India-China Relations

[nimo_cn]

Are you really that foolish? 'Bragging' about our 'democracy'? That tripe is for consumption only by puerile peasants such as you.

Do you understand how international relations work? Do you understand the distinction between fundamental interests, on which all things hinge, and rhetoric, meant for consumption by the (myopic) masses such as yourself?

Do you recognize that the US has fundamental interests in courting us- on account of the fact that we are a large geographical country, have a large army, strategic location, etc.- for obvious syllogistic reasons- in addition to the fact that we are Asia's third-largest economy.

"Economic success is the only thing that matters"? That right? You are so enslaved in your thinking that you are beginning to parrot the own official lines for warranting the legitimation of rule by the CCP. Not to us. That is the essential difference between your ilk and us. We value our freedom, a freedom which has been hard won and hard fought for, after a century and a half of colonial exploitation, and we value holistic growth. If "economic success is the only thing that matters", trust yourself to find your self in the same situation that the United States is in now. They too, found "materialism" and "economic success" to be the only things that mattered. Look at them now.

We, for our part, would like to have a measure of accountability for our government, to us, so that even though it may take a few years more to lift our millions out of poverty, we don't have violent reversals such as the 'Great Leap Forward' or the Cultural Revolushun.

Chill out, big guy!

All i want to say is that, next time your PM is lavishing praise on your accomplishments, please leave china alone, dont try to degrade us, even in subtle way. That is not polite.

 

[F-14]

so OK its polite to recognize our Territory as a separate country huh

and its polite to support our enemy to facilitate their shams huh .

[PS: don't get me started on the Chinese Harp song of How bad the Dali lam is and all ]

2 can play at this game mister and if we come to the party it ain't going to be fair at all its just a matter of time.

 

[woyoulaile]

The border agreement between India and Tibet demarcating Arun'aachal Pradesh as Indian territory was signed when Tibet was still a sovereign, political and geopolitical entity, internationally recognized by the governments of the day, including that of imperial India, the Commonwealth of 62 states, the United States, Nepal, Mongolia and Latin American members of the UNO.
[/url]

Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tibet_(1912–1949)

In 1947, Tibet sent a delegation to the Asian Relations Conference in New Delhi, India, where it represented itself as an independent nation, and India recognised it as an independent nation from 1947 to 1954.[30] This may have been the first appearance of the Tibetan national flag at a public gathering.[31]

In 1947-49, Lhasa sent a "Trade Mission" led by the Tsepon (Finance Minister) W.D. Shakabpa to India, Hong Kong, Nanjing (then the capital of China), the U.S., and Britain. The visited countries were careful not to express support for the claim that Tibet was independent of China and did not discuss political questions with the mission.[32] These Trade Mission officials entered China via Hong Kong with their newly issued Chinese passports that they applied at the Chinese Consulate in India and stayed in China for three months. Other countries did, however, allow the mission to travel using passports issued by the Tibetan government. The U.S. unofficially received the Trade Mission. The mission met with British Prime Minister Clement Attlee in London in 1948.[33

 

[roma]

Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tibet_(1912–1949)

In 1947, Tibet sent a delegation to the Asian Relations Conference in New Delhi, India, where it represented itself as an independent nation, and India recognised it as an independent nation from 1947 to 1954.[30] This may have been the first appearance of the Tibetan national flag at a public gathering.[31]

33

so it was an independent nation with a separate flag at least till 1947

 

[Rage]

Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tibet_(1912–1949)

In 1947, Tibet sent a delegation to the Asian Relations Conference in New Delhi, India, where it represented itself as an independent nation, and India recognised it as an independent nation from 1947 to 1954.[30] This may have been the first appearance of the Tibetan national flag at a public gathering.[31]

In 1947-49, Lhasa sent a "Trade Mission" led by the Tsepon (Finance Minister) W.D. Shakabpa to India, Hong Kong, Nanjing (then the capital of China), the U.S., and Britain. The visited countries were careful not to express support for the claim that Tibet was independent of China and did not discuss political questions with the mission.[32] These Trade Mission officials entered China via Hong Kong with their newly issued Chinese passports that they applied at the Chinese Consulate in India and stayed in China for three months. Other countries did, however, allow the mission to travel using passports issued by the Tibetan government. The U.S. unofficially received the Trade Mission. The mission met with British Prime Minister Clement Attlee in London in 1948.[33

Really, honestly and truly son.


