Why China could attack India

Considerable interest has been generated in the media in recent months on a possible Chinese invasion of India. A Times of India article over the summer proclaimed that China is likely to attack India by 2012, while China called for the disintegration of India into 20-30 nations. Now, national security is nothing we can sleep over, and to my mind, India’s politicians and bureaucrats have given short shrift to it. China is acutely aware of this shortfall in India’s political and economic acumen, and is likely to fully exploit these deficiencies whenever it receives such opportunities.

Nations go to war for all sorts of reasons – rational and irrational. Socrates’ writings implored city-states to attack neighbours to expand their wealth, while pride, anguish, fear, and self-image are other reasons for nations going to war. For instance, Chengiz Khan never wanted, initially, to expand beyond Mongolia, till a trade mission he sent to Afghanistan resulted in an Afghan border guard embezzling the goods, singeing the Mongolian trade diplomat’s beard, and sending the delegation packing, a set of insults that Chengiz Khan could not tolerate. The rest is history – Chengiz Khan’s nomads swept Asia with an unsurpassed frenzy and anger. Thus, any excuse might suffice for an invasion by China – a nation affected by a bruised nationalistic pride from its imperialistic past.

It must be remembered that the China born in 1948 is an innately aggressive nation: it ousted the Nationalists from Manchuria in 1948; swept into Tibet in 1951; occupied Sinkiang and shelled Taiwan in 1954; surreptitiously established itself in Aksai Chin over 1955-57; allowed 30-40 million of its own people to die in a famine during the Great Leap Forward; completed its occupation of Tibet in 1959 in violation of its own promises; launched a full invasion of India and backstabbed USSR on Cuba in 1962; fired on Russian ships on the Amur river in 1967; clashed again with India in 1968 at Nathu La; fought the USSR on the Ussuri river in 1969; was jingoistic in its relations with India in December 1971; invaded Vietnam in 1979 “to teach Vietnam a lesson”, China’s favorite phrase for its adversarial neighbours; supplied nuclear materials to Pakistan in contravention of the NPT as well as rules of the NSG; violently suppressed its own people in Tiananmen in 1989; devastated the Tibetan countryside for 50 years; unceasingly reminds Japan of its atrocities in the 2nd World War, thus not forgetting an old story; props Iran at the UNO which makes Iran thumb its nose at the world; supports ruthless dictators around the world, including N Korea’s Kim Jong II, Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, Burma’s Than Shwe, and Sudan’s Omar Bashir (named by US Parade magazine as the world’s worst dictator); threatens Taiwan incessantly; willfully and boldly orchestrated a mid-air collision with a US air force surveillance aircraft in 2001; makes military incursions into Indian territory on a bi-weekly basis, having already effectively occupied 10 per cent of Arunachal; and aims to protect the territorial sovereignty of Nepal in a veiled threat to India. These are not the signs of a peaceful nation, especially because China appears to have trouble with every major neighbour. Thus, a Communist and godless China is displaying a neurotic personality, one that is unstable and insecure, perhaps psychopathic. China’s disposition is further demonstrated by its friendship with other sociopathic nations. Such characteristics are unremittingly portentous for China’s neighbours.

Given China’s economic miracle, which is immensely praiseworthy, India needs to be doubly cautious. At the rate China is spending its new found wealth on defence acquisitions, China will outspend India in defence by 2050 by at least US$ 49 trillion in actual dollars! With so much additional military muscle, an invasion of India will be too tempting for China. At the least, they will interest themselves in Arunachal (South Tibet) and Ladakh (Little Tibet), while they may well make an excuse of Indian military involvement in Nepal to come to the “defence” of Nepal, finding their way in a heartbeat across Gorakhpur to the Gangetic plain and heartland of India, a border whose defence India still ignores.

Much has been said that an aggression in modern times holds the consequences of international sanctions. But, how do we define aggression? China, playing truant, can convince nations that India started the war. Next, how many countries in the world will break trade relations with China to their own detriment? At present, even USA does not have the economic muscle to stare China down.

But, India can turn the tables on China with one calculated blow: recognise Tibet and counter-claim various border areas that China is occupying. After all, Mansarovar, Aksai Chin, and the northern Brahmputra valley are part of Indian history. This must literally be done without delay in a reversal of Indian policy, notwithstanding the exhortations to the contrary of the Dalai Lama that seem to be devoid of realpolitik. Instead of seeking to “settle” the border issue, which China doesn’t want at all, India’s stance must be diplomatically aggressive, while it beefs up its defences through improved engineering.

The question of Tibet has to be raised anew at international fora with renewed vigour. I am convinced that such an aggressive diplomatic manoeuvre by India will leave China dazed and enervated. The consequences must not be feared, since they can’t get much worse than what India already faces. At most, China may stop its $50 billion a year trade with India, but in doing so they will be cutting their nose to spite their face. In fact, it appears as so serious a matter to keep the lid on a volatile China, that the USA also needs to have a long term plan to disinvest its businesses from China, else its own international and economic positions will stand irreversibly compromised. There is nothing in diplomatic arenas to be ashamed anymore to express forthrightly the military threat from China. If India downplays China’s military threat, it will stand persecuted.

(Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the views either of the Editorial Committee or the Centre for Land Warfare Studies).