29

INDIA CHINA DETENTE REMADE NEW WORLD ORDER - Chapter 29 - KALKI GAUR

Chapter 29

India China Détente Remade World Order

“Global Clash of Races-Diplomacy of Civilizations” © (2006) Kalki Gaur

29(1) Purport

(1) Asia is the Future and Europe is Old

In geopolitical terms, all of Europe is old, the world’s most tourist friendly museum piece. In the mind’s eye of the Neo-conservatives, Europe should be hung with an enormous sign: “The future used to happen here.” It is wrong to say that Germany and France is Old Europe, while former Soviet colonies the East Europeans or Poland represent New Europe, as the whole Europe is old, with ageing population and declining birth rate. The trend lines in terms of economic and military power all say “Asia.” The future is happening in Asia, for better or worse. The geopolitical stakes in Asia are much higher than the stakes in Europe. The top world civilizations and top world powers of the 21st Century are: Protestant United States, Buddhist China, Hindu India, Buddhist Japan, Western Christian European Union and Orthodox Russia.

 

(2) Sustainable Balance of Concert of Asia

The post-Napoleonic Concert of Europe (1815-1914) maintained peace in Europe between several European powers with Britain as a Balancer. The strategic goal of Bush-Rice foreign policy is to create a sustainable balance of power in Asia, so Asian countries can continue to liberalize, progress and develop in the 21st Century of Asia. If the focus of USA-India strategic ties is containment of rising China vis-à-vis the United States and India, the historic model is Europe circa 1914, with China in the role of Germany. If the geopolitical balance of power focus is widened out to include Hindu India and Buddhist Japan along with Buddhist China, then the more congenial Asian balance of power might be Europe circa 1815, with a stable balance of power between several Asian world powers, throughout next 100-years of the 21st Century and the Protestant United States as Balancer as Britain was during Concert of Europe (from 1815 to 1914), with very little cost to Christian United States.

 

29(2) Talk Points

Elephant India Courts Dragon China

First. Indians after the Vajpayee’s visit to China fell in love with Chinese and India fell in love with China. Elephant India wants to mate with Dragon China to produce giant offspring. George Fernandes said this visit is “Let’s be Friends visit.” However Prime Minister Vajpayee improvised it into “Let’s Mate and procreate visit.” During the last 2,200 years India and China had been friends 99.9% of the time, so argued Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao during his talks with Indian Defense Minister to set the ball rolling. One of the first comments by Hu Jintao had been that India and China should think long-term. Quite Pragmatism displayed by the new generation leadership of China and Prime Minister Vajpayee cemented the Sino-Indian Détente and brought about the transformation of Enemy into potentially closest allies. The history would record the June 2003 visit of Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee to China as one of the most important diplomatic turning point in post Second World War world, and was as important as the President Nixon’s first visit to China. Mr. Vajpayee, Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao made history, and paved superhighway for the mating of the Indian and Chinese civilizations in the 21st Century that would herald the Asian Century. Giant Elephant and giant Dragon are both in heat and passionate about mating. Yankee Hunter knows that when Elephants mate grass suffers and when Elephant mates Dragon even mountains would shake and resonate with passion. Let Indian Civilization mate and procreate with Chinese Civilization and the resulting synthesis Civilization might be the dominant Civilization of the world throughout Third Millennium. Barring unforeseen catastrophe Vajpayee’s visit of China ushered in the Asian Century at the start of the 21st Century. “The Elephant and the Dragon” is also the title of the recent book authored by Prof Zhang and Prof. Wang Dehua. Indian Elephant has nothing to fear from Chinese Dragon and Elephant can effectively compete with Dragon on a level playing ground.

 

USA China India Triangular Balance

Second. Sino-US détente during Nixon administration created USA-China-Japan triangular balance of power in Asia and USA-USSR-China triangular balance of power in the world that determined world politics from 1970 to 1990. The 2003 Sino-Indian Détente would create USA-China-India triangular balance of power in Asia. India replaced Japan after the 2003 Sino-Indian Détente in the Triangular Asian Balance of Power. India and China should pool their diplomatic assets to develop common India-China policy towards securing the supplies of oil and gas resources from Arabian Gulf and Caspian basin for the oil-hungry and oil imports dependent economies of India and China. It is in the national interest of India and China that the oil and gas resources of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, flow either eastward to China or southward towards India. Whenever India and China succeed to decisively influence the military and political power balance of oil-rich Arabian Gulf and Central Asia, would allow USA-China-India triangular balance determine the global balance of power and determine the nature of the international system.

 

USA China India As Super Powers Troika

Third. The military and economic capability matters in diplomacy. World’s top three Great Powers are: USA, China and India. World’s top four largest economies are: USA, China, Japan and India. Neither European Union nor Russia could possibly hold United States in check and it was exposed during the 2003 Iraq War. However, if Sino-Indian Détente developed into Entente and resulted in Asian Common Market, then determined Sino-Indian joint front could confront and hold in check in Asia, including Arabian Gulf, Caspian Central Asia and Southeast Asia. Russia as well as France would support Delhi-Beijing Axis to hold American in check, provided Sino-Indian détente developed common geopolitical perspective towards Pax Americana and American Preemptive strikes. Land powers Indian Elephant and Chinese Dragon should develop strategic alliance of the Asian land powers to neutralize the imperialistic ambitions of airpower, space power and sea power carnivorous American Eagle. India accepted Chinese demand on Tibet without insisting on reciprocity on Sikkim to focus on the looming threat of American desire to conquer the world. At the start of 19th Century France led by Napoleon Bonaparte led France in the conquest of Europe. At the start of the 20th Century Germany led by William Kaiser and Adolf Hitler attempted the conquest of the world that resulted in two World Wars. At the start of the 21st Century United States led by President Bush might attempt to conquer the world for White Christian race, before yellow Buddhist China and brown Hindu India asserted their destined role as two Super Powers of the 21st Century. Russia, France and Germany might accept Pax Americana as lesser evil to forestall the rise of China and rise of India as superpowers. India and China should cultivate closer ties with Russia, France and Germany to avert the possibility of United States and European Union ganging together to create a Monolithic White Christian imperialistic grouping. However, the Atlantic rift between United States on one side and Germany and France on other side is real and ever widening.

 

China Japan India Asian Common Market

Fourth. The size of the economy matters in diplomacy. The combined GNPs of China ($4.1 trillion), Japan ($3 trillion) and India ($2.2 trillion) was ($9.2 trillion) exceeded the combined GNP ($9 trillion) of USA ($8.4 trillion) and Canada ($726 billion) as well as the combined GNPs ($8.6 trillion) of 14 European Union members, namely, Germany, France, UK, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Russia. Japan is in the Deflation and Germany economy contracting and USA might lose its economic vitality. It would be in the interest of Japan to form Asian Common Market with India and China so that Asia could emerge as the economic engine of the world economy. India’s expertise in Information Technology, Software, Financial services, Service industry, Pharmaceuticals, Biotechnology matched Chinese strengths in manufacturing industry and consumer electronics. China imported $250 billion worth goods in 2002 and would be importing 4 times over if it wanted to quadruple its GNP in next 10 years. Only the economy of Giant Elephant India has the size big enough to supply the increase imports requirement of the $16 trillion Chinese GNP of 2013, which would logically have the four times the present imports of $250 billion i.e. $1 trillion imports into China. India should aim to export $200 billion worth exports to China by 2012, which would mean the $400 billion annual bilateral Sino-Indian trade by 2013. Only India has the size of the population and unfulfilled demand for goods to import and consume the increased Chinese products and goods that China must produce and export in order to quadruple China’s GNP at PPP to $16 trillion in next ten years. Giant yellow Dragon China has no option but to mate and procreate with giant brown Elephant India, if China remained serious about quadrupling its GNP to $16 trillion in next ten years.

 

Yin-Yang Software-Hardware Union

Fifth. Indian expertise in Software and knowledge based industries when married to Chinese strength in manufacturing industries could produce software-embedded electronics products in telecommunications and consumer electronics that could dominate world markets and secure large projects. India wants to buy more Chinese manufactured goods and wants to sell more services and knowledge-based products. Indian Chemicals, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, IT and Software products would find ready markets in China. India and China should abolish tariff and custom duties on entire range of products and all trade transactions should be based on free floating Indian and Chinese currency exchange rates and not based on any parity with Dollar or Euro or any other international currency. Let Indian and Chinese currencies find their true parity and exchange rates as determined by the markets.

 

Asian Defense Pact

Sixth. India should make unilateral declaration that India would never join the US-led international coalition that might attack China to engineer the secession of Tibet and Sinkiang (Xinjiang) from China. India would never become the cannon fodder for the European colonial powers. China is concerned that before 1947 Indian Army controlled the British Sphere of Influence in Southern China. India led the Opium War against China in late 19th and early 20th Century. Fast growing economies of China and India dependent on imported oil and gas resources. National interests of India and China coincide in securing oil and gas supplies from Arabian Gulf and Caspian Central Asia. India and China should lead the Asian Defense Pact to militarily protect the energy supplies of Asian economies, namely, China, India, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan that depend on imported oil and gas resources. It is in the common national interests of China, India, South Korea and Taiwan that United States should not establish American oil colonies in Arabian Gulf and Caspian Central Asia.

 

Multipolar World Order

Seventh. India and China do not accept American propaganda that United States is the sole super power of the world and that the present international system became unipolar after the demise of the Soviet Union. India and China are Super Powers and shared the global responsibilities and global interests with United States. The top three super powers of the world are, namely, United States, China and India. India and China have the diplomatic and military capability to hold America in check in Central Asia, Southeast Asia and Iran. India and China stand for multipolar world and oppose the unipolar world and should coordinate their diplomacy to hold America in check. India and China support the globalization process, when it promotes the exports of the developing countries, but would oppose the free export of capital from the developing world, as it would result in the exodus of the scarce foreign exchange from the Third World to the Western financial institutions. India and China should fully utilize the substantial potential and opportunities for deepening mutually beneficial cooperation between the two countries meets the need to promote the socio-economic development and prosperity of both China and India; maintain peace and stability regionally and globally; strengthen multipolarity at the international level; and enhance the positive factors of globalization.

 

Neither China Nor India Threat to Other

Eighth. India does not consider China presents any significant threat to India. Indian military capability rules out any possibility of any Chinese victory in any future wars. The 1962 Sino-India Clash was a freak incident. The common interests of India and China outweigh their differences. India and China are not a threat to each other. Neither India nor China should allow the differences to affect the overall development of bilateral commercial, industrial and religious relations.

 

Common Interests at WTO

Ninth. National interests of India and China coincide in WTO. India and China agreed to enhance cooperation at the World Trade Organization, which is not only to mutual benefit but also in the broader interest of developing countries and two sides will hold dialogues on a regular basis in this regard to adopt common policy towards WTO.

 

Bombay made Mandarin Films

Tenth. The Hindu-Buddhist and Hindi-Mandarin cultural ties in filmmaking, music, drama and literature would cement diplomatic ties between India and China. India and China will launch a financial dialogue and cooperation mechanism to strengthen their dialogue and coordination in this sector. Indian film industry should hire Chinese artists and use Chinese music with Hindi lyrics. Bombay Film industry could dominate Chinese markets just as Hollywood dominates the European markets. India should set up Mandarin Films and TV program production facility in Bombay to produce Mandarin films and TV programs for Chinese markets by hiring Chinese artists and Mandarin script writers. Mandarins films made in Bollywood Bombay would find ready markets in Malaysia, Indonesia and expatriate Chinese Community.

 

Buddhism-Hinduism Détente of Religions

Eleventh. India should translate and print in Mandarin language Buddhist scriptures to meet the growing demands of Buddhist literature in the fast modernizing China. India should help repair Buddhist temples and build new Buddhist Pagodas and encourage Chinese Buddhists travel to India to visit Buddhist religious sites in India. Sino-Indian Buddhist-Hindu religious dialogue and mutual exchange of religious pilgrims would catapult Sino-Indian Détente to the higher level of Buddhist-Hindu Civilizations Détente.

 

Plural Civilization States

Twelfth. India and China would jointly wage wars on the religious intolerance and religious fundamentalism that propagate ethnic and religious separatism. Religious intolerance and ethnic and religious separatism presents greatest threat to the multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic and multi-religious Civilization Nation States such as China, India and Russia. India and china should undertake joint military ventures to root out the breeding grounds of the religious intolerance that propagate ethnic and religious separatism. Islamic terrorism presents the common threat of India and China and provides the basis of joint military actions against nations that nurture, finance and support Islamic terrorism. Islamic terrorism represents the historical barbarians threat to the civilizations and requires the determined massive response of the Civilizations to undertake overwhelming preemptive strikes against the home base of the Islamic terrorism. Thinly populated desert dwelling nomad Muslim terrorists have no right to destroy the peace and tranquility of the over populated Civilizations of Hindu India and Buddhist China. India recognized that Mongol Dynasty of China had conquered the Baghdad Caliphate and ransacked Baghdad in 1254 and ruled over the Islamic world for more than a Century. India accepted China’s legitimate geopolitical and diplomatic interests and influence in Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, Arabian Gulf, and Caspian Central Asia. India and China would combine their military and diplomatic resources to eradicate the scourge of Islamic terrorism in Central Asia and Southeast Asia.

 

Overseas Chinese and Overseas Indians

Thirteen. India and China have a common interest in protecting the economic, political, social and religious interests of overseas Chinese community and overseas Indian community worldwide. India accepts that China has the legitimate right to intervene in Malaysia and Indonesia to protect the rights of Chinese communities. Chinese represented 27% of the population in Malaysia and control the economies of Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines. America and Europe promotes Italy-born Christian Sonia Gandhi as the prime minister of Hindu India so India and China would be fully justified in promoting an ethnic Chinese as the Prime Minister of Malaysia, President of Indonesia and President of the Philippines. India deplored the frequent rapes of Chinese girls in Indonesia at hands of fundamentalist Muslims. India and China should promote election campaigns of US-born Chinese for the Senate, Congress and Presidential Elections in the United States. India and China should cooperate to support the candidature and election campaigns of Overseas Chinese and overseas Indian politicians for national and Federal offices in USA, Canada, UK, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Guyana, Fiji Islands, and South Africa. 