Tibet maintained diplomatic relations with Nepal, Bhutan, Britain and later with independent India.

In an effort to reduce Sino-Tibetan tensions, the British convened a tripartite conference in Simla in 1913 where the three states met on equal terms. As the British delegate reminded his Chinese counterpart, Tibet entered the conference as "an independent nation recognizing no allegiance to China". The conference was unsuccessful in that it did not resolve the differences between Tibet and China. It was, nevertheless, significant in that Anglo-Tibetan friendship was reaffirmed with the conclusion of bilateral trade and border agreements.

The Historical Status of Tibet: A Summary


Tibet was accorded differing degrees of recognition by various governments.
Mongolia, for example, explicitly recognized Tibet's independence in a 1913
"Treaty of Friendship and Alliance" which was signed by representatives of
both nations in Urga, Mongolia. [Walt8]

Nepal's 1949 application for U.N. membership lists Tibet as a country that
Nepal had full diplomatic relations with. [Walt9] The chief Nepalese
diplomat in Lhasa held the title _vakil_ ("ambassador") up until 1962.
[Savada93]

In 1943, the British embassy in Washington told the U.S. State Department
that, "Tibet is a separate country in full enjoyment of local autonomy,
entitled to exchange diplomatic representatives with other powers." [Walt10]
In a note presented to Chinese Foreign Minister T. V. Song a few months
later, British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden described Tibet as, "an
autonomous State under the suzerainty of China" which "enjoyed de facto
independence." [Goldstein89]

The International Committee of Jurists l Geneva


It should be noted that numerous countries made statements in the course of UN General Assembly debates following the invasion of Tibet that reflected their recognition of Tibet's independent status. Thus, for example, the delegate from the Philippines declared: "It is not clear that on the eve of the invasion [in] 1950, Tibet was not under the rule of any foreign country." The delegate from Thailand reminded the assembly that the majority of states "refute the contention that Tibet is a part of China." The US joined most other UN members in condemning the Chinese "aggression" and "invasion" of Tibet.

Legal Status: Freetibet.org


In fact, Britian, Bhutan, India, and China also maintained diplomatic missions in Tibet's capitol, Lhasa. The Tibetan Foreign Office conducted talks with President Franklin D. Roosevelt when he sent representatives to Lhasa to discuss the allied war effort against Japan during World War II. In 1950, El Salvador formally requested that China's aggression against Tibet be placed on the agenda of the U.N. General Assembly.

In 1950, El Salvador formally requested that China's aggression against Tibet be placed on the agenda of the U.N. General Assembly. The issue was not discussed. However, during four U.N. General Assembly debates on Tibet (1959, 1960, 1961, & 1965), many countries (e.g., Philippines, Nicaragua, Thailand. United States, Ireland) openly stated that Tibet was an independent country illegally occupied by China.

Yale: Tibet Two Distinct Views


UN Debates

When Chinese Communist armies started entering Tibet in 1949, the
Tibetan Government sent an urgent appeal to the United Nations to
help Tibet resist the aggression.

This became evident especially during the full debates on the issue in the
United Nations General Assembly in 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1965, when
many governments echoed the sentiments expressed by the Ambassador
of the Philippines who referred to Tibet as an independent nation
and added: it is clear that on the eve of the Chinese invasion in
1950, Tibet was not under the rule of any foreign country.

The Nicaraguan representative condemned the Chinese invasion of Tibet and said: The people of America, born in freedom, must obviously be repelled by an act of aggression ... and particularly when it is perpetrated by a large
state against a small and weak one. The Representative from
Thailand reminded the Assembly that the majority of states refute
the contention that Tibet is part of China.


