Germany lead the EU. A new common Asian currency can be formed. India's expertise in software and R&D combined with Chinese manufacturing prowess can be used to make and market world class products. China's and India's large internal markets mean that trade between them will dwarf NAFTA by an order of magnitude.

If France and Germany can reconcile after having fought against each other in two world wars, there's hardly a reason for China and India to continue animosities due to a short border war.

However, China will have to make that change, and disassociate itself from Pakistan. Germany would never be a French ally if it was to this day, supplying France's mortal enemies with military hardware, soft loans, and performing military exercises with France's enemies across the French border.

Unfortunately, Indians understand that ordinary Chinese live under a dictatorship, and have no say in their government's foreign policies. Hence, this impasse is bound to continue.

 

[civfanatic]

Typical indian way of thinking!
By the way, the so called "lossing face" war against vietname happened after Mao's death. It was initiated by Deng.
And in China, nobody think it is a lossing face. It was a failure considering the death toll. But it was not a lossing face. I think you misunderstood what the meaning of "face" in east asia.

The Sino-Vietnamese War was a failure for the Chinese because they failed to accomplish the political objectives. Namely, the withdrawal of Vietnam Army regular units from Cambodia (erstwhile Kampuchea).

The death toll is irrelevant.

 

[Ray]

Typical indian way of thinking!
By the way, the so called "lossing face" war against vietname happened after Mao's death. It was initiated by Deng.
And in China, nobody think it is a lossing face. It was a failure considering the death toll. But it was not a lossing face. I think you misunderstood what the meaning of "face" in east asia.

Isn't it obvious that I will think like an Indian and you, like a Chinese?

I understand the meaning of 'losing face' because it is same out here.

Even if you wish you can tell us the Chinese military adventurism against Vietnam was a resounding success, it was not.

Whereas the Chinese thought it would be a cakewalk, it turned out to be a bloody cataclysmic wake up call for the Chinese. The political objectives were not achieved.

The Vietnamese continued to occupy Cambodia.

 

[kickok1975]

Did china lost in the sino-vietnamese war of 1979?


They didn't. The war was a stalemate and both sides claimed victory. And, in my opinion, the Chinese accomplished the greater of its regional goals in the conflict.

You might point to greater Chinese casualties. However, Chinese military doctrine in the 20th century was not concerned with high casualty rates. There was, among Chinese military strategists, that you would run out of ammo before they would run out of troops. If you take the worst figures, and those figures are from Vietnam, as truth, the Chinese lost only 20,000 killed in the war. This is far from a high death rate for the Chinese military.

China told Russia and the United States before the war started that it would be a limited border incursion of Vietnam, that their objective was not to conquer the country. The reasons behind the invasion were (1) to attempt to force the Vietnamese out of Cambodia, which they had invaded and disposed Chinese ally Pol Pot (2) to demonstrate to Asian nations that Russian promises of aid against China were no more than paper assurances and (3) to remind Vietnam about who was the dominant force in Asia. And, while their invasion did not cause the Vietnamese to withdraw from Cambodia, the Chinese army occupied areas of Vietnam long enough to show that the Soviet Union was powerless to intervene in the situation. Further, China delivered a message to Vietnam that it would press its interests by military force if that was needed. Once the Chinese made their point, they retreated back across the border.

Now, in fairness to the Soviets, there really wasn't anything they could do to stop China's invasion short of going to war with China. The Soviets did not have the fleet nor the strategic bombers to make a strong showing against the Chinese in Vietnamese waters or over North Vietnam. And Soviet leaders may have bluffed a good game, but they weren't stupid. They weren't going to go to war with China over what they knew was a limited offensive. And so they sat on the sideline as the Chinese pummeled their most recent ally. And, this is exactly what the Chinese desired to show by their offensive.

I thought then, and continue to think today, that the Chinese were surprised at the level of Vietnamese resistance. And, I believe, as others have stated, that the offensive showed Chinese political and military leaders some shortcomings of their military plans, many of which have been overcome since the war. However, about the only way that the Chinese were going to Hanoi was if the Vietnamese army facing them fell apart. China didn't expect this to happen, and it didn't

And, at the end of 80's. Vietnam was forced to withdraw from Combodia under the pressure of Soviet as the pre-condition of Sino-Soviet relationship improvement.

 

[Ray]

Vietnam left Cambodia under political pressure and it was not because of the Sino Vietnam war.

Interestingly, Vietnam moving out of Cambodia, led it to be more dependent on the Soviet Union, to which it leased a naval base at Cam Ranh Bay

 

[amoy]

a bit off topic, only to add
1) Vietnam leased the naval base in Cam Ranh Bay farahead of its pull-off from Cambodia in 1989 at the dawn of CCCP. VN's withdrawal from Cambodia was one of prerequisites Deng put forward for "normalizing" Sino-Viet ties.
2) Viet's expansionist ambition included an "Indochina Federation" of Laos, Cambodia... SE Asian neighbors like Thailand was in fear too. In a conversation with Lee Kwan Yew Deng revealed his intent to "punish Vietnam"
3) Sino-Viet feud was not relevant to "struggling for dominance over Asia" (back in 1970's), but much to do with Vietnam's taking side with USSR during Sino-Soviet schism, and Vietnam's persecution of Chinese after reunification while Chinese controlled economy in the South in particular. Lakhs of Chinese fled VN (reference: boat people)
4) China alleviated VN's pressure on Khmer Rouge and then Prince Sihanouk as VN had to pull back from Cambodia for defence then. Up to date Cambodia has been a firm friend of China within ASEAN. King Sinhanouk lives in Beijing after abdication.

During my travel in VN I perceived Vietnamese complex feelings towards 1979 war. During that conflict the whole country was held in panic - after fall of Lang Son, Hanoi was left indefensible on a open plain. PLA vandalised in great wrath 'everything' that was found as China's aid during France/US-Vietnam wars.