 

Empty Continents & Asia’s Overpopulation

Fourteenth. Sino-Indian Détente should promote common national interest by demanding the redistribution or opening up of the empty continents of Siberia, Australia and empty lands of Canada, Argentina, Congo and Sudan to the overpopulated Asian countries. India (1 billion) and China (1.25 billion) are overpopulated and have a common interest in opening dialogue with White nations to bring about the peaceful transfer of the empty continents under the colonial occupation of White race to allow unrestricted immigration from overpopulated China and India. The six countries with largest populations are: China, India, USA, Indonesia, Brazil and Russia. The six largest countries in land mass are: Russia (17 million sq. km), Canada (9.97 million sq. kms), United States (9.36 million sq. kms), China (9.59 million sq. kms), Brazil (8.54 million sq. kms), Australia (7.74 million sq. kms), India (3.288 million sq. kms), Argentina (2.78 million sq. kms), Kazakhstan (2.7 million sq. kms), Sudan (2.5 million sq. kms), Congo (2.3 million sq. kms). The population of empty lands is: Eastern Siberia (17 million), Canada (31 million), Australia (19 million), Argentina (37 million), Kazakhstan (15 million), Sudan (29 million), and Congo (50 million). India and China should jointly demand open immigration from India to Siberia, Canada, Australia, Argentina, Kazakhstan, Sudan and Congo (Zaire). Population Density of nations people per sq. km is: India (336), China (134), Russia (9), Canada (3), USA (30), Brazil (20), Australia (2), Kazakhstan (6), Sudan (12), and Congo Zaire (40). The national interests of overpopulated nations, India and China coincide. The national interests of India and China, the two nations dependent on imported oil and gas resources coincide. Giant India and giant China do not present any security threats to each other. India and China represent one-third of the world’s population. The brown Indian Civilization and yellow Chinese civilizations should pool their diplomatic assets to jointly bargain with white European, white American civilizations to discuss the issue of overpopulated China and India surrounded by empty continents.

 

Vajpayee’s Visit Diplomatic Masterpiece

Fifteenth. The Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee’s visit to China in June 2003, made diplomatic history and would rank alongside the Dr. Henry Kissinger’s and President Nixon’s visit to China, while Vietnam War raged on. Prime Minister Vajpayee’s visit to China brought about the alliance of two land powers, namely, China and India and gave birth to the Asian Century in 2003. The oil-riches of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan cemented the Sino-Indian détente as Tibet provided to Indians the land gateway to Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Sino-Indian détente would jointly project the military power of the China-India Asian land powers in Caspian Oil basin in Central Asian region (CAR). Vajpayee’s visit to China was a diplomatic masterpiece in the Great Game of Central Asia. The Great Game that Indian empire played with the Russian Empire during 18th and 19th Century settled the Amu River as the border of the Indian Empire and Russian Empire by the 1909 Anglo-Russian Pamir Settlement. The Great Game of the 20th Century resulted in the machinations of the American Sea Power to support Wahhabi fundamentalism and Islamic Mujahideens to defeat Soviet Union in Afghanistan and to bring about the secession of Central Asia from Soviet Union. The geopolitics of the Great Game in the 21st Century demanded that land powers of Eurasia, India, China and Russia have common interests in denying the permanent military bases to the Sea Powers and Air Powers namely maritime United States, NATO and European Union any permanent bases in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tibet and Mongolia. Either India, or China or Russia should control these countries and United States must not secure any permanent bases thereat. It was wise for India to declare that Tibet was a part of China and India would not support any secessionist rebellion in Tibet. Any secession of Tibet would make Tibet a pawn of Sea Power United States and it would great undermine the security of the land powers of Asia, namely, China, India and Russia. Prime Minister Vajpayee’s visit to China cemented the civilization’s alliance of Hindu Indian Civilization with that of the Chinese Buddhist Civilization and would culminate in the India-China Japan Common Market. Indian policy makers should commission a series of policy papers and white papers explaining how Sino-Indian Détente is win-win situation for India as well as China. India and China have common national interests towards: (a) Burma (Myanmar), (b) Afghanistan, (c) Turkmenistan, (d) Uzbekistan, (e) Zimbabwe, (f) Congo (Zaire), (f) Angola, (g) Brazil, (h) Peru, (i) Venezuela. Prime Minister Vajpayee should make similar visits to (a) Brazil, (b) Venezuela, (c) Peru, (d) Mozambique, (e) Madagascar, (f) Canada to repeat the diplomatic success he had in China.

 

TNCs FDIs are Mostly Stolen Chinese Money

Sixteenth, the savvy entrepreneurs exploit vacuums of power, ambiguities in emerging rules and opportunities to amass once unthinkable wealth. In China, it has occurred on an enormous scale. Yang Fan, an economist at China University of Political Science and Law in Beijing, estimates that from the beginning of reforms in the early 1990s through the end of the decade, nearly $4 trillion in public assets were transferred from state-owned companies to insiders, who had close links with top communist party and Chinese Army leadership. Most of the $500 billion Foreign Direct Investments that came into China could be the siphoned Chinese black money looted from State owned corporations by their managers. The most of the Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) in China even by those of the Transnational Corporations (TNCs) in China attributed to the generosity of the Overseas Chinese community, appears to be false, as majority of the Overseas Chinese community are anti-Communist and pro-Taiwan. It appears the most of the Transnational Corporations (TNCs) Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) was simply the stolen Communist China’s wealth siphoned abroad by corrupt Communist Party leadership and Chinese Army’s top leadership, reputed to amount more than $4 trillion. India should not worry that Foreign Corporations preferred China over India, it only meant that Chinese officials and military leaders are more corrupt than Indian officers and leaders, and that Chinese leaders stole China’s assets at grand scale, making China impoverished. India can easily catch up with China.

 

Giant Indian Elephant turned Into Giant Tiger

Seventeenth, the Capitalist Indian elephant has nothing to fear from communist dragon in the Clash of Titans as Capitalist Elephant could suddenly transform into Giant Tiger influenced by market forces faster than Communist Dragon could ever do. Just as democratic, capitalist Untied States overtook communist totalitarian Soviet Union just 15 years after the defeat of the USA in the Vietnam War in 1975, it is very likely that Indian elephant would overtake Chinese dragon in first two decades of the 21st Century. The Indian herbivorous Giant Elephant turned into carnivorous Giant Tiger in the 21st Century. At the micro level, India has displayed every bit as much dynamism as China. Compare the recent Economist cover story (27 June 2003) on India and China with that done in the mid-90s. In the mid 1990s India was seen as a slow, ponderous Elephant, a far cry from its description of India in 2003 as a Tiger. Sure, the Economist still sees India as ‘a Tiger falling behind a Dragon’ but somewhere along the way, in the 1990s the Indian elephant has metamorphosed into a tiger, after the end of the Cold War in 1990. Indians should learn that they have less to fear from their giant neighbor China, than what Indian presently think. India is not outperforming China overall, but it is doing better in certain key areas and that success may enable it to catch up with and perhaps even overtake China," Yasheng Huang, associate professor at Sloan School of Management at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Tarun Khanna, professor at Harvard Business School have said in a study in the recent issue of Foreign Policy.

 

Caspian Oil in Great Game of 21st Century

Eighteenth. During 18th, 19th & 20th Century Indian Empire and Russian empire played the Great Game that resulted in the 1909 Pamir settlement that settled Amu River as borders of Indian and Russian Empires. The purpose of the Great Game was to deny Russian Empire the outlet in the Arabian Sea Warm Water Ports. The Purpose of the Great Game in 21st Century is to deny the foreign Sea powers, namely United States and NATO access to the oil-rich Caspian Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. The geopolitical interests of China, India and Russia coincide in oil-rich Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan. The common goals of 3-countries are to deny USA the foothold in the oil-rich Caspian basin. Tibet is India's gateway to Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgysztan. Russia has declined. The GNPs at PPP are China ($4.2 trillion) India ($2.2 trillion) and Russia ($928 billion). It is in the national interest of Russia to see that either India or china developed economic control over the oil and gas rich Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Emperor Babur came from Uzbekistan and Central Asia had been part of India for thousands of years. It is high time that India regained its influence over Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Krygyzstan.

 

Looming Rural Rebellion in China

Nineteen. One measure of inequality, the gap between the average incomes of Chinese Urban and Chinese Rural residents has risen to about 3.3 to 1, according to the United Nations Development Program, one of the highest in the world. A study by the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Research Office estimates that the ratio could rise to 4 to 1 by 2020 if current trend continue, which some Chinese economists say could incite wider social turmoil. Chinese economic policies have strayed too far toward capitalism. The strength of leftist opposition had faded throughout the 1990’s after Deng Xiaoping, who called economic development “hard truth,” and later Mr. Jiang tolerated little ideological discussion of the direction of changes. Corruption, pollution and land seizures and arbitrary fees and taxes are among the leading causes of a surge in social unrest. Riots have become a common fixture of rural life in China- more than 200 mass incident of unrest occurred each day in 2004, police statistics show. Professor Gong Xiantian criticized the draft law to protect property rights, argued, “draft property law copying capitalist civil law like slaves and offering equal protection to a rich man’s car and a beggar men’s stick. China’s rising income gap and increasing social unrest raises doubt about China’s headlong pursuit of private wealth and market driven economic development. Liu Guogong, said “If you establish a market economy in a place like China, where the rule of law is imperfect, if you do not emphasize the socialist spirit of fairness and social responsibility, then the market economy you establish is going to be an elitist market economy.” Chinese people are very critical of Communist leaders, managers and foreign investors’ raids on state assets.

 

29(3) Elephant Courts Dragon

(1) India & China Win Win Detente

Chinese Dragon surprised to find that Indian Elephant during the first ever visit of Indian leader in 10 years came not to court but mate in the first political meeting that lasted first two days of the 7 days visit. Prime Minister Vajpayee was prepared to sign a Defense Pact with China in the first meeting itself, if only China had the guts to do so, scared as China is of American retributions. Never before in the diplomacy the relations between two adversaries transformed from enmity to close friendship during two days of diplomatic maneuvering. India got Better of China in Joint Declaration. Strategic analysis in India often suffers from a poor sense of history and dismal understanding of Geopolitics. The leftist criticism that the joint declaration signed by Atalji with his Chinese counterpart in Beijing is a sell-out and that India gave to China more than what it got is pure stupid and unpatriotic statement. India in the joint India-China declaration has done no more than reiterate its historical position on Tibet dating back to the Panchsheel treaty of 1954 it is China that has given way on Sikkim by implicitly recognizing Sikkin as a part of India. For the first time, China has recognized the border state as part of India. Historically, the 1954 treaty repeatedly spoke of the “Tibet region of China”. The present 2003 declaration replaces that reference by the phrase “Autonomous Tibet Region”. If there is a change in India’s stand, it’s notional rather than substantive change in India’s policy towards Tibet. For all its support to the Dalai Lama, India has never supported the cause of Tibetan independence. When the Dalai Lama was granted asylum in 1959, New Delhi assured Beijing that he would not be permitted to pursue any anti-Chinese political activities on Indian soil. India has since abided by that commitment. Not surprisingly, the representative of the Dalai Lama, Tashi Wangdy saw no dilution in India’s commitment to the cause of Tibet, indeed the joint declaration emphasized the consistency of the Indian position over the past 49 years.

 

Quite Pragmatism No Political Grandstanding

The joint declaration does not represent a shift in India’s policy on Tibet, but China did insist on a reference to Tibet, because it reflected China’s growing nervousness on Tibet, because of increased international pressure demanding human rights for Tibet and China’s fear that United States might use its military advantage in Precision Guided Munitions to militarily bring about the secession of Tibet from China. China has not formally accepted India’s claim on Sikkim, but having signed a memorandum on expanding border trade between the two countries through Nathu La Pass, it has implicitly accepted India’s jurisdiction over Sikkim. For the trade to take place, for instance, China will have to accept the scrutiny of Indian customs. The Chinese contention that dispute over Sikkim cannot be solved overnight is simply a bargaining counter and should not cause India any worry. The Nathu La trade route will give the Tibetans a window on democracy and the wider world and it might even contribute to democratic change in China. Democracy and Buddhism could enter the hinterland of China via Nathu La pass. India and China moving towards mature relations as India and China look towards bright common future. India and China as two great neighbors have no choice but to be friends. The declaration reflected the desire of Indians and Chinese people to realize their collective potential.

 

Strength of Quite Pragmatism

The 2003 agreement about settling border disputes is a breakthrough in India and China's relationship and the deal was a classic case of political fudge and it showcased the new pragmatism of Vajpayee’s foreign policy. Sino-Indian political and border disagreement seems to have been put to one side to pave the way for an important practical economic gain on the ground to foster closer economic and military ties between world’s 2nd largest and 4th largest economies of the world. The Sino-Indian deal reopened an historic cross-border trade route through Sikkim and Tibet, which had been a major sticking point in the bilateral relationship. Just as Pakistan refuses to normalize relationship with India without first settling the Kashmir issue, similarly India had earlier refused to normalize the Sino-Indian diplomatic and economic relations without first settling the deadlocked border issue. Vajpayee broke the dead lock. India and China can proceed very far with their new policy of pragmatism without raising fresh controversies about the difficult political issues, which have not yet been resolved. The border issue should be resolved at the highest political level so that Indian Yin Elephant could e-Tango with Chinese Yang Dragon to bring about Yin-Yang harmonious union of Indian Software Yin and Chinese Hardware Yang to dominate the Knowledge based markets of the world.

 

Indian Yin and Chinese Yang, Software Elephant and manufacturer Dragon represent complementary harmonious forces in nature that would catapult China and India as the leaders of the 21 Century and herald the 21st Century as Asia’s Century. Confident nuclear weapon power India after emerging as the 4th largest economy thought it wise to develop closer economic ties as China currently imported $250 billion goods and China wanted to quadruple grow its GNP of $4.2 trillion to $16.8 trillion in next 10 years, and imports to over $1 trillion, which is possible only if world’s 2nd largest economy developed Free Trade relationship with India the world’s 4th largest economy. It should be noted that in 1750 AD India produced one-fourth and China one-third of world’s total manufactured goods. It is likely that in next few decades India and China would account for 55% of world’s under-35 population. Vajpayee transacted a quid pro quo on Tibet and Sikkim and released Indian Elephant to mate with Chinese Dragon in a classic case of Yin-Yang as Indian strength in Information Technology, Software and Knowledge based industry, matched China’s strength in electronics manufacturing.