CWIS.org


Shortly thereafter, in 1949, Chinese invaded Tibet, and then of course Tibetans woke up saying that we were wrong and they started writing to the UN on the Chinese military aggression in Tibet - an appeal for United Nations intervention. It was November 24 when the Tibetan government - the Tibetan Cabinet and the Tibetan National Assembly - wrote to the UN General Assembly. About 10 days after the Tibetan appeal to the UN, representatives of El Salvador telegrammed the UN Secretary General saying there was a foreign invasion of Tibet and that it should be put to the UN General Assembly and a debate should be held. At El Salvador's request, the General Committee of the UN debated the inclusion of the invasion of Tibet by foreign forces" as an additional item in the UN General Assembly.

However, a conclusion to the debate was kept pending. Then from the fifth session onwards the Tibetan issues of invasion, destruction, violation of human rights, cultural genocide, and self-determination were debated on. As a result of these debates three resolutions in 1959, 1961 and 1965 were passed. All these resolutions were sponsored by Ireland and Malaysia and the resolutions of 1961 and 1965 were sponsored in addition by Thailand, El Salvador and the Phillipines. During the General Assembly debate on Tibet in 1965, I would like to read this quote from the Irish representative to the UN: “For thousands of years, or for a couple of thousand years, at any rate, Tibet was as free and as fully in control of its own affairs as any other nation in this assembly, and a thousand times more free to look after its own affairs than many nations here.”

At one of the later sessions and debates, the representative of Thailand said to the assembly: “Thailand is a Buddhist nation and, as you are aware, Buddhism is essentially a religion of peace and compassion. We would therefore fail in our duty should we ignore the tragic events in Tibet and utterly disregard the appeals of its people.”


South East Asia: Human Rights Seminar on Tibet (1998) - TCHRD - Publications

 

[nimo_cn]

so OK its polite to recognize our Territory as a separate country huh

Can you elaborate, what territory? You guys claim almost the whole south asia, i really can't tell which part belongs to india and which part doesn't.

and its polite to support our enemy to facilitate their shams huh .

So China should consult to India before it establishes a relationship with other sovereign country?

[PS: don't get me started on the Chinese Harp song of How bad the Dali lam is and all ]

2 can play at this game mister and if we come to the party it ain't going to be fair at all its just a matter of time.

You are already in this party!
India started this ugly game and successfully dragged China in by accomodating Dalai Lama and letting him use india as a base for his secessionist activities for over 50 years.

 

[ppgj]

Can you elaborate, what territory? You guys claim almost the whole south asia, i really can't tell which part belongs to india and which part doesn't.

f-14 is referring to jammu and kashmir. your country has started issuing stapled visas to the residents of that indian state.

So China should consult to India before it establishes a relationship with other sovereign country?

no. it is a joke when you shield pakistan and its terror infrastructure at the UN.
JUD and JEM being the ones shielded by you.
having a realtionship is one thing but shielding terror groups supported by pakistan is another thing.

You are already in this party!
India started this ugly game and successfully dragged China in by accomodating Dalai Lama and letting him use india as a base for his secessionist activities for over 50 years.

wrong. you people occupied tibet and drove HH dalai lama out. though he has been sheltered by us, they are not engaged in secessionist activities. even HH dalai lama is only asking for autonomy you people are not giving.

 

[pankaj nema]

the chinese know that they cannot stop India's rise .In the last decade India has made substantial progess and will continue to do so.

by 2020 the difference between India and China would be negligible.

pakistan the chinese client state used by china to tie down India is simply DISSOLVING
basically pakistanis are incompetent.and the chines KNOW that

so FINALLY china has no option but to become friends with india.

after all WE DON'T have a blood fued .

The chinese are NOT after territory.
they just LOVE TO harass india

 

[CS1.6]

the chinese know that they cannot stop India's rise .In the last decade India has made substantial progess and will continue to do so.

by 2020 the difference between India and China would be negligible.

pakistan the chinese client state used by china to tie down India is simply DISSOLVING
basically pakistanis are incompetent.and the chines KNOW that

so FINALLY china has no option but to become friends with india.

after all WE DON'T have a blood fued .

The chinese are NOT after territory.
they just LOVE TO harass india

No one can really stop Indian's rise and this is no doubt,

it's too early to say what would be the situation in 2020, by the way, it's meaningless to say bla bla bla by 2020;

Yes, Chinese love to harass india, old friends actually dont always loud each other but they harass each other for fun;

 

[nimo_cn]

f-14 is referring to jammu and kashmir. your country has started issuing stapled visas to the residents of that indian state.

I dont know much about jammu, so i will not comment on this.
As for kashmir, it is still disputed area. As far as i know, no country in the world has officially recognized kashmir as part of India. I am not an expert in this issue, so correct me if i am wrong.

no. it is a joke when you shield pakistan and its terror infrastructure at the UN.
JUD and JEM being the ones shielded by you.
having a realtionship is one thing but shielding terror groups supported by pakistan is another thing.

China opposes any terrorism in any form, we are also victims of terrorism. It is groundless and irresponsible to accuse us of shielding terrorism.

I dont know whether Pakistan support terrorism or not, but one thing for sure, China dont support terrorism. So stop making these silly and irresponsible remarks.

wrong. you people occupied tibet and drove HH dalai lama out. though he has been sheltered by us, they are not engaged in secessionist activities. even HH dalai lama is only asking for autonomy you people are not giving.

Tibet belongs to China, and we didnt drove dalai lama out, he betrayed his country and fled to India.

The nature of dalai lama's plan is to separate Tibet from China, denying the fact that dalai lama is a secessionist only prooves that you are intellectually dishonest.
And by housing him. india is interfering in the internal affair of China.

 

[Ray]

China is in big trouble if you read this article.


What is being done about this

China from within

Giant sand storms are wreaking havoc in China. They’re the biggest, most destructive storms in China’s history. And they’re not confined to the countryside. Beijing, the capital of China, frequently grinds to a halt as it is blanketed in airborne sand. Once a rare occurrence, sand storms are now a frequent blight on Beijing life.

In the most severe storms, residents say that “It’s like it is raining sand”. An early warning system sounds to alert residents of the danger as people stay indoors and airports are shut down. Much of the sand originates in the northern and the western deserts of China – the Gobi, the Takla Makan, the Ordos. But once airborne the sands do not respect national boundaries. They increasingly fall on Korea and Japan. The sands even cross the Pacific Ocean to fall on the United States. The environmental disaster in China is reaching global proportions.

The sandstorms are awesome. In China’s Raging Sands we see walls of sand a kilometre high stretching from horizon to horizon. The sandstorms are also lethal. They have the force of a mid-sized earthquake – and unlike earthquakes they last not for minutes but for days. Forty-seven schoolchildren died in a single storm. Visibility in these tidal waves of sand can drop to less than a metre – and temperatures have dropped as low as minus 55 degrees Celsius. The storms can move at the speed of a freight train, overwhelming everything in their path. And when the winds die they deposit a layer of sand that suffocates the countryside.

The deserts of China are increasing at a furious rate. In China’s Raging Sands we see how fierce winds blow the sands of the old deserts. Worse yet, we see new deserts being created. Desertification – the turning of once fertile land into desert – is a major problem. Global warming and environmental damage put a third of the country at risk. Just 70 km north of Beijing the Great Wall was built to keep invaders out of China. Today, desert sands reach that wall. At the current rate of expansion Beijing will be surrounded by sand before the end of the century.

China is now engaged in a desperate race to stop the sands. Scientific research and government policy are converging to address the problem. But for herdsmen who have seen their entire flocks wiped out or for farmers who have seen two-thirds of their village disappear, a solution cannot be found soon enough.