 

India under Nehru gave Tibet to China to secure Sino-Indian Alliance. Vajpayee agreed that Tibet is a part of China to increase India’s share of China’s $250 billion annual imports as India has no reasonable possibility of liberating Tibet, and India could capture Chinese markets. Quiet pragmatism on quid pro quo on Tibet and Sikkim allowed yin-yang reunion of Indian Elephant with Chinese Dragon for good for both sides. Quiet pragmatism allowed diplomats to claim win-win situation for both the parties. Diplomats of both sides realized that quiet pragmatism behind closed doors should jettison the political grandstanding that characterized previous Sino-Indian dialogue. Sino-Indian diplomatic breakthrough is a quiet shift from political grandstanding to quiet pragmatism. China as well India showed new willingness to recognize and implicitly accept the status quo, even if continued to ideologically debate the other country's claim to the territory in question. It seems to be a good practical example of the new bilateral approach, the new Diplomacy of political fudge. Behind closed doors, the handling of the apparent concessions over Tibet and Sikkim seem to be a classic case of political fudge as the agreement was not unveiled in public but signed quietly behind closed doors. The political implications only emerged afterwards and electronic media and newspapers in both countries declared political victory for their own leaders. Indian papers hailed that China now recognized Sikkim as part of India. Indian diplomats say their position on Tibet hasn't changed and it was a formalization of Tibet policy, not a change of policy. Dalai Lama and his government in exile are still welcome in India and there's no question, that he'll be ever forced to leave India, come what may. Chinese papers hailed India's apparent recognition of Tibet as part of China. Diplomats on both sides are struggling to play down the political significance altogether. China said it still has not formally recognized India's claim that Sikkim is part of its territory. India said that it has merely restated what had been the historic policy of India on Tibet. China didn’t give reciprocity to India on Sikkim, but it would be wise to give it soon, lest India reversed its stand on Tibet. China realized that the 1962 victory was a historical fluke and would never be repeated. It would be in the national interest of China to recognize India’s borders with Tibet to India’s satisfaction, otherwise India might be forced to declare Tibet as a part of India. Quiet pragmatism allowed Elephant-Dragon alliance challenge the predominance of the American Eagle in the age where Russian Bear became incapacitated. Quite pragmatism transformed the international system and the Triangular balance of USA-China-India or Eagle-Dragon-Elephant would determine the new world order in the 21st Century. The Sino-Indian Yin-Yang Software-Hardware Super Economic Highway is clear of any roadblocks and poised to take on the world and usher in the Asian Century in the first quarter of the 21st Century that would eclipse European Union and NATFA. In 1750 AD India, China and Japan manufactured 61% of world’s total manufactured goods and it is likely that Asian Common Market led by India, China and Japan would represent 60% of the world’s GNP sometime in the 21st Century.

 

(2) Delhi-Beijing Axis Is World’s 2nd Pole

President Nixon and Secretary Kissinger’s visit to China created USA Soviet Union China triangular balance of power. Similarly, the international system would become Tripolar world after emerging Sino-Indian ties developed geopolitical synergies. Vajpayee’s visit to China created a geopolitical opportunity for China and India to become world powers to be reckoned with on the world stage, even by the sole superpower United States. India and China could together form an important international counterweight to the United States. The visit "sets the stage for the two giant neighbors to give a major new thrust to their bilateral relations and through their combined power impart a needed balance to global affairs. Earlier Asian Balance of Power determined by USA China and Japan balance of power, and after Sino-Indian détente Asian Balance of Power determined by USA China India Balance of Power.

 

Vajpayee exploited the visit to China as an opportunity to turn a historic potential into a reality by giving the relations greater depth through closer economic co-operation, political and military understanding. There is no easy solution to the vexed issues of the disputed border between the China and India, as well as China’s military ties with Pakistan. But given the political will on both sides and the looming menace of Islamic terrorism and Pax Americana there is no reason why the mutual wariness and suspicion that has characterized the Sino-Indian relations in the past cannot be replaced with trust and confidence in each other to lay the foundation of the Sino-Indian bloc, so that the combined leadership of India and China imparted a needed balance to global balance of power to keep preeminent America in the check. Sino-Indian détente is vital at a time of unprecedented flux in international relations, rudely shaken by the American doctrine of pre-emption and America’s war on Iraq and menace of US-supported Islamic terrorism and global drug trade.

 

Vajpayee visit resulted in imparting greater depth to Sino-Indian bilateral relations through more intensive economic co-operation and reduced political frictions and Asia continent took a bold step toward the dream of an Asian Century. The dream of an "Asian Century" as diplomatic goal is logical and reasonable. The goal of Sino-Indian détente is not a Sino-Indian military alliance, but to transform Asia economies through a partnership between India and China, into the economic engine of the world. Sino-Indian détente would blossom as Asian common Market and Japan would also join it. The Elephant Dragon Samurai Détente would result in the synthesis of Asian common market and usher in the Asian Century in the first quarter of the 21st Century.

 

China befriended India, because China realized that only by opening free trade with India could China hope to quadruple its GNP in next ten years as Japan, Germany and United States heading for deflation. India befriended China because India as world’s 4th largest economy stands to gain by increasing exports to China the world’s 2nd largest economy as Japan, Germany and USA heading towards deflation and European Union economy is stagnant. Giant Elephant would gain by trading with Giant Dragon, as Indian economy is complementary to Chinese economy. India wants to get a bigger pie of China’s imports. Sino-Indian détente took birth when India jettisoned the political grandstanding and offered to its host the cold pragmatic menu for diplomatic lunch. India proved its military capability by developing credible nuclear deterrent to convince China that Chinese transfers of nuclear and missile technology to China would not hold India in check. In not-so-distant past India tested nuclear warheads in 1998 "to demonstrate a deterrent to China. But Atal Behari Vajpayee's visit to China, greatly changed the Sino-Indian environment and he seized the moment to jettison the burden of history and inaugurate a new beginning, the need for which had been felt by both sides after the End of the Cold War with the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991.

 

Asian Common Market led by India and China would make India and China the Economic engine of the world as Japan is presently in deep deflation and United States hurling towards deflation. German economy is stagnant and declined in 2002. None of the present economic posers, namely, United States, Japan and Germany could possibly hope to become the economic engine of the world in the first decade of the 21st Century. The ASEAN economy cannot become the economic engine of the world. Only India and China could become the economic engine of the world. The geopolitical goal of the Sino-Indian Entente is not a Sino-Indian military alliance, but to transform Asia through a partnership between India and China into the economic engine of the world. Comprising two of the world's fastest developing economies, China and India the world’s 2nd largest and 4th largest economies in 2002, respectively, also represented one-third of humanity, and in a few decades will represent 55% of the world's population aged under 30. "This young, dominant consumer population will give China and India incomparable economic, military and diplomatic strength. It provides an opportunity to make that dream of an Asian century come true.

 

Asian Century is ushered in with the Sino-Indian, Yang-Yin, Dragon-Elephant, Hardware-Software, and Materialism-Idealism alliance of two leading civilizations of the world. China's Communist leadership has little time for platitudinous sentimentalities in which Indian political leaders revel, but new younger technocrat leadership of de facto Capitalist China and Hindu leadership of India agreed to jettison the political grandstanding that characterized their relations in the past and indulged in the cold pragmatism that Chinese are particularly known for. Pragmatic Chinese relished the cold pragmatic diplomatic menu presented by the Indian Prime Minister.

 

India and China have a relationship that is solidly anchored in economic complementarities. Both sides talked security but concentrated on trade. Sino-Indian ties entered a new stage. China realized that a constructive Sino-Indian partnership would conform more to their respective political and security interests than a relationship as rivals. What truly matters now for the two countries is a shared political will to anchor bilateral ties. A constructive Sino-Indian partnership would conform more to their respective political and security interests than a relationship as rivals. China's development offers an opportunity rather than a threat to India. It is highly unlikely that the two sides will allow unresolved diplomatic disputes to spoil what is shaping up to be a mutually beneficial trade relationship. On the diplomatic and military front, barring any surprises, the best that can be hoped for is a broad agreement to work towards peaceful settlement of ongoing disagreements. Although Atal Behari Vajpayee's presence in China was very important it will need more than one visit to cement bilateral relations. Some contradictions and problems between China and India have been ongoing for a number of years and cannot be solved satisfactorily by one round of talks. The decisive factor is that both the leaders and people of the two countries took a long-term view and strove to maintain and deepen their friendship and cooperation. During 2002-2003 the development of Sino-Indian relations has been remarkable.

 

(3) Transformation of Enemy into Friend

Prime Ministers Vajpayee and Wen Jiabao reestablished the diplomatic dictum that in world politics and diplomacy there are no permanent friends of great powers and no permanent enemies of great powers and there are only permanent national interests. China and India are no longer enemies and potentially could become closest economic, political and military allies to hold American in check. Prime Minister Vajpayee’s historic visit to China transformed the geopolitics of Asia and made India and China potentially the closest military and economic allies of the 21st Century. Prime Minister Vajpayee was concerned about China's expansionism when he landed as the first Indian prime minister on Chinese soil for 10 years. India's Defense Minister George Fernandes called it the "Let's be friends" trip. The Vajpayee’s visit to China succeeded beyond imagination because President Hu Jintao realized that Prime Minister Vajpayee was a man in hurry and China would lose the historic opportunity if it failed to capitalize the first visit of Indian Prime Minister to China in a decade. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao thought he would find it hard to win this round of diplomacy with Vajpayee in 2003 as Chou En Lai had win the round against Jawaharlal Nehru. However, Chinese Dragon realized that Elephant India had willingly come to Beijing to mate with the Dragon. The US military action, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq, alarmed India and China equally. India and China helped as they cautiously expressing opposition to American preemptive strikes but wisely opposed action nonetheless. China realized that Sino-Russian Franco-German anti-US alliance failed to deter American invasion of Iraq. China realized that one protection against this newly dominant US could be Sino-Indian détente for India and China to look to each other for holding American in check. China's recent rhetoric suggested a new strategic alliance with India as China had a particular national interest at heart as China was concerned by the growing military co-operation between India and the United States. The Pentagon’s suggestion that India could act as a friendly host for the US in a future Asian crisis seemed very likely, in crises which involved China on the "other" side in conflict with Taiwan or Japan. China was eager to prove a counterweight to any Pentagon’s plan to use India as the launching pad to invade Tibet and Xinjian. China mistakenly thought it would find it hard to win India round, especially when Vajpayee’s government developed closer ties with Bush Administration and offered Indian military bases to United States for war on Afghanistan. China thought India could do the same in the event Pentagon decided to invade Tibet to engineer the secession of Buddhist Tibet or Muslim Sinkiang-Xinjian Province. China became alarmed of India’s mistrust became deeply engrained and India developed its nuclear deterrent after 1998 nuclear tests largely with China in mind. Defense Minister George Fernandes referred to China some years ago as India's "enemy number one, and many Indians felt he voiced a view common in Delhi. Prime Minister Vajpayee's host Wen Jiabao and new leadership of China President Hu Jintao realized that only pro-Right Hindu government of Atal Behari Vajpayee could employ the diplomacy of cool pragmatism and keep political grandstanding in cold storage to bind Indian and Chinese economies into complementary economies, without fear of charge of sell out to China.

 

India is still cynical about China's expansionist agenda. China talks about a multipolar world but wants a unipolar Asia, with China in prime position. India is increasingly feeling pressure from China's manufacturing sector. Cut-price mass-produced Chinese goods flooding into India are showing India's inability to compete. India wants to learn more. China, for its part, has watched India's phenomenal international success in IT and the call center and service center sectors. It is eager for joint ventures so it can learn and follow suit. The total volume of formal Sino-Indian trade is modest, just $5 billion a year. Officials are talking about tripling formal trade by 2010. So it may not, after all, be a new chapter. But rather the same chapter, dressed up with more friendly political rhetoric and a lot more business.

 

(4) India-China Joint Declaration 2003

India and China signed the Declaration on Principles for Relations and Comprehensive Cooperation on June 23, 2003. At the invitation of Premier of the State Council of the People's Republic of China Wen Jiabao, Prime Minister of the Republic of India Atal Behari Vajpayee paid an official visit to the People's Republic of China from 22 to 27 June 2003. During this visit, Premier Wen Jiabao held talks with Prime Minister Vajpayee. President Hu Jintao of the People's Republic of China, Chairman Jiang Zemin of the Central Military Commission, Chairman Wu Bangguo of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress and Vice President Zeng Qinghong of the People's Republic of China held separate meetings with Prime Minister Vajpayee.

 

India and China made progress over recent years in bilateral relations, conducive not only to their respective development, but also to regional stability in South Asia and Asean region and prosperity of one-third population of the world. India and China have historical depth of their friendly contacts. China and India are the two largest developing countries of the world with centuries- old civilization, unique history and similar objectives. The sustained economic and social development in China and India, representing one third of humanity is vital for ensuring peace, stability and prosperity not only in Asia but also in the whole world. China and India have a mutual desire for good neighborly relations and have broad common interests.

 

Multipolar World Order

India and China stand for multipolar world and oppose the unipolar world and should coordinate their diplomacy to hold America in check. India and China support the globalization process, when it promotes the exports of the developing countries, but would oppose the free export of capital from the developing world, as it would result in the exodus of the scarce foreign exchange from the Third World to the Western financial institutions. India and China should fully utilize the substantial potential and opportunities for deepening mutually beneficial cooperation between the two countries meets the need to promote the socio-economic development and prosperity of both China and India; maintain peace and stability regionally and globally; strengthen multipolarity at the international level; and enhance the positive factors of globalization. India and China are committed to developing their long-term constructive and cooperative partnership on the basis of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, mutual respect and sensitivity for each other's concerns and equality.

 

Neither China Nor India threat to Other

India and China should lead the Asian Defense Pact and Asia-Africa Defense Pact and Non Aligned Defense Pact to protect the sovereignty and independence of the Third World threatened by colonial invasions in the 21st Century. As two major developing countries, China and India have a broad mutual interest in the maintenance of peace, stability and prosperity in Asia and the world, and a mutual desire in developing wider and closer cooperation and understanding in regional and international affairs. The common interests of India And China outweigh their differences. India and China are not a threat to each other. Neither India nor China should allow the differences to affect the overall development of bilateral commercial, industrial and religious relations.

 

Periodic Summit Meeting

It was an act of high treason that Indian Foreign Service Diplomats didn’t arrange the visits of India’s leaders to China in 1990s. It was a sin that Indian Prime Minister visited China after a gap of ten years. India and China should hold summit level and regular high-level exchanges between the two countries, which will greatly enhance mutual understanding and expand bilateral commercial relations. India and China agreed on the need for annual meetings between Foreign Ministers of the two countries and increased personnel exchanges and friendly contacts between ministries, parliaments and political parties of the two countries.

 

Joint Study Group

India and China would hold the next (Seventh) ministerial meeting of the Joint Economic Group during 2003. India and China set up a compact Joint Study Group (JSG) composed of officials and economists to examine the potential complementarities between the two countries in expanded trade and economic cooperation. The JSG would also draw up a program for the development of China-India trade and economic cooperation for the next five years, aimed at encouraging greater cooperation between the business communities of both sides. The Group would present a study report and recommendations to the two Governments on measures for comprehensive trade and economic cooperation by the end of June 2004.

 

Common Interests at WTO

National interests of India and China coincide in WTO. The cultural ties would cement diplomatic ties between India and China. India and China will launch a financial dialogue and cooperation mechanism to strengthen their dialogue and coordination in this sector. India and China agreed to enhance cooperation at the World Trade Organization, which is not only to mutual benefit but also in the broader interest of developing countries and two sides will hold dialogues on a regular basis in this regard to adopt common policy towards WTO. Historical and cultural links between China and India will be strengthened, inter-alia through the promotion of exchanges in culture, education, science and technology, media, youth and people-to-people relations. India and China agreed to set up Cultural Centers in each other's capitals and facilitate their establishment.