 

[Ray]

Maoists getting arms from China: Home Secretary


New Delhi: The government for the first time on Sunday said that the Maoists are getting arms from China, which is a "big supplier" of small weapons.

"Chinese are big smugglers... suppliers of small arms. I am sure that the Maoists also get them," Home Secretary G K Pillai said when asked if the Naxals were having links with China.

The Home Secretary said the government has no information that the Maoists have any links with China except getting arms. "I do not think so, except getting arms," he told reporters on the sidelines of a function here.

Pillai, however, did not elaborate whether the Maoists were getting arms from Chinese arms smugglers or official agencies.

More at:

Maoists getting arms from China: Home Secretary

 

[Ray]

Tibet belongs to China, and we didnt drove dalai lama out, he betrayed his country and fled to India.

The nature of dalai lama's plan is to separate Tibet from China, denying the fact that dalai lama is a secessionist only prooves that you are intellectually dishonest.
And by housing him. india is interfering in the internal affair of China.

How did His Holiness the Dalai Lama betray his country?

His country was Tibet, which was ravaged by the Chinese occupation. Where is the Panchen Lama selected by the Tibetan customs? Do you think that His Holiness would like to be a prisoner in China instead? Freedom is something to be experienced to be understood – a caged parrot in a gilded cage is still a caged parrot!

You are not aware of UN obligations on political asylum since you live in a totalitarian country. Please educate yourself. India was obliged to give asylum as per the protocols!

Tibet did not belong to China and nor did Xinjiang nor South China. They were all annexed to imperialistic design and wars.

 

[ppgj]

I dont know much about jammu, so i will not comment on this.
As for kashmir, it is still disputed area. As far as i know, no country in the world has officially recognized kashmir as part of India. I am not an expert in this issue, so correct me if i am wrong.

jammu and kashmir is one entity. kashmir is a region in it.

China opposes any terrorism in any form, we are also victims of terrorism. It is groundless and irresponsible to accuse us of shielding terrorism.

that is why you shielded the groups from pakistan. checkout how you people voted against UN resolutions to ban JUD (mother of LET) and JEM.
is support or not?
http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?664238

I dont know whether Pakistan support terrorism or not, but one thing for sure, China dont support terrorism. So stop making these silly and irresponsible remarks.

so innocent.

Tibet belongs to China, and we didnt drove dalai lama out, he betrayed his country and fled to India.

blatant lie propagated by your govt.

The nature of dalai lama's plan is to separate Tibet from China, denying the fact that dalai lama is a secessionist only prooves that you are intellectually dishonest.
And by housing him. india is interfering in the internal affair of China.

your own premier appreciates indian action.

Chinese Premier appreciates Indias steps over Tibetan protests

all HH dalai lama is asking for is autonomy. what is secessionary about it?

 

[enlightened1]

 

[Ray]

My only fear is that after the demise of HH the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan youth worldwide could take things into their own hand and things will go berserk!

 

[nimo_cn]

How did His Holiness the Dalai Lama betray his country?

His country was Tibet, which was ravaged by the Chinese occupation. Where is the Panchen Lama selected by the Tibetan customs? .

Dalai Lama got his title from the central government of China, without the approval from central government of China, he simply couldn't be Dalai Lama.

And i don't want to argue with you on the historical and political legitimacy of China's sovereignty over Tibet and other areas such as Xinjiang, and South China Sea, because it will be a waste of time. Anyway, your government recognizes these areas as integral parts of China, although it is reluctant to do that. As i said your government is reluctant, so it keeps Dalai Lama, so that it can use him to blackmail us from time to time.

You are not aware of UN obligations on political asylum since you live in a totalitarian country. Please educate yourself. India was obliged to give asylum as per the protocols! .

How disingenuous you are! "political asylum"? Please save these crap.
We all know what is going on here.In this case, you are misusing political asylum to interfere in the internal affair of China.

 

[Rage]

Chill out, big guy!

All i want to say is that, next time your PM is lavishing praise on your accomplishments, please leave china alone, dont try to degrade us, even in subtle way. That is not polite.

Are you intimidated? By what? A perceived "degradation" on the part of our PM by his expounding on the 'ethical divide' between your development path and ours? And how should we respond when a chinese 'univeristy student' for instance initiates a paper calling for the disintegration of India into a thousand states? Or your government, disillusioned as it is with the widespread agitations in Tibet and Xinjiang, and rural China, continues to make claims on the Tawang tract despite a 2005 border agreement evincing the exclusion of all border areas?

In the rest of the free world, which is where we live, we know to distinguish between such statements and fact. The fact is that such statements are meant for the consumption of domestic US audiences. No more or less. They have nothing to do with reality, for we too 'usurp' lands for mega industrial projects when major economic interests are at stake, considered 'subsistent' or 'sacred' by tribals, and are only slightly better than you when it comes to land acquisition. The 'ethicality' in it is that we have village committees to assuage the compunctions of those whose lands are lost. And to ensure fair remuneration and act in a consultative capacity that may in some cases influence the outcome.

The dragon need not crap its panty hoes.

 

[no smoking]

to our PRC gang yes we Indians are snails etc etc but still this is a turttle and hear race look at you if today ben benarnki says that " we are going to print our way out of this shit then you will be begging him not to because your reserves will be not even worth thr paper they are printed on do not under estimate us my friends we might not be as cool as you and we have problems but push us to the wall and you will be sorry you did that very sorry

Only one problem in your turtle and hare race: it is not one turtle vs one hare. It is a race among a group of turtle and hare. And there are already a lot of hares being ahead of china. So, there is no way we are gonna ease the alert.

 

[rajkoumar]

The meteoric rise of both India and China must have become the most discussed geopolitical trend of the past decade. And now, at a time when most economies are still floundering in the wake of the global economic crisis and both Asian states project almost insolent growth rates of 7 to 8 % for the coming fiscal year; at a time when a steady stream of media reports indicate an upsurge in Sino-Indian border tensions along the Himalayas, it appears ever more obvious that the XXIst century will be increasingly defined not only by how Delhi and Beijing interact with the rest of the world, but also by how they choose to interact with each other.

All too often, India and China are somewhat summarily lumped together as Asia’s “rising powers”. In reality, however, India and China are at two very different stages in their development and are quite simply not yet boxing in the same category. In terms of pure hard, conventional military power, China is leagues ahead of its transhimalayan neighbor. This is due, in no small part to the fact that India’s steadily growing military budget, which accounted for 26.8 billion dollars in 2008-2009, is still nowhere near that of the PRC, which some Pentagon analysts estimate to be close to 140 billion dollars.
(China is notoriously opaque when it comes to the detailing of its military budget) Diplomatically speaking, China is a permanent member of the UNSC, India, despite all its lobbying in favor of a reform of the Security Council, is not. Finally, in terms of economic power, China which reaps the rewards of a 20 years head start over India in the domain of economic liberalization, can boast a GDP, which, at 4.2 trillion dollars, is about three times and a half that of India (1.2 trillion dollars).

There is however one area where the playing field is more level: Soft Power.
Soft power is frequently simply conflated with economic power. If that was the case, Beijing would once again be far ahead. In reality though, as Joseph Nye famously pointed out, a nation’s soft power is far more than a simple panorama of its achievements in terms of exports, FTAs and sustained growth rates. Soft power, he says, is “the influence and attractiveness a nation acquires when others are drawn to its culture and ideas.” In the information world we live in, the “image branding” of nations, as well as their “likeability factor” have acquired greater significance, especially so for two states that are not only countries, but also civilizational states struggling to let the rest of the world come to terms with their relatively recent rise.

While both states are acutely aware of the importance of soft power and cultural attractivity, India seems to hold a sizeable advantage in that, unlike China, it needs to do little to render its culture appealing to the rest of the world. The process is natural, almost organic. This is consistent with India’s long history as both a birthplace of ideas, and of peaceful cultural diffusion. Whereas China invaded and occupied Vietnam for more than a thousand years, India spread Buddhism and the Hindu concept of sacred kingship to Southeast Asia not by sword and flame, but via trade and itinerant missionaries. The fact that ancient India never engaged in long-term occupation or widespread forcible conversion in Southeast Asia is not without significance. The peaceful propagation of Buddhism is a multi-millennia old bond that India shares with the rest of the Asian continent that acts as a testament to the power of its civilizational pull. In stark contrast, Chinese Confucianism, deemed too elitist and Sino-centric, was only adopted by certain other countries’ leading classes (as in Vietnam) but never by their peasantry.

When it comes to defining India’s more modern ‘soft power’ Bollywood is often cited, and with reason, as a prime example. The glittering, flamboyant films churned out by Mumbai’s gargantuan film industry have long been popular in certain regions of the world such as the Middle East. Over the past decade, however, Bollywood has been making inroads elsewhere. One of the most popular current viral videos in India shows a man in the depths of Tajikistan passionately humming and singing a Bollywood theme song to his bemused Indian visitors-all in perfectly memorized Hindi. When the Indian TV soap opera ‘Kynunki Saas Bhi’ was dubbed in Dari and aired on Afghanistan’s Tolo TV it was such an astounding success that it became a national obsession. 90% of television-owning Afghan families would follow the show, sometimes incurring the wrath of mullahs who viewed it as being responsible for the desertion of mosques during evening prayers. In certain African countries, such as Senegal and Mali, villagers often trek out miles to the closest projection room just to be able to watch one of the latest Bollywood films. Little does it matter that they do not understand the dialogue or that it is set in a distant land; the themes of love, family and marriage they evoke are universal, and the sparkling opulence of the dances, costumes and songs have the gift of enchanting the minds of moviegoers far less jaded than those in the West.

India’s cultural influence is not only being felt in the developing world, however. Books by Indian English-speaking writers such as Vikram Seth, Amitav Ghosh and Arundhati Roy have wooed critics across the world and become instant modern classics. Films by progressive female Indian directors such as Mira Nair and Deepa Mehta have revealed that Indian films are more than escapist fantasies, and can be simultaneously contemplative and entertaining. The triumph of Slumdog Millionnaire at last year’s Academy Awards was not only that of a slick, elegantly crafted melodrama, but also that of a certain depiction of contemporary India, warts and all, which nevertheless swayed the hearts of the jury.

This positive image of India is actively reinforced in the West by the increasingly affluent and politically self-confident Indian diaspora. This is particularly the case in the US, where families of Indian origin earn on average twice as much as their standard American counterparts, and where the Indian business lobby has gained such political clout that Hillary Clinton was derisively nicknamed the ‘Senator from Punjab’ during the 2008 election. In contrast, Chinese overseas communities, traditionally wealthy in Southeast Asia, do not fare as well in the West. While the average revenue of a Chinese American family is above that of their White American counterparts, the Chinese community registers very strong income disparities, and its members tend to be overqualified for their jobs. They also have not, as yet, manifested the same political activism in Congress as their South Asian counterparts.
In Great Britain, curry has now replaced fish and chips as the national dish of choice, and it is said that curry houses in the UK now employ more people than the mining and shipbuilding industries combined. Mumbai has now become one of the fashion capitals of the world, and fashion aficionados of the world no longer only stalk the runways of Milan, Paris and New York.

All this seems to indicate that the flow of information in-between India and the world is no longer unidirectional, as in the past, when India would only attract pampered Western youths trawling the subcontinent in search of a hypothetical spiritual redemption. India is gradually regaining its place as a historical trendsetter, and the influence it is having on the rest of the world, and particularly on the West, is far more profound and extends beyond simple pop subculture.