 

Need for Asian Defense Pact

India and China should form Asian Defense Pact to protect Asian countries from foreign invasions. India and China will enhance direct air and shipping links, tourism, exchange hydrological data in flood season on common rivers as agreed, cooperation in agriculture, dairy, food processing, health and other sectors. India and China shall broaden and deepen defense exchanges between the two countries, which will help enhance and deepen the mutual understanding and trust between the two armed forces. The exchange of visits by their Defense Ministers and of military officials at various levels shall strengthen ties.

 

Secession of Tibet Not Helps India

The disintegration of China and secession of Tibet is not in the national interest of India, however India should demand that Buddhist monks given more religious and political freedom in China. China should not fear that India would join in the US-led invasion of Tibet to engineer the secession of Tibet from China. India and China on the China-India boundary question expounded their respective positions, and reiterated their readiness to seek a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable solution through consultations on an equal footing. India and China pending an ultimate solution, should work together to maintain peace and tranquility in the border areas, and continue implementation of the agreements signed for this purpose, including the clarification of the Line of Actual Control. India and China agreed to each appoint a special representative to explore, from the political perspective of the overall bilateral relationship, the framework of a boundary settlement. The Indian side recognizes that the Tibet Autonomous Region is part of the territory of the People's Republic of China and reiterates that it does not allow Tibetans to engage in anti-China political activities in India. Indian reiterated that it is firmly opposed to any attempt and action aimed at splitting China and bringing about "independence of Tibet". India was among the first countries to recognize that there is one China and its one China policy remains unaltered. The Chinese side expressed its appreciation of the Indian position. China and India recognized the primacy of maintaining international peace. This is a prerequisite for the socio-economic development of all developing countries, including China and India.

 

Plural Civilization States

India and China are multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-racial Civilization States. Unlike Christianity and Islam, the Hinduism and Buddhism promotes and nurtures religious and cultural diversity as Oriental religions believe that there are infinite paths to understand, approach or worship the Divine. The world is marked by diversity. Every country has the right to choose its own political system and path to development. As two major developing countries, China and India acknowledged the importance of their respective roles in the shaping of a new international political and economic order. The international community must help the developing countries to eliminate poverty and narrow the gap between the North and the South through dialogue and cooperation so as to achieve common prosperity. India and China acknowledge the vital importance of the role of the United Nations in world peace, stability and development and they are determined to continue their diplomatic and political efforts in strengthening the UN system.

 

India as Permanent Member of UNSC

It would be in the national interest of China if India became the Permanent Member of the UN Security Council. China should declare its support to India’s claim for the Veto-holding Permanent Membership of the UN Security Council. India and China reaffirmed their readiness to work together to promote reform of the UN. In reform of the UN Security Council, priority should be given to enhancing representation of the developing countries. China should openly declare that India should become the Permanent Member of the UN Security Council. China realized that Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had rejected the offer of US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles to replace Taiwan by India as the Veto-holding Permanent Member of the UN Security Council in the 1950s.

 

Anti-Terrorism Military Ventures

India and China should set up a multinational anti-terrorism army to undertake counter-terrorism measures worldwide. Islamic terrorism threatens India as well as China and Pakistan is the womb of Islamic terrorism that threatened India and China. India and China stood for continued multilateral arms control and disarmament process, undiminished and equal security for all at progressively lower levels of armament and for multilateral negotiations aimed at nuclear disarmament and elimination of nuclear weapons. India and China are firmly opposed to introduction of weapons in outer space, use or threat of force against space-based objects and support cooperation in development of space technology for peaceful purposes. India and China recognized the common threat posed by Islamic terrorism and they resolutely condemned terrorism in any form. The struggle between the international community and global terrorism is a comprehensive and sustained one, with the ultimate objective of eradication of terrorism in all regions. To eradicate international terrorism India and China should strengthen the global legal framework against terrorism. India and China should promote cooperation on counter-terrorism through their bilateral dialogue mechanism.

 

India and China should demand that United States and Europe should contribute towards cleaning the environment. China and India face special and similar challenges in their efforts to protect the environment while simultaneously forging ahead with rapid social and economic development of their countries. India and China should work together in a practical manner to cooperate on preserving the environment and ensuring sustained development and to coordinate positions on climate change, biodiversity and other issue in relevant multilateral forums.

 

(5) $250 Billion Imports of China

China imported $250 billion goods during 2002 and India China bilateral trade could easily exceed $100 billion by 2025, as China and India are the world’s 2nd and 4th largest economies of the world. The continued expansion and intensification of China-India economic cooperation is essential for strengthening bilateral relations. The existing complementarities between their two economies provide an important foundation and offer broad prospects for further enhancing their economic relations. The governments should take necessary measures consistent with their national laws and rules and international obligations to remove impediments to bilateral trade and investment.

 

Asian Common Market

Asian Common Market led by India, China and Japan would usher in the Asian Century. The combined GNP of China, Japan and India exceeded the combined GNP of USA and Canada and also exceeded the combined GNPs of all countries in the European Union plus Russia. India and china should promote Asian Common market and invite Japan to join the ACM. The ASEAN should merge into Asian Common Market. India and China should promote multilateral cooperation in Asia to promote mutually beneficial exchanges, economic growth as well as greater cohesion among Asian countries.

 

Chinese Leadership of Malaysia Indonesia

Since Chinese represent more than 27% population of Malaysia, it is very reasonable that Malaysian Chinese should sometime become the Prime Minister of Malaysia. Since Chinese control the economy of Indonesia, so India would welcome if Indonesian Chinese became the President of Indonesia. It is in India’s national interest if China played greater diplomatic and military role in South China Sea especially in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, as it would curb America’s growing influence in the ASEAN region. India and China should enhance rather than limit each other's participation in regional and sub-regional multilateral cooperation processes in Asia. The improvement and development of China-India relations is not targeted at any third country and does not affect either country's existing friendly relations and cooperation with other countries.

 

Vajpayee Putin & Musharraf

Vajpayee’s visit to China overshadowed President Putin’s visit to Britain and President Pervez Musharraf’s visit to Camp David. While Vajpayee was in China, Russian President Putin was the royal guest in Britain the first ever visit by Russian leader after 1874 and Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf was in Camp David in America as the first ever South Asian leader invited to Camp David by the US President. The official visit of the Prime Minister of India to the People's Republic of China was a success and contributed to enhancing mutual understanding and trust between the Governments, leaders and peoples of the two countries, and marked a new step forward in strengthening the all- round cooperation between China and India in the 21st Century, which shall be the Century of Asia. Prime Minister Vajpayee invited Premier Wen Jiabao to visit India at a mutually convenient time and conveyed to President Hu Jintao an invitation from President Abdul Kalam to visit India. The Chinese side accepted the invitations with appreciation. The dates of the visits will be settled through diplomatic channels. India thanked China for the warm welcome received by Prime Minister Vajpayee. Indian Prime Minister agreed that presently Chinese economy growing faster than Indian economy and India is willing to develop closer ties so that India China bilateral trade reached its true potential.

 

(6) Trade Boosted Sino-Indian Ties

In 1750 AD India manufactured one-fourth of the world’s total manufactured goods and China manufactured one-third of world’s total manufactured goods. In 1750, India, China and Japan manufactured 61% of the world’s total manufactured goods. The Civilizations of India and China had been friendly to each other for over 2,200 years. China adopted Buddhism that took birth in India. It is high time that Hindu India borrowed Chinese culture and religious practices to purify modern Hindu culture of the Islamic and Christian pollution that had been imposed on Hindu society and culture during long Muslim and Christian rule in India. During the past 2200 years, we have devoted about 99.9 per cent of the time to friendly cooperation between our two countries said, Wen Jiabao, China's Premier during his meeting with the visiting Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes in April 2003. It is, quite ironic that the Confederation of Indian Industry is opened its first office in China's largest city, Shanghai during this visit. The world's two most populous nations and world’s 2nd and 4th largest economies look to boost bilateral trade. There has been growing interest of Indian companies in the Chinese market. India can export to China stainless steel, information technology, banking, pharmaceuticals and consumer goods. Software and IT has been identified as a high potential area for further business development. India China joint venture would be successful in tourism and hotel industry, healthcare, educational services and technical education. Many Indian companies have shown the interest in foraying into the Chinese market. China is a challenge. For India, huge potential exists is there in the areas of pharmaceuticals, minerals, textiles and information technology.

 

Indian Software Chinese Hardware

India's brand equity is IT. China wants synergy between its hardware sector and India's software industry. Now, all we need is confidence in each other. Business sections in both the countries are abuzz with anticipation, hoping that Vajpayee's diplomacy will help improve political relations with China and, in turn, provide the much-needed impetus to trade. India-China bilateral trade has become a most dynamic area in India China diplomatic relationship. Thanks to the joint efforts of the two sides over the past decade, India-China two-way trade volume reached $5 billion last year, which was an almost 20-fold increase over the $200 million-odd trade in the early 1990s. Such a boost is indeed outstanding. Sino-Indo trade relations still have a long way to go, comparative figures shows that the trade volume is actually quite marginal. China's trade with India accounts only for 0.8 per cent of its total external trade. The share of India's external trade in 2001-2002 was just around 3 per cent.

 

$10 Billion Sino-Indian Trade

India-China bilateral trade has the potential to expand to $10 billion over the next 5-6 years provided an annual growth rate of at least 17 per cent is maintained. Indian exports to China include iron ore, plastic, marine products, cotton yarn and fabric, organic chemicals, inorganic chemicals, drugs and pharmaceuticals. The low value-addition items are catering to increased demand, while high value-added items are in need of greater thrust. The textile and seafood markets offer great potential, where joint ventures could be a win-win situation. Because of WTO significant development is in the offing in terms of trade with China and access to its vast markets. Indian exporters stand to benefit from this. China's accession to the WTO will result in tariffs being reduced. Fruits like mangoes and grapes have a huge market in China. Imports of grapes have been dramatic in China after 2002. China, the biggest mobile market in the world, holds tremendous potential for Indian telecommunication businesses. Telecommunication services in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, which carry around 75 per cent of all domestic traffic, will be thrown open to foreign competition once China accedes to the World Trade Organization. Foreign carriers would be permitted up to 25 per cent ownership in mobile services and 30 per cent in value-added services. India must not miss the opportunities in China market. Non-traditional areas and a gamut of old and new economy sectors like telecommunication equipment and medical equipment hold great potential for Indian companies. China has also opened up its energy sector to larger foreign participation due to its growing requirements. Opportunities for Indian businesses are also bright in the natural gas infrastructure development and offshore oil exploration and production.

 

India-China trade seems to have picked up and is gaining momentum. Bilateral trade has already witnessed a growth of 70.8 per cent in first four months of 2003, over the same period in 2002. Indian exports to China increased by 100.5 per cent against during first four months of 2003. Trade surplus stood at $350 million in India's favor. The launching of the India Club shall boost Indian small- and medium-sized businesses to trade with China the Asian giant. India shall organize 'Made in India' and 'Hi Tech' Trade Shows in China in October 2003. India should launch an extensive study to 'understand the Chinese market. Chinese market is tough market access and because of: the control on distribution and retail channels. Indian exporters find it difficult to penetrate Chinese markets. Market information is not handy. In most sectors, middlemen dominate. There are few banking channels in China. More Indian banks should open branches in China to strengthen their presence in China. State Bank of India and Bank of India have their representatives in Shanghai and Shenzhen. Unclear policy framework: In areas like agriculture and seafood exports, Indian suppliers have faced setbacks. Buyer-seller movements need facilitators. Many Indian seafood exporters suffered losses because the quality of their products was considered suspect.

 

China imports goods worth over $250 billion, but Indian exporters have to find out their own 'niche' markets. Mapping of potential large markets is not easily available. In many sectors in China, standards are not available. This causes big problems for Indian exporters. For example, the Chinese claim that Indian granite has a high radiation level. The Indians have refuted these claims. In some sectors, like pharmaceuticals, registration process is cumbersome. Yet, Ranbaxy has shown the way, by attaining an outstanding success. Ranbaxy had started its China operations in 1990, and now Ranbaxy’s Cifran is a household name there and Ranbaxy pharmaceutical products sold to 500 hospitals and more than 20,000 doctors in China. China has raised the cost of registration to American levels. The registration process now acts as a barrier for the new entrants in to the pharmaceutical products. The fears of WTO regime and the scare of China flooding Indian market have receded. Indian businessmen are now full of confidence, believing in immense opportunities in trading with China. The confidence of the Indian side is increasing, but the same is not true of the Chinese businessmen. The chips are down on their side.

 

Treason of Indian Socialists

In 1990 Communist China’s GNP was only 110 % of India’s GNP while its population was much bigger and its per capital GNP was less than India. Chinese expressways skyscrapers shopping malls flashing lights designer labels cleaner air and sweeter water makes 2003 China's charms truly endless, even when in 1990 per capita income of China was less that of India and China’s GNP almost equal to India’s GNP. Now when any Indian goes to Beijing or Shanghai, the glitz and glamour so dazzles the eye that it produces instant awe and wonder. On the road to riches, the red dragon has left Elephant for dead. Socialist India’s half-reformed quota Raj imposed by pro-China Indian socialists and leftists was never a match for Communist China’s miracle capitalist economy, even when China refused to recognize private property.

 

The increased Foreign Direct Investments in China is the key reason that China’s economy grew at faster rate than India’s economy. The direct exports of the fully owned subsidiaries of the Trans National Corporations (TNCs) represented the bulk of the China’s exports. Barely 15 years ago, so runs the rueful refrain, the two South Asian giants were almost at par, equitably sharing the tag of burden of being the world's two great partners in poverty. But look how China has leapfrogged ahead of India in Foreign Direct Investments (FDI), Gross Domestic product (GDP), and growth rate. Chinese though proficient at manufacturing economic numbers are much behind India in worldly achievements, namely democracy, freedom and happiness. The supposed ‘cause' of China's super achievement is Totalitarianism. Being a one-party state makes it easier for China to take tough economic decisions. This democratic ‘tribute' to communist unfreedom is deeply ironic as well as tragic. Yet, Indians would have to be a fool to deny that it has a certain superficial plausibility. Why Capitalist TNCs invest in Communist China where there is no guarantee of private property and no judicial system to protect foreign property? The key reason is that socialist leadership of India, the socialistic leadership of the Congress Party and many leftist coalition governments that ruled India after the fall of Congress Party adopted policies to make foreign capital unwelcome in capitalist India at the time China after Mao tse tung opened up to welcome Foreign Direct Investments. It appears that communist and socialist leaders of Leftist Parties and Congress Party acted as Chinese spies when they closed India to foreign capital when China began wooing foreign capital. Pro-China Indian trade Union movements paralyzed Indian industry while Communist China banned trade unions and right of strike in China to woo foreign capital to China. Tragically democracy had been a curse to India and it resulted in Capitalist India adopting anti-Capitalist socialistic policies while Communist China adopted pro-Capitalism policies. It is high time that all socialist and communist leaders of India should be tried for treason for adopting anti-Capitalism policies while china adopted pro-Capitalism policies to eliminate India as the threat to China. Logically Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) should have flowed more readily into India had foolish Indian socialists and communists not adopted the anti-Capitalist policies. India’s messy democracy is the cause that Capitalist India fell way behind Communist China on the road towards capitalist industrial progress. Perhaps all communist and socialist political leaders of India should face firing squad for betraying India to serve the capitalist interests of their Communist Chinese masters.