What now of China? As the perfectly choreographed spectacles of the 2008 Olympics and the recent 60th anniversary of the PLA seem to display, no other country in the world devotes as much time and energy into projecting a positive image as China. Why then, does it not seem to be catching on?
Part of the reason may be that China’s cultural diplomacy, unlike India’s, is more didactic than dialectic, and focuses more on an officially sanctioned discourse than on an open exchange of ideas. Take China’s growing global network of Confucius Institutes, which are designed to provide instruction in Chinese language and culture, and which work to create partnerships in-between Chinese universities and foreign universities in their host countries. The Institutes also operate under the tutelage of the ‘Chinese Language Council’ a government body, which has issued strict guidelines stipulating that the Institutes, as well as their host universities, must comply with political directives on issues deemed by Beijing to be ‘sensitive’, such as the international status of Taiwan or Tibet, or any form of historical investigation pertaining to ethnic minorities.

All in all, Chinese public diplomacy has been highly selective in nature. If cultural diplomacy is, as some have claimed, a form of ‘elaborate storytelling to the world’, then China is only telling half the story. One interesting case study is that of the famous mariner Zheng He who plied the waters of the South China Sea and of the Indian Ocean, and maybe even beyond with a fleet of 28 000 men, and who is now being held up as an emblem of China’s great seafaring past, as well as a symbol of the PRC’s supposedly peaceful maritime intent. Conveniently left out of the historically sanctioned narrative is the fact that Zheng He’s expeditions, were not only economic and pacifist in nature, as it is claimed, but were also a political extension of the Imperial tributary system. When a ruler, such as the Sri Lankan king Alakeswara, refused to pay tribute and thus recognize himself as the Chinese Emperor’s vassal, he was promptly deposed and ferried back to the Ming Court in chains. (Another fact that is frequently glossed over is that Zheng He was a Hui Muslim, and could probably never have risen to such preeminence in today’s Han dominated China)
Even Chinese international blockbusters, such as ‘Hero’ or ‘House of Flying Daggers’, while entertaining and often beautifully shot, invariably deal with a recurring theme: the photogenic and ethnically Han heroes, battling through pristine landscapes, end up by sacrificing themselves for the good of the nation. This may explain why such films, which have known some success in Western movie theatres, leave audiences in the developing world cold. An African villager or Central Asian goat tender has little time for the lofty ideal of national self-preservation in the face of fissiparous tendencies. He wants to watch something he can relate to, and whistle a catchy tune on his way home.

The main reason underlying India’s Soft Power Advantage over China, however, is undoubtedly related to the nature of their respective regimes and societies. India’s tradition of tolerance for diversity and of religious syncretism, when combined with its pluralist democratic system, vibrant mass media, and English-speaking elite, render it an infinitely more inspiring model. China’s slightly Orwellian PR efforts cannot hide the deeply unattractive nature of its regime. Its soothing discourses on its harmonious society collapse in on themselves each time a blood-soaked repression of Tibetan or Uighur protestors is caught on film, and its insistence on its peaceful rise is put into doubt when reports surface of Chinese warships harassing US vessels in international waters. Beijing’s habit of nurturing close ties with unsavory regimes such as Sudan, Myanmar and North Korea does little to improve matters. Indeed, while China’s non-interference policy in the domestic affairs of human right trampling states may earn it some degree of appreciation abroad, of a state respectful of national sovereignty; it only adds to its image, particularly in democratic societies, of an unscrupulous, amoralistic entity.

This is something that China, for all its flawlessly orchestrated displays and declarations of good intent, is powerless to prevent. India, for its part, is far from perfect. Its relations with its neighbors in South Asia, who tend to view it as a regional bully, are deplorable, and in its quest for energy security and its need to hedge against either Pakistan or China it has been forced to cozy up to some pretty shady regimes as well, thus running the risk in the long term of casting a shadow over its shiny democratic visage. The Bollywood films that have elicited such an enthusiastic response abroad showcase all too often a clean, pale-skinned bourgeois India disconnected from everyday reality. But as far as Rising Asia’s PR war is concerned, for India the battle is already won.