 

Elephant Competes with Dragon for FDIs

In 2001, China’s per capita income was $3,291 nearly 150% that of India’s per capital income of $2,149. China’s GNP was $4.1 trillion, compared to India’s $2.2 trillion. Adjusted for purchasing power, the Chinese were 50 per cent wealthier than Indians. Currently, only 5 per cent of Chinese live below the national poverty line, compared with 29 per cent of Indians. Today, the Chinese are definitely speaking the language of investment, collaboration and exploring synergies with Indian companies. In particular, Chinese are highly impressed by our information technology and software services, so they are interested in investing in Indian IT companies so that they could buy IT know how and allow Chinese software programmers compete with India in future IT projects worldwide. However instead of creating a maze of red tapes, India should forge joint venture tie-ups with China that would be mutually beneficial. Till the 1978, China hadn’t warmed up to foreign companies. But as soon as China realized the wealth generation and percolation effects of new investments and industries, it threw open the doors, after Deng came into power. Consequently, Chinese citizens have been the biggest beneficiaries of this policy. Communist China opened up China to foreign capital and warded of the competition of India for the Foreign direct Investments by bribing its socialist and communist agents and spies to impose anti-capitalist economic policies in India so that India might not emerge as challenger to China for Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs). Many of the Indian politicians, socialists and communists should face firing squad for acting as agents of China for imposing anti-capitalist economic policies during long Congress Party rule and the rule of the pro-left coalition parties that ruled after Congress party lost power at the center.

 

(7) Elephant’s Handshake with Dragon

Giant Elephant’s Handshake across Himalayas to Giant Dragon shook the world. Indian PM’s gave Indian elephant’s giant handshake across the Himalayas to the giant Dragon during his visit to China and cause nervousness in Washington, London and Islamabad. The new entente in the Sino-Indian relationship, somewhat reminiscent of an earlier phase but with a distinctive vision of the future, has been hailed by Chinese Media. The praise, laced with a note on the need for "real sincerity" on both sides, is in tune with the China’s upbeat assessment of the new Sino-Indian Beijing Declaration and with the strategic nuances voiced by some serious Chinese analysts. China Daily, the newspaper said "it is true that disputes and misunderstandings between the two countries (India and China) were once like the Himalayas dividing us". But, it, "a handshake across the Himalayas has brought us closer". Sino-Indian Declaration on Principles for Relations and Comprehensive Cooperation is "a legal document guiding the development of bilateral ties in the new century, a sound, long-term and stable good neighborly relationship is not only in the interests of the two nations but also conducive to regional as well as world peace and stability."

 

India Recognized Tibet as Part of China

China appreciated the Indian position that it recognizes Tibet as part of China and that New Delhi does not allow Tibetans to engage in anti-China political activities in India. New Delhi had now clearly "excluded the possibility of supporting the Dalai Lama" in regard to his tussle with Beijing over the Tibetan issue in all its ramifications. In the past, India was "in reality supportive of the Dalai Lama. There was a strong suspicion in China on this score and it explained China's wholehearted appreciation of New Delhi's latest pronouncement on Tibet in the new Sino-Indian Declaration.

 

Tibet Sikkim Quid Pro Quo

On Sikkim, the new memorandum of understanding on border trade could be seen as ''the first step'' towards a settlement of the Sikkim issue at stake. Beijing does not, at present, recognize Sikkim as an integral part of India, although there is a discernible view in India that China may have now begun to consider the possibility of departing from the present stance And accept in due course that Sikkim is a part of India. A border trade agreement is not a border agreement as such. However, the border protocol could, if the two sides so desire, become the prelude to a border-related accord itself concerning Sikkim. The overall boundary dispute could be addressed in efforts to establish a political formula on Sikkim's status. Beijing would not want to see any official contacts between India and Taiwan, which is an integral part of One-China.

 

(8) India Woos China & USA Squints

Washington and London took notes as India and China struck up a new conversation and they squinted at the agreement inked in Beijing. The joint India China Declaration 2003 represented ‘‘modest tweaks of phraseology. In competing news conferences in the Chinese capital, Beijing and New Delhi each emphasized that the other country had made the more important concessions. And while both countries expressed alarm about American military action against Iraq and sought to limit US influence in Asia, they remain much closer to the United States than to each other. The appointment of Special political envoys to negotiate chronic border disputes signaled a new phase in Sino-Indian ties and pointed out the lack of substantial trade between the two. The joint statement in Beijing indulged in cool pragmatism pledged to increase trade to reach $10 billion by 2005. That sum is paltry, compared to China’s trade in 2002 with Japan at $101.91 billion, the US at $97.18 billion and Europe at $86.76 billion. India as well as China often indulged in political grand standing described as silent relations between ships passing in the night, seem at least to have reached the point of using their foghorns in 2003. India-China’s joint declaration may even provide a model for India and Pakistan as Pakistan might normalize relations in trade and other areas before resolving territorial disputes over Kashmir.

 

Why is China More Successful than India?

In 1990 Chinese GNP was only 10% larger than India’s GNP. China surpassed only in 1990 when after the demise of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) by Trans National Corporations (TNCs) favored China over India and rest of the world. Why is the average Chinese nearly twice as well off as his Indian neighbor? Why the huge differences in airports and business centers, adult literacy, infant mortality rates? What explains the ‘‘yawning gap’’ between the two Asian powers, China and India? Democracy is not the cause that India is behind China. China is more corrupt that India. Indian Judicial system is better than Chinese Judicial system. Indian caster system has nothing to do with Indian economy. Permanent war with Pakistan has no impact on Indian economy, as India and Pakistan didn’t fight any war during last 30 years. Continuous electioneering has no impact on Indian economy as India didn’t have many mid term elections. India’s Parliamentary system of government could be the cause of India’s bad economic performance. India would have progressed much faster had India adopted American presidential form of government. Stupid British parliamentary system of government has destabilized the Prime Ministerial government where the government could fall with the defection of the MPs in the Parliament in the coalition form of government. It is high time that India should jettison the Parliamentary system of government and adopt Presidential form of government. The London’s Economist weekly wrongly concluded when it argued “ Democracy didn’t do it, the magazine was absolutely certain. Instead, the culprits are: Rampant corruption, a constricted rule of law, a creaking judicial system, the caste system, irresponsible government, continuous electioneering, permanent state of near-war with Pakistan.” The Economist advised Indians should learn that they have less to fear from their giant neighbor China than they think. In their feverish awe of the Chinese model, Indians may be exaggerating their own handicaps. Indians learnt that Communist China welcomed American and western capital and capitalists more readily than Indian Marxists and socialists who expelled IBM and other western companies from India when China welcomed them into China. India should inaugurate a new political slogan: ‘‘Chase China’’. It is coined by George Fernandes. India’s defense minister now believes that only a grassroots campaign by his Samata Party can persuade public opinion to take an unbiased view of China as a role model. George Fernandes as the Cabinet Minister in Janata Government had expelled IBM and Coca Cola from India when China had opened its doors to American Capitalism and Capital.

 

(9) Geopolitics USA-China-India Triangle

Geopolitical alliance of Dragon and Elephant could hold sky-soaring Yankee Eagle in the check. Every Great Power in the 21st Century would create its own colony much like America’s colony in oil-rich Iraq. In the Grave New World of 21st Century Colonialism staged as come back and the America would attempt the conquest of the world. Only India and China stand present any obstacle in Pax Americana’s drive for world conquest. President Bush by invading Iraq declared that America was the world's sole superpower and White House cared neither for the world opinion nor the United Nations. Americans pretty much control Iraqi oil, its people and the borders of another archenemy, Iran. United Nations Security Council humbly with 14-0 votes recognized United States and Britain the Occupying Powers in Iraq. President Bush ushered in the new age of colonial empires in 2003. The Age of colonialism staged a comeback in 2003 and it is very difficult to put the genie of colonialism back into the bottle again. World traveled backward and the direction of time changed or history took its cyclical route and 2003 world led by President Bush came to resemble Europe of 1803 when Napoleon Bonaparte was on the verge of creating French Empire. In this New 3rd Millennium world is traveling backwards in time so that the 21st Century resembled 19th Century or 18th Century. Imperialism is once again staring us in the face.

 

Is Bush like Napoleon & Hitler?

German minister compared Bush to Hitler during last general elections in Germany in 2002. Like Napoleon Bonaparte of early 19th Century and Adolf Hitler of 20th Century President George Bush of the 21st Century determined to conquer the world and establish Pax Americana, because if America failed to establish American colonial empire in 2000’s it might never be able to establish an Colonial empire of its own again as India and China destined to emerge as supers Powers before 2012 AD. America determined to create Pax Americana and America might end up ruling the world as neither Russia nor France have any military capability to stop the onward march of American colonial empire seeking domination of the world. The US flag can be seen fluttering in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Pakistan, South Korea, Japan, the UK, many of the NATO countries, a host of South American nations. The list goes on. Whatever Adolf Hitler accomplished by war before and during World War II accomplished by President Bush by diplomacy of preemptive strikes without loss of many American lives. Where dollar diplomacy failed, the US pretty much resorted to Pentagon’s use of preemptive strikes as in Iraq. It is time for the world to wake up. There is no longer any doubt the US has one agenda: World domination. The US is making giant strides in military technology. It does not care for small aircraft or tanks now. Its technology is way ahead of other nations' including Russia and Britain, focusing on state-of-the-art computer technology funded by billions from its massive economy. Barring Russia, the US presence can be seen wherever there is oil. English is the international language, the dollar the international currency and Hollywood films the international culture. The Americans are simply everywhere. Only India and China can stop the American dream of the conquest of the world.

 

Balance of the Power in Asia and Indian Ocean Region in 2003 is determined by the Triangular Balance of USA China and India. India developed closer ties with the United States during Vajpayee’s government. India's foreign policy has undergone a sea change under the Vajpayee’s Government. India subtly toeing the US line, and India at times going overboard to accommodate the imperial designs of America. After having protested President Bush’s invasions of Iraq, India actually mulled over the decision of sending troops to Iraq, to help the Occupying Powers impose law and order so that imperial Americans could continue to exploit the Iraqi oil for decades to come. What the break-up of the former Soviet Union and Indian liberalization could not do, the war on terror could do, and resulted in developing closer ties with the United States, the formation of a military and diplomatic bond between the world’s two largest democracies. The rapidly growing Indian economy has lured the White House and the Pentagon As India is world’s 4th largest economy. Is India doing the right thing by siding with US? It could be India’s shrewd move to support the United States in its drive to conquer the world. The White House is very keen to keep India happy because Pentagon needs a big ally to check growing Chinese influence in Asia. India needs to take advantage of this and should India make the US lean on India to counter the Chinese in Asia to protect Taiwan and Japan. American invasion of Iraq war was wrong and Indian Parliament correctly condemned it, but Iraq is now American colony and it is time to help rebuild Iraq now, and boost the Indian economy by securing lucrative Iraqi reconstruction contracts. While the majority of Indians continue to oppose sending Indian troops to Iraq on moral grounds, they need to see the ground reality of the new world order, where United States determined to establish colonies worldwide. India was almost ready to send Peacekeeping troops to Iraq, provided India enjoyed the same influence over Iraq as Britain. If India sent the troops to Iraq it would mean that India became one of the occupying forces in Iraq. India would have to abandon its support to the de-colonization process if it had sent troops to establish the colonial administration of the imperialist colonial power in Iraq. The geopolitical situation changed when president George W. Bush invited Gen. Pervez Musharraf to Camp David, the honor bestowed first time ever to any leader of the Subcontinent. President Bush let the cat out of the bag and showed the true colors of the United States and exposed United States-Pakistan Axis as potentially great threat to India. How could India continue to develop closer ties with United States to act as counter-weight to China in Asia, when White House declared that Pakistan is closer ally of the United States.

 

In the geopolitical triangle of China-India and USA, it would be in the national interest of India to develop closer ties with China to develop Asian Axis between Delhi and Beijing to hold Washington in the check. It would be foolish for India to offer to be a cannon fodder in US-led invasions of Communist China. Indian empire had waged Opium War against China and Indian Army controlled the British sphere of Southern China during early part of the 20th Century. The Asian Balance of power determined by the triangular balance of United States, China and India. United States and China have strategic alliance and China enjoyed Most Favored Nations (MFN) status in United States. China has close military ties with Pakistan. President Bush cemented closer military and special ties with Pakistan as evidenced by Camp David invitation to President Pervez Musharraf. Queen Elizabeth II invited President Putin for the first ever Royal Visit to Britain first time after 1874 when the son of the Russian Tsar married the daughter of Queen Victoria. India could no longer depend upon the support of Russia when President Putin sought to remodel Russian foreign policy on the lines of the foreign policy of Russia’s Tsars. Indian Empire competed with Russian Empire for influence in the Central Asia in the Great Game of 18th and 19th Century after Napoleon Bonaparte supported the demands of Russia in the Great Game against Britain. India faced the twin threat of Russia-Western Europe Alliance and United States-Pakistan-China Axis. American company UNOCAL after developing Gas in Bangladesh wanted to sell gas to India, however under the influence of the White House Bangladesh refusing to sell gas to India. UNOCAL wanted to develop Turkmenistan Afghanistan Pakistan India oil-gas pipelines to pump Turkmenistan oil and gas to supply India’s huge oil-hungry markets. United States consistently opposed India’s participation in Turkmenistan-Gwadar oil pipeline project and arranged the assassination of the Afghanistan oil minister that dared to invite Indian companies for participation in the oil pipeline project, within a day of his invitation to Indian companies during the meeting in Pakistan. In the Asian Triangular Balance of power of USA, China and India, it would be foolish for India to burn its bridges with China. It would not be in the national interest of India to join America-led coalition of European powers seeking dismemberment of China and the establishment of independent Buddhist Tibet and Muslim Xinjiang. United States misused the offer of Indian foreign Minister Jaswant Singh to seek American military bases in Pakistan. United States misused India’s tacit acceptance to send troops in Iraq to gain acceptance of Pakistan and Bangladesh to send troops to Iraq. Prime Minister Vajpayee’s visit to China wisely presented to its host the geopolitical potential of the Dragon’s alliance with the Elephant to hold Yankee eagle in the check.

 

(10) Indians see Big China Market

It is the turn of Indian companies to invade the Chinese market now, with the fear of invasion by cheap Chinese products becoming a thing of the past. Indians do not fear the Chinese anymore. Instead Indian capitalists heading the unprecedented invasion of the Chinese market by Indian companies. Indian capitalists having consolidated themselves in the past few years, leading Indian manufacturing firms to tap foreign markets and China had a great potential. Indian exports to China in the first quarter of the current financial year grew briskly at 96 per cent. Last year, Indian exports to China stood at $5 billion. Bilateral trade has also been on a rise. The growth has prompted India to state that the $10 billion mark will be achieved in 2005, instead of the original estimate of 2010. Several segments of the Chinese business, such as banking and retailing, were now opening up and Indian software companies could tap the Chinese market, which just began computerizing its financial sector. Indian InfoTech companies can provide software to Chinese banks and stock exchanges, which are currently getting computerized. Indo-Chinese relationship in the past had been one of mistrust and inadequate communication, which changed with the Prime Minister's visit to China. China was a controlled economy where political leadership took major economic and business decisions. Political relationships thus determine trade relations in China. Vajpayee's visit helped India build a sustainable political relationship with China, which translated into considerable business gains. For bilateral trade to thrive, free movement of individuals between the countries was needed.

 

Savvy Vajpayee Showcased Indian IT

Savvy Vajpayee Showcased Indian IT at Shanghai. India Yang China Yin Cyber fusion needed so the Dragon and Tiger can e-tango but we need to get the music right. The new savvy with which the Vajpayee’s government showcased Indian IT talent in Shanghai is all to the good. The real quantum leap in the future in India-China bilateral trade, as everybody knows and as Vajpayee underlined has to be e-powered. India can help develop Chinese software companies. India Yang China Yin Cyber fusion needed so the Dragon and Tiger can e-tango but we need to get the music right. Software professionals in the US had expressed alarm over a draft bill that was being debated in Beijing which stipulated that at least 30 per cent of funding for the online information projects of the Chinese government be spent on software, with at least half of this money being used to purchase domestic Chinese software. The question Software professionals raised at that juncture, of course, was whether there was enough domestic software suppliers in China to meet this demand and American lobbyists took heart from the fact that there weren’t. Shortage of Chinese Software companies could end if China responds favorably to the invitation Vajpayee extended to it at Shanghai to have joint ventures with Indian software companies to develop Chinese software companies. Vajpayee greatly promoted the potential of India and China doing business together in the IT sector. The prime minister’s speech provided an alternative framework for Indo-China relations based on complementary approach rather than competition. It underlined the need to think ahead and break out of the confines of the “traditional”. Therefore, while mango farmers in India have reason to be grateful to China for partially opening its markets to them. There is an opportunity for an “effective alliance” between Chinese hardware producers and Indian software professionals. Indian diplomacy has traditionally veered away from taking an overt interest in the business of Indian business. Therefore, the new savvy with which the Vajpayee’s government showcased Indian IT talent in Shanghai is all to the good. Indian diplomats promoted Indian business in Shanghai just as Americans do it. American leaders, including presidents themselves, are not shy about promoting the interests of US companies and even occasionally twisting an arm of their foreign counterparts to drive the point home to goad them to buy American products. The previous Indian government had traditionally been far more conservative in these matters, ever conscious of the divide between political diplomacy and corporate lobbying. In a world facing rapid globalization, such punctiliousness doesn’t pay and Indian government, diplomats and even prime Minister should take active lead in promoting Indian IT brand to their counterparts during state visits. Indian diplomats need to sell Brand name of India Inc. with a new aggression, capitalist fury especially in IT sector where India Inc. has demonstrated it has world class potential. After years of hysterical fear of China emerging as a potential competitor, Indian entrepreneurs are finally bracing to cross the Great Wall and make their presence in the land of opportunity, just as 2,000 years ago India’s Buddhist monks went to China and made China a Buddhist Civilization. India Incorporated set to do business with China.

 

India Inc. Pushed its IT Brand in China

India Elephant is set to give a major push to India brand in China with key initiatives in an attempt to strengthen its foothold in the Dragon country, as bilateral trade has started moving up in a blistering pace. The Confederation of Indian Industry opened its 13th overseas office at Shanghai in China on June 26. A first ever `Made in India' show and India-China Hi-tech show slated to be held in Beijing from October 16 to 19, 2003. The initiatives are coming at a time when bilateral trade is showing signs of scaling a new high. Bilateral India-China trade showed stupendous growth in the first three months of the calendar year 2003, clocking a 90 per cent jump at $1.7 billion with the country's exports to the neighboring China zooming by 120 per cent. Annual marine exports to China accounts for around $150 million. India had a trade surplus of around $225 million for January-March 2003 figure. Fears that Chinese goods would flood the Indian market have turned out to be unfounded. During the calendar year 2002, bilateral trade grew by 40 per cent to reach $5.2 billion and the figure would touch $7 billion this year and $ 10 billion in 2004.

 

Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology

China provided ample business opportunities and incentives in sectors like information technology, drugs and pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. China's knowledge-based industries were large enough for the Indian industry to look east towards China, which offered incentives for investment like reduction in local and national taxes, land rentals and import and export duties. With the IT products and application consumption in the small and medium enterprises in China expected to touch $12 billion this year, an increase of 23 per cent from 2001, and $27 billion in 2006, the domestic IT industry has a huge market to tap. In the drugs and pharmaceuticals sector, China is likely to emerge as the fifth largest market globally by 2010 with revenues of over $24 billion, more than triple its current size. Such growth would catapult China's market, which currently ranks seventh, to a position right behind the pharmaceutical super powers France and Germany. Driving this growth are China's ongoing economic development and its recent entry into the World Trade Organization. The most promising opportunities are expected to be in the areas of innovative ethical or prescription, drugs and differentiated over-the-counter products. The market for ethical drugs would climb to $19 billion by 2010. Domestic Indian biotech companies can enter the Chinese market, by setting up Chinese exporting, licensing and setting up a wholly foreign-owned enterprise or joint venture. China is a highly complex economy; it is an economically profitable market for companies operating in knowledge-based sectors.

 

India Reduced Tariff to China

India reduced Tariff to China Under Bangkok Agreement. As a follow up to the recent China visit of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to step up economic cooperation, the government in June 03 decided to offer fresh tariff concessions to Beijing. This was decided at the Cabinet meeting chaired by the prime minister. The tariff concessions have been provided under the Bangkok Agreement that is in operation between the South Asian and Pacific countries. The tariff concessions expected to be reciprocated by China. This would lead to a rise in exports of major items like chemicals, leather, textiles and diamonds to China. The concessions will be available to about 700 items, which constitute about 30 per cent of Indian exports.

 

The Elephant Mates the Dragon

Prof Zhang and Prof. Wang Dehua co-authored the book “The Elephant and the Dragon,” a historical and comparative perspective of India-China relations. Elephant India and Dragon China should befriend immediately to make money and defer their border disputes for resolution in future. Let the next generation resolve India-China row.’ India and China to put their border dispute behind them because that is not the most important bilateral issue. India and china as neighbors should primarily concentrate on improving the economic situation of their peoples. There is no need to hurry to delay the economic ties unless the boundary dispute is resolved. Both sides should discuss all bilateral problems slowly and calmly with cool pragmatism and avoid the temptation of political grandstanding. The Sino-Indian boundary dispute is neither the first problem nor the top priority. Our first priority should be economic development and bilateral trade and let the boundary dispute be solved at its own pace in political high-level negotiations. We should not allow the cancer of border dispute bedevils the Sino-Indian détente and disputes should not bedevil the historical ties between India and China. Let us get on with improving the conditions of our people and increase the Sino-Indian annual bilateral trade to $100 billion or even $200 billion in next ten years. The Sino-Indian boundary dispute was historical baggage for the two countries. Let us focus on our commonalities instead. There are many common political interests also, especially in international affairs. The differences between India and China are not deep and this should not keep the two nations away from trading with each other. So why should there be any cultural and social distance between peoples of India and China? In China communism and capitalism had been reconciled in modern China. There is no reason that communism and Buddhism would also be reconciled in China led by the new generation of leaders, who are educated and who know that Communism is a shit doctrine and that Karl Marx was a prostitute philosopher, who argued about the abolition of private property so that Russian Jews could loot the property of Russian Tsars and Russian aristocracy.

 

The new leadership of Chinese Communists has all realized that Capitalism is better than Communism and that Communism failed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Technology and management are the two important virtues of capitalism. Secretly many Chinese communists realize that Buddhism would replace Communist in China. Socialism, capitalism and Buddhism are in competition to better the conditions of the Chinese people. China can be both democracy, Capitalist and Buddhist in the near future. Communist Party of China (CPC) would be forced to accept the role of religion in China. Failure of CPC to grant freedom of Religion might result in the destruction of the Communist party in China, as happened in the Soviet Union.  The CPC would have to introduce elections of the Communist Party and more and more leaders will be elected and not nominated as at present) but it will be done gradually.

 

(11) Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai Syndrome

Romanticisation of our relations with our neighbors, a consequent readiness to make unwarranted gestures towards them, and a reluctance to defend our vital national interests in the name of 'bhai-bhaism' (brother-brother syndrome) have been the bane of Indian strategic thinking and policy-making. When China chooses to enforce its 'historic claims to sovereignty' over a certain territory, whether it is in relation to India, Vietnam or the Philippines, it does not look upon it as an expansion or aggression against other countries. Instead, it views it as a justified action in self-defense undertaken in its own territory, which was unjustifiably under the control of others.

 

In Chinese perception, the collapse of the Soviet Union could be attributed to Mikhail Gorbachev's mistimed priority to political liberalization without first achieving economic modernization and prosperity and the failure to substitute a new uniting force in the place of the dissolving communist ideology. Chinese Communists are determined not to commit Gobachev-type mistake in China.

 

Giving to the Pakistani armed forces a feeling of psychological parity with India and keeping India pre-occupied with Pakistan are still important objectives of Chinese policy-making in the South Asian region. It is again these objectives which are behind China's recent decisions to help Pakistan in developing the Gwadar port on the Mekran Coast in Balochistan in order to reduce its economic and strategic dependence on the vulnerable Karachi port; strengthening its naval capability to overcome the deficiencies noticed during the mobilization of last year; and making full use of its share of water under the Indus Water Treaty for hydel purposes in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) in order to make it even more difficult for India than at present to seek a review of the treaty in India's favor.

 

India China Equal in 1990

In 1990 China’s GNP was 110% of India’s GNP. China with much large population had total GNP only 10% larger than India and per capital income of China was much lower than Indian in 1990. In 1999 the GNP of China was 215% of India’s GNP, 115% more than the GNP of India. (Source, The World Bank’s world Development Report 2000/2001)

 

China and India were more or less at the same level of per capita income in the 1970s. Since China’s population was about 300 million more, the size of its economy was larger. So was the size of its problems: China had 300 million people more to be lifted out of poverty. China, thanks to Deng Xiao Peng, opened up its economy in 1978. That year, India was recovering from the aftermath of the Emergency and was restoring to health its Constitutional and political organs. During that exciting period, the missing factor was a review of the economic policies that had held sway for 30 years. After too much government under Indira Gandhi, Morarji Desai’s declaration of a ‘‘plan holiday’’ turned out to be a holiday from governance. Mr. Vajpayee alone exhibited farsightedness when he made a bold overture towards China.

 

The Socialist leaders of India promoted the national interests of China by expelling largest American corporations from India at a time China opened up to welcome American corporations and foreign capital with gusto, after 1978 opened up China.  George Fernandes, he was the villain of the economy during the Janata Party government of Morarji Desai. George Fernandez was an abrasive, adventurous and rabid socialist and as Minister of Industry kicked out IBM, Coca-Cola while China opened up and welcomed American Capitalists to invest in China. George Fernandez was the person most responsible for India losing out on the great opportunities that were opening up in the areas of computers, software, telecommunications, information technology and services. It is during the period between 1978 and 1990 that China pulled away from India in the race towards becoming the dominant economic power in Asia. China’s share of international trade is higher, its foreign exchange reserves are larger and its ability to win friends and influence people using its economic clout is greater. The China’s economic growth in 1990-2002 period can directly attributed to the large Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in China and the Most Favored Trading Nations (MFN) status China enjoyed in the USA. On a level playing ground India would overtake China. Elephant India would equal if not surpass Dragon China in a short time.

 

Bush Betting on Terrorist General

President Bush created history when he invited President Musharraf to Camp David, the first time the invitation to a leader from South Asia, while Indian PM Vajpayee was in China. Gen. Pervez. Musharraf's willingness to cooperate with the Pentagon and CIA, The Washington Post (June 30, ’03) in its editorial comment, may be enough to convince many in the Bush administration that the general is their best chance in an unstable and dangerous country with its own nuclear arsenal. President Bush has placed another huge stack of chips on Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the self-appointed president of Pakistan, which since 9/11 has become the world's single largest haven of Islamic terrorists, including most likely the fugitive Osama bin Laden. Mr. Bush in June 2003 invited Mr. Musharraf to Camp David and offered him $3 billion in military and economic aid over the next five years, as well as what a White House briefer called "a long-term commitment to build a relationship." That is a huge boost for a man who overthrew Pakistan's last elected civilian government in a military coup, presided over his country's delivery of nuclear weapons technology to North Korea, directed its last military offensive against India and broke his promises to restore democracy and crack down on extremist Islamic groups.  By inviting Gen. Pervez to Camp David he gave south Asia its due. The official alliance of the Pakistani secret services ISI with the CIA that brought under the CIA banner ISI’s terrorist links with Muslim Organized Crime and Drug Syndicates notably Dawood Ibrahim, presents the great danger to India. The CIA might be acquiring the covert operations capability to manipulate India’s next general elections by recruiting Indian Mafia don Dawood Ibrahim’s Indian criminal network to further the covert operations capability of the CIA in India. It is high time that India should lay its eggs in the basket of the democratic forces in Pakistan and work towards overthrowing the military regime of Pervez Musharraf. India should develop closer ties with China to neutralize America’s closer ties with Pakistan. India should develop multinational militia jointly with China to undertake counter-terrorism measures against Islamic terrorism.

 

29(4) Tibet & 1962 War

Either India should militarily support independence of Tibet and make Buddhist Tibet a part of India, or India should accept the fait accompli and recognize Tibet as part of China. The Geopolitics of the Great Game in Asia obliges India to prefer Tibet under control and occupation of China than under the control and influence of United States. An Independent Tibet under control of the United States would present greater threat to India’s security than Tibet under the occupation of Communist China. Cool pragmatism demands THAT India has no chance whatsoever to liberate Tibet from the clutches of China. Tibet provides a gateway to the oil-rich Caspian Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan as pro-US Pakistan blocks India’s direct access to Afghanistan and Turkmenistan. Indian infantry could project its military power in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan through Chinese Tibet and Xinjiang-Sinkiang provinces. It would be cheaper to transport goods and military units via land through Tibet, Sinkiang, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan that via sea through Iran to Turkmenistan. Pro-US secessionist movements in Tibet would harm rather than help India’s geopolitical interests in the Great Game of Central Asia. Sino-Indian détente would provide land route to project Indian military troops to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and neutralize Pentagon’s military threats to Iran. Tibet as a part of India is preferred than Tibet as part of China. However, independent Tibet under influence of the United States would present greater security threats to India than Tibet under Chinese occupation. If Tibet could not be a part of India, it should remain a part of China. American stronghold in Tibet would undermine the geopolitical security of India, China and Central Asia. Any secession of Tibet from China would result in Tibet falling into the lap of United States, which would harm India’s national interests more than continued Chinese occupation of Tibet. India should allow Tibet to remain under Chinese occupation till India becomes strong enough to invade and make Tibet a part of India, which is very unlikely for many years to come.

 

Independent Tibet Civilization

Tibet should have remained sovereign independent state as it had been for centuries before Communist China invaded it and made it a part of China and India foolishly allowed it to happen and failed to militarily intervene on the side of Tibet. Tibet had been an independent Civilization totally distinct from China and had historically been a part of Indian Civilization. Just as Mongol hordes periodically invaded China from the North West and West the Tibet barbarians invaded China and Tibet peopled by ferocious warriors. Tibet historically followed Indian Hindu religious traditions before it became Buddhist and it adopted Buddhist Tantric traditions similar to Hindu Tantric system. Tibetan script is similar to Devanagari script and Nagari script. Dalai Lama was the supreme religious leader of the entire Mongol Empire. Dalai Lama made the greatest mistake to invite the Mongol troops to disarm the Tibetan warriors that created the non-violent traditions in Tibet. Before 1950 Dalai Lama was richer and more powerful than Pope, the head of the Roman Catholic Church. Jawaharlal Nehru conspired with the Vatican to destroy the sovereignty of Tibet led by Dalai Lama to please his Christian masters. India should have fought a war with China over Tibet and Tibet would have become part of India. Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru committed treason when he handed Tibet to China without an all out war. However once Tibet was taken over by China and lost to India, it didn’t make much sense not to accept the Tibet’s accession to China. Either India should fight to liberate Tibet from the stronghold of China, or India should accept the fait accompli and accept China’s domination of Tibet. Prime Minister Vajpayee wisely adopted the policy of cool pragmatism and accepted that Tibet is a part of China and India does not allow Dalai Lama to indulge in politics for overthrowing Chinese rule over Tibet. India wisely accepted the quid pro quo deal on Tibet and Sikkim. Mongolian Buddhism similar to Tibetan lama Buddhism.

 

India’s Stake in Buddhism in China

India is a Hindu Civilization and China is a Buddhist Civilization. Buddhism originated in India and spread to China. Chinese form of Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, practiced in China, Korea, Taiwan and Japan. Mahayana Buddhism is 90 percent Hinduism and its scriptures were written in Sanskrit, compared to Hinayana Buddhism, which is 80 percent Buddhism and latter’s scriptures were written in Pali. India historically enjoyed the religious stake in China. Communist rule in China is an aberration and China likely to revert back to Buddhism and Taoism before mid 21st Century. India has greater stake in protecting the rights of Buddhists in China than the rights of Dalai Lama in Tibet. The Tibet issue should not cloud India’s thinking about defending the rights of Buddhists in China. India should always voice the just demands for Chinese Buddhists against religious persecution of Buddhists by the atheist Communist regime in China. India should fight for religious rights in China. India should finance the renovation and the building of new Pagoda and Buddhist temples in China. It is very likely that new generation of rulers in China led by President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao would allow Buddhist practices. Buddhism could co-exist with Marxist China more readily than Capitalism could co-exist with Marxist China. It is inevitable that China would become Buddhist-Taoist sometime in the first half of the 21st Century.

 

1962 Accession of Goa to India

India in 1962 became the first country that militarily intervened to liberate European colony by force. What India could do in Goa, China couldn’t have dared in case of Hong Kong. It is likely that the pro-West ICS officers in charge of the Indian bureaucracy conspired to inflict a defeat on Indian Army by foolishly starting the military confrontation with China without preparation. India’s defeat in 1962 Sino-India war was a result of the conspiracy hatched by American spies in the Indian Ministry of External Affairs and Ministry of Defense to undermine India’s influence in Non Aligned Movement.

 

Longju & Kongka La Incident 1959

Dalai Lama’s flight to India followed by the incident at Longju and Kongka La in 1959. On August 25, 1959, Indian and Chinese forces clashed over the possession of Longju, a small village in the eastern sector and there were a few casualties on both sides. India said it was on the McMahon line and, therefore belonged to India. The Chinese said it was two miles north of McMohan Line, therefore belonged to China. On October 20, 1959, the Chinese ambushed an Indian patrol sent to probe the Aksai Chin at Kongka La, in which nine Indian frontier policemen were killed and seven were taken prisoner and with this, public opinion in India was inflamed.

 

K. Raghunath Decided to Go To War

Incidentally, the order to 'throw the Chinese out,' was given on September 22, 1962 by K Raghuramiah, then minister of state in the defense ministry. Raghuramiah was in the chair, Krishna Menon being in New York to deliver yet one more of those long harangues he was so fond of. When then army chief General K N Thapar gave his appreciation of the military situation in the Dhola area, the foreign secretary argued that Chinese were unlikely to react strongly and, for good measure, repeated the prime minister's 'instructions' on the subject. India went to war against China in 1962 and was badly defeated by China. Indian English language papers shrilly, in unison, demanded the Chinese be expelled and often accused the government of not doing its duty. The influential English language media conditioned by their pro-British past, were generally pro-West and found this a good opportunity to needle the Nehru government on its policy of non-alignment, saw Non Alignment policy in Dullesian terms as being pro-Soviet and anti-West. The English newspaper editors and so-called foreign policy experts were never comfortable with Nehru's non-alignment policy, demanded military action against China, which caused the 1962 War.

 

The Great Game

The Great Eurasian Game played by Indian Empire and Russian Empire revolved around jockeying for power in Central Asia. Orthodox Russian Bear looked towards the war water of Arabian Sea to expand the frontiers of Orthodox Empire Southward through the Muslim Central Asia to reach the War Water Ports of Gwadar to preempt the Northward expansion of Christian British Empire towards Central Asia, Caspian Sea and Black Sea. The roots of India’s problem with China go back two hundred years when French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte and Russian Tsar Alexander met in July 1807 on a great raft moored on the river Niemen at Tilsit in east Prussia to conclude a Russian-French Treaty of partnership against the British, thereby beginning 'The Great Game.

 

As the Russian Empire began its eastward expansion, which British feared would culminate in the conquest of India, there was a shadow contest for political ascendancy between the British Indian Empire and Russian Empires, The Great Game, the struggle for influence over the Islamic regimes of Central Asia the vast buffer land that separated the India and Russia. Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo did not see a let-up in the fervor with which the Great Game continued to be played 100 years after the 1814 Congress of Vienna. The Russian Empire’s longing for a colonial empire in Islamic Central Asia and direct access to the Arabian Sea warm water port never diminished and so the Great Game continued unabated. The 1909 Anglo-Russian Pamir Settlement defined Amu River as the border between Indian Empire and Russian Empire. The Indian Empire’s response to meet the southward Russian threat was to establish a forward defensive line in the northern region so that a Russian thrust could be halted well before the plains of Hindustan.

 

Tibet might not have been a part of Indian empire, but Tibet was never a part of China. Tibet had been an independent country throughout history and China never controlled Tibet. Indian Empire made Afghanistan and Tibet into buffer states and fixed suitable and convenient borders with these states. At various times, several such lines were proposed. The most notable of these was the 1865 Ladakh-Tibet/Sinkiang alignment proposed by W H Johnson, a junior civilian sub-assistant with the Survey of India. This line was to link Demchok in the south with the 18,000 feet high Karakorum pass in the north, but it took a circuitous route beyond the Kuen Lun Mountains and thus included the barren and cold Aksai Chin desert.

 

1913 Simla Conference

British called for a conference at Simla in October 1913 and invited China and Tibet. The Chinese attended 1913 Simla conference reluctantly, but the Tibetan authorities came quite eagerly as they were now engaged in conflict with their China. Henry McMahon, then foreign secretary to the Government of India, led the British delegation. McMahon was an expert at drawing boundary lines, having spent two years demarcating the Durand Line at the northwest frontier. The boundary line that followed was the now famous McMahon Line. This boundary now extended British India up to the edge of the Tibetan plateau. It was not really a cartographers delight as it violated several rules of boundary demarcation. But it was an ethnic boundary in the sense that the area, except for the Tawang tract, was non-Tibetan in character. The Chinese soon repudiated the Simla Convention and thus the McMahon Line.

 

Historically Tibet had been a part of the Indian Civilization, like Burma, Laos and Cambodia, and Tibet had never been a part of the Chinese Civilization. Indian Empire had always recognized the independence of Tibet and never recognized Tibet as part of China. On the contrary Indian empire controlled the British sphere of influence in Southern China bordering Tibet, Burma and Yunnaan. The new India-Tibet boundary was not made effective till Olaf Caroe, an ICS officer, urged the British authorities to do so in 1935. Thus, in 1937, the Survey of India for the first time showed the McMahon Line as the official boundary. In 1938, the Survey of India published a map of Tibet, which showed the Tawang tract as part of that Tibet. The Tibetans did not accept this 'annexation' of the Tawang tract and challenged the British attempts to expand their government into this area. However, Tibet tacitly accepted the rest of the McMahon demarcation. But for the Tawang tract, there is little basis for the Chinese claim on the whole of Arunachal Pradesh. Even the claim they might have on the Tawang tract is rendered invalid in the sense that it becomes a geographical anachronism and incompatible with India's security interests.

 

The Japanese thrust towards India in World War II gave urgency to the British need to fix this boundary firmly and securely. Thus, in 1944, J P Mills, the then government's advisor on tribal affairs, established a British administration in the entire belt from Walong in the east to Dirang Dzong in the west. Several posts of the Assam Rifles were established and soon Tibetan government officials were packed off from the Tawang tract also. This was the state of the Great Game when the British left India. In 1949, the Communists came to power in China and shortly thereafter the Communist China announced its army would be moving into Tibet. India reacted by simply sending the Chinese a diplomatic note. Soon after receiving this angry protest, the Chinese occupied Tibet.

 

In 1947, the British finally left India. India’s choice then was to either call an end to the Great Game or continue playing it with all the intensity and commitment it called for. India under Nehru neither called an end to the Great Game nor played it with the intensity it deserved. When the Communist China occupied Tibet, India acquiesced. India didn’t firmly move into the areas claimed by the British as Indian territories in the western sector. How well India under Nehru looked after territory India claimed as its own is seen by the fact that, in the early 1950s, the Chinese had built a road connecting Tibet to Sinkiang across the Aksai Chin and India did not have a clue about it for several years.

 

The Chinese claim line however went further west and included the Chip Chap valley, Samzungling, Kongka La, Khurnak Fort and Jara La. More importantly, as far as the Great Game was concerned, the Chinese had occupied all this territory by the early 1950s. This is how matters were by the end of 1952 and by and large how things are today. The Chinese hold all territory, give or take some, within their claim line in Ladakh. In the east, India holds most of the territory below the McMahon line give or take some. These de facto boundaries could have been a basis for a permanent settlement of our boundaries, but India did not pursue it, though there were indications from time to time that the Chinese might want to settle on this basis.

 

The Indian government did move into the Tawang tract in force in 1951, overriding Chinese/Tibetan protests. In this sector, at least, it was clear that the Indian government was firm about its control of all the territory claimed by the British. There are several signs that indicate the Chinese too seem to have accepted the McMahon Line as the boundary in this sector.

 

The situation in the Western sector was entirely different. Here no definite British Indian boundary line existed. The only two points accepted by both sides were that the Karakoram Pass and Demchok, the western and eastern ends of this sector, was in Indian territory. Opinions on how the line traversed between the two points differed. India's boundary was inclined towards the Johnson claim line whereas as the Chinese, having built their road through the Aksai Chin naturally preferred an alignment closer to the McCartney/MacDonald line of 1899.

 

The main rule of the Great Game for the previous 150 years was that it was played as quietly and surreptitiously as possible. In the 1950s, these rules still seemed to prevail. The two contesting governments India and China decided to keep the lid on the problems while jockeying around for local advantages. On the surface it was all Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai and the practice of the Panchsheel philosophy. Underneath was the realization the titles to large tracts of territory under the control of both parties were under dispute. The lid on this roiling cauldron blew away when in March 1959 the Dalai Lama fled to India and India gave him political asylum. The Dalai Lama's flight to India was followed by two ominous incidents at Longju and Kongka La in 1959.

 

Tibet Sikkim Quid Pro Quo

Vajpayee and Wen Jiabao wisely employed the diplomacy of cool pragmatism to have quid pro quo on Tibet and Sikkim. India accepted China’s territorial rights on Tibet and China accepted India’s territorial rights over Sikkim. India and China should get over the colonial legacy and resolve the border dispute between India and China at highest political level so that the India and China could make money by doing e-tango.

 

29(5) Great Eurasian Game 2003

India-China-Russia Triple Entente

Russia-China-India Triple entente would turn tables against United States and hold American in check and usher in the multipolar world before 2004. During September 2002, the foreign ministers of India China and Russia met in Manhattan Astoria hotel, during the General Assembly Meeting in New York, and Russia played an active role in setting up the event. Russia's Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov mentioned that a second such meeting was in preparation during September 2003 also in New York and also at a UN General Assembly session. Russia is keen to see closer ties between India and China. It is obvious that the India-China-Russia three-way diplomatic process is already underway and is accelerating. China no longer harbors ill feelings towards Russia that dated from the late 1950s, when China acted as a counterweight to the then-growing Russian-Indian friendship were the result of the old geopolitics of the 20th century, no longer relevant in the 21st Century geopolitics. In 20th Century geopolitics Soviet Union promoted India as a counterweight to China in Asia. In terms of 21st Century geopolitics, practically all political forces in Russia clearly see that thought should be given to a world in which Moscow's two friends - Beijing and Delhi - are also friends themselves.

 

Economic Basis of Sino-Indian- Detente

The size of markets and prospects of increased exports to China Indian companies and increased exports to India by Chinese companies resulted the tumultuous mating game of the giant Elephant and giant Dragon, when the Vajpayee’s visit opened the vast gates for bilateral trade and cultural contacts. India wants to export to China’s growing import market and China wants to sell to India manufactured goods. The India-China two-way bilateral trade has the potential to grow to $100 billion annually before 2015 AD. Economic reality has brought Delhi and Beijing, the two great Asian capitals together. Early attempts at Sino-Indian rapprochement took place back in 1988 by Rajiv Gandhi, but even till 1993, India-China bilateral trade did not exceed $300 million a year. However during 2002 the bilateral trade surged towards $5 billion, and the interesting fact is not the figure of $5 billion, but the rate or growth of the India-China bilateral trade at 30 per cent a year. What is the big picture the way Sino-Indian détente looks after Mr. Vajpayee's visit to China. Sino-Indian détente is based on sound economic reality and would usher in the 21st Century the Century of Asia, once China and India are world’s 2nd largest and 4th largest economies, open up their economies to each other’s exporters. Territorial problems have existed between all neighboring states. Who would have thought that France and Germany would become fraternal nations, and not merely on paper, after two World Wars? Certainly, China and India are far from removed from the kind of economic integration that exists between Paris and Bonn. China is the world's second-largest economy ($4.1 trillion) in terms of real purchasing power and India is fourth largest economy ($2.2 trillion) in terms of purchasing power. China and India both enjoy top rate of economic growth. India looks to the Chinese import markets of $300 billion a year. China manufacturers covet Indian expertise in Software and knowledge based industries, which earn up to $8 billion per year in offshore programming. Both India and China have mutual interests in increasing Sino-Indian bilateral trade and economic inter-linkage. It is not for nothing that there is talk of an approaching era of Asia, The 21ST century as the Century of Asia that includes East Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia. With this trend towards Sino-Indian rapprochement between giant elephant and giant Dragon, based on strong economic realities, both China and India stand to gain.

 

Geopolitical Great Game of Asia

The geopolitical Great Game of the 21st Century in the Caspian Central Asia demands that India, China and Russia should develop joint oil ventures to develop oil and gas resources of the Caspian basin and build oil and gas pipelines to transport them towards India and China, so that United States or European Union might not dominate and control these Caspian oil resources and oil and gas pipelines. The geopolitical worldview of India, China and Russia coincide in Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, Congo, Burma, Malaysia and Indonesia. Closer India-China ties are in the national interest of Russia, and would allow Russia to leverage the power of India and China to neutralize America’s predominance in the world. Russia will be a winner beyond doubt by increased Sino-Indian détente and closer economic ties. A full-scale three-way Moscow-Delhi-Beijing Economic, political and military Alliance is not very distant despite the fact that the three capitals see the world the same way, independent of each other. Russia is also an Asian power. The geopolitical goal of the Great Game in Central Asia is that India, China and Russia should deny foreign Sea powers, the United States and NATO any permanent stronghold in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Caspian basin. On the oil issue of Caspian Central Asia that the national interests and oil interests of Russia, perfectly coincide with those of China and India. India, China and Russia should form oil cartel to jointly develop the oil reserves of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Iran and develop oil and gas pipelines. The process of Sino-Indian rapprochement, between India and China, two of Russia's best friends and allies in Asia, created new business opportunities in oil-rich Caspian Central Asia. With growing Sino-Indian détente Russia feared less the threat of Islamic terrorism and political instability spreading from northern Pakistan and southern Afghanistan. Friendship between India and China, the two Asian giants forced Europe and America give greater respect to Russia.

 

Caspian Oil in Great Game of 21st Century

During 18th, 19th & 20th Century Indian Empire and Russian empire played the Great Game that resulted in the 1909 Pamir settlement that settled Amu River as borders of Indian and Russian Empires. The purpose of the Great Game was to deny Russian Empire the outlet in the Arabian Sea Warm Water Ports. The Purpose of the Great Game in 21st Century is to deny the foreign Sea powers, namely United States and NATO access to the oil-rich Caspian Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. The geopolitical interests of China, India and Russia coincide in oil-rich Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan. The common goals of 3-countries are to deny USA the foothold in the oil-rich Caspian basin. Tibet is India's gateway to Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgysztan. Russia has declined. The GNPs at PPP are China ($4.2 trillion) India ($2.2 trillion) and Russia ($928 billion). It is in the national interest of Russia to see that either India or china developed economic control over the oil and gas rich Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Emperor Babur came from Uzbekistan and Central Asia had been part of India for thousands of years. It is high time that India regained its influence over Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. The Sino-Indian Detente, Indo-Russian Alliance and China-India-Russia Triple Alliance based on the common national interests in oil-rich Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan and Azerbaijan and Iran. India, China Russia Defense Pact can keep USA and NATO out of oil rich Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.

 

Geopolitics of Great Steppes of Eurasia

The great steppes that separated the fertile river-irrigated agricultural lands of China, India, Iran, Turkey and Roman Empire gave birth to horse-riding bands of ferocious barbarians that periodically descended on the Civilized world to cause havoc. The Great Silk Road connected the great civilizations of the world and allowed the barbarians of the Eurasian Heartland. The grasslands of the Asia’s steppe lands provided grass for the horses and nomad tribes developed self-sufficient economy based on the horses and mares. The mobility of the nomads gave them unprecedented military capability to attack the civilizations at the weakest point of their choosing. Huns conquered and destroyed the Roman Empire. These tribes invaded and looted China and invaded India time to time. Throughout history the greatest civilizations of Eurasia were periodically invaded and conquered by the nomads of Eurasia. Historian Arnold Toynbee described the historical cycle of barbarian’s invasions of civilizations as follows: Barbarians improvise upon the military technology developed by the Civilizations to invade and conquer the Civilizations. After the conquest of the Civilizations the barbarians protect the Civilizations from further attacks of other barbarians. Over time Civilizations learn the barbarian military technology to mass-produce weapons to overtake and conquer the barbarian rulers and reestablish the rule of the Civilizations. And the cycle starts again. 

 

Great Central Asian Game of 19th Century

Russian Tsars exploited the mobility of the frozen Siberian steppes to expand Russian empires to the Pacific Coast and even reached Alaska in North America. The Russian ice skaters acquired the mobility of the horse-riding Mongol nomads and extended the land power Russian Empire’s control over the Siberian landmass as far as Alaska, where it met sea power British Empire’s Canadian colonies. The frozen landmass of Siberia and Alaska provided unprecedented mobility and Russia gained control over the Northern hemisphere in the Eurasian continent and reached deep into the New World. The British maritime colonial empire in Canada met Russian land power Empire at the Canadian borders of Alaska in North America. Russia is a land power and it realized the strategic advantage the maritime sea powers enjoyed over the long stretched supply line of the land powers in Alaska. Russia foolishly sold Alaska to United States for peanuts, just to keep Alaska out of the reach of Britain. Russia reasoned that United States being a land power would have no capability to invade Russia in Siberia. Russia feared that British Navy might disrupt Russian supplies to Alaska by the blockade of the Bering Sea and Bering Strait.  

 

France of Napoleon Bonaparte was a land power and it didn’t understand the logic of the sea power. Napoleon sold the large tracts of American territories it had secured from Spain to Untied for peanuts, simply to keep these territories out of the reach of Britain, the main rival for France in Europe. United States expanded its possessions in North America by buying Alaska from Russia and Spanish territories from napoleon Bonaparte.

 

Throughout 19th Century the goal of the Great Game was to deny Russia the access to war water ports of Arabian Sea. During 19th Century Russian Empire in the North expanding southward towards the Arabian Sea warn water port met the northward expanding British Indian Empire. The Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire and British Indian Empire clashed for the sphere of influence in the lands surrounding the Black Sea, Caspian Sea and Amu River. Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire and Indian Empire competed for the sphere of influence over Muslim territories of Central Asia from Black Sea, Caspian Sea, Amu River and Lake Baykal. The Great Game extended from Buddhist Mongolia and Tibet, Hindu Nepal, and Muslim Central Asia including Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan and Kurdistan. The Anglo-Russian settled by 1909 Pamir Settlement that defined Amu River as frontiers between Russian Empire and Indian Empire. Britain had a vested interest in settling for the northern frontiers of Indian empire because of the discovery of the oil in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Indian Empire wanted a secure frontier with Russia so that Russia’s dream of a warm water Arabian Sea port could be nipped in the bud.

 

The Great Game of 20th Century

During 20th Century the purpose of the Great Game was to engineer the secession of oil-rich Arabian Peninsula from Ottoman Islamic Caliphate. American and British colonial interests joined forces and harnessed the military potential of nomad Wahhabi tribes of Mecca and Medina to engineer the secession of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq from Ottoman Empire. After the discovery of the oil in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan the purpose of the Great Game has been to bring the oil-rich Caspian basin, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan under the influence of United States and to undermine the influence of India, China and Russia in the oil-rich Caspian Central Asia.

 

The Great Game of 21st Century

During 21st Century the goal of the Great Game is to keep sea power United States out of Central Asia. The national interests of Asian land powers namely, India, China and Russia coincided in oil-rich Central Asia and redefined their goals in the Great Game of 21st Century to keep sea power United States and NATO out of Caspian Central Asia.

 

It is neither in the national interests of India nor militarily practical for India to support US-led invasion of Tibet to engineer the secession of Tibet, according to the geopolitics of the Great Game in 21st Century. The new Great Game demands that Pentagon’s military bases in independent Tibet after the secession of Tibet from China would threaten India’s national security more than Chinese occupation of Tibet. Chinese occupation of Tibet is not a security threat to India, as China’s control over Tibet would always remain fragile and vulnerable to India supported subversion and insurgency.

 

Prime Minister Vajpayee promoted India’s national interest by declaring that India has no interest in engineering the secession of Tibet from China with the help of United States. The Pentagon’s footprints in Nepal and Tibet would not be in India’s national interests. Tibet under Chinese control would serve India’s national interest more than independent Tibet under influence of the United States. Opening the Silk Road trade route to supply Indian goods through Sikkim’s Nathu La Pass to Lhasa in Tibet would enhance the security of Tibet and promote India’s exports to Tibet and provide export outlets for goods manufactured in Tibet. The cool pragmatism of the quid pro quo of Tibet and Sikkim would secure the common land frontiers of India and China. Sino-Indian détente should focus to influence the eastward and southward flow of oil and gas resources of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.

 

The principal objective of Sino-Indian détente in the Great Game in post Iraq War age shall be to build and construct the eastward oil and gas pipelines towards China and southward oil and gas pipelines towards India, to transport oil and gas resources of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan for sale to the oil-hungry economies of China and India.

 

NATO troops operate in Afghanistan. First time in 2000 years after Alexander the Great led invasion of India, the European NATO troops reached Afghanistan via the land bridge that connects Europe to Afghanistan. The closure of the land bridge from Europe to Central Asia allowed air power and sea power United States to project its power in the oil-rich Caspian Central Asia to the detriment of the national interest of Asian land powers of India, China and Russia. Asian land power must not allow European and American sea powers and air powers to develop military bases in the soft under belly of Caspian Central Asia. 

 

Tibet Gateway to Oil-rich Caspian Basin

India and China should enhance the Sino-Indian détente to next strategic level by developing military capability to project the military power of Asian land powers, namely India and China via the ancient Silk Road to neutralize the power and influence of America and NATO in Caspian Central Asia so that oil and gas resources of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan flow freely southward and eastward to fuel the economies of India and China. The purpose of the Sino-Indian Détente should be to develop the land bridge from Ladhak Kashmir, Tibet, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. India and China can jointly project its military power in the Caspian oil basin through Tajikistan bordering Tibet. The road links Leh-Ladhak to Zhaxiqang Tibet en route to Yarkand and Kashi in Sinkiang that connects to Sary Tas in Kyrgyzstan. The Nathu La Pass Silk Road could also be used to transport Indian military troops to Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

 

The oil interest of India and China perfectly coincide in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan in Caspian Central Asia. The oil interests of India and China also coincide in Iran. The national interests of India and China in Caspian Central Asia and Iran defined in terms of enhancing joint military and diplomatic capabilities to undermine America’s preponderance and control over the oil and gas resources of Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.

 

29(6) India can Overtake China

Giant Indian Elephant turned Into Tiger

First. Capitalist Indian elephant has nothing to fear from communist dragon in the clash of titans as Capitalist elephant could suddenly transform into giant tiger influenced by market forces faster than communist dragon could ever do. Just as democratic, capitalist Untied States overtook communist totalitarian Soviet Union just 15 years after the defeat in the Vietnam in 1975, it is very likely that Indian elephant would overtake Chinese dragon in first two decades of the 21st Century. The Indian giant elephant turned into giant tiger in the 21st Century. At the micro level, India has displayed every bit as much dynamism as China. Compare the recent Economist cover story (27 June 2003) on India and China with that done in the mid-90s. In the mid 1990s India was seen as a slow, ponderous Elephant, a far cry from its description of India in 2003 as a Tiger. Sure, the Economist still sees India as ‘a Tiger falling behind a Dragon’ but somewhere along the way the elephant has metamorphosed into a tiger, after the end of the Cold War in 1990. Indians should learn that they have less to fear from their giant neighbor China, than what Indian presently think. India is not outperforming China overall, but it is doing better in certain key areas and that success may enable it to catch up with and perhaps even overtake China," Yasheng Huang, associate professor at Sloan School of Management at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Tarun Khanna, professor at Harvard Business School have said in a study in the recent issue of Foreign Policy.

 

Capitalist India overtakes Communist China

Second. The Communist political infrastructure and political totalitarianism would hamper the growth of Chinese capitalism as private property is not safe in communist China and no Chinese billionaire would keep its capital savings in China for fear of nationalization and confiscation after the regime change in China. China does not recognize private property and Capitalist infra structures of India would allow India to leapfrog China in the race towards developing Capitalist industrial economy. Indian traditions and institutions have proved an excellent springboard for the emergence and evolution of India’s capital markets. In the past 25 years, from 1975-2000, India’s GDP growth has seen only a single year of contraction. If the black economy is taken into account, India already rivals Japan in net GDP. About 100 MNCs have set up research centers in India in the past five years (1997-2002). In comparison, only 33 Business Week 1000 companies had R&D centers in China. For years India come off poorly in comparisons with China. So much so that most of Indians have an inferiority complex vis-à-vis China. The only sector where Indians managed to best the Chinese is software, IT and Biotechnology and there too India’s lead is far from invincible. India’s stock market, has the ‘greatest short-term and long-term potential. India, is ‘a lot more than the dry data employed by an economist or an investment analyst. Christian investment analysts and media purposely downplayed India’s economic strengths, influenced by their bias against pagan nations.

 

China Overtook India only in 1990s

Third. The GNP of China in 1990 was 110% of India’s GNP and China’s population was much larger and thus per capital GNP of India was much larger than that of China in 1990. The TNCs direct investments FDIs fueled China’s phenomenal industrial growth and transformed china into the World’s factory, simply because Communist party had banned the strikes in China and instructed agents in India to cause industrial unrest. Economists impressed by China’s GDP growth story, despite the fact that it’s based on Trans National Corporations (TNC’s) Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs), a very shaky foundation a bank-financed investment binge. The Chinese FDI was Chinese Diaspora generated. India has managed to spawn a number of companies that now compete internationally with Europe and the US. Indian Diaspora had accounted for less than 10 per cent of foreign money flowing into the country and with the welcome mat now being laid out, foreign direct investment (FDI) from Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) was likely to increase. India should allow Trans National corporations TNCs to have 100% foreign owned units to attract FDIs.

 

Laissez Faire India Stronger than China

Fourth. India’s ‘bottom-up investment’ story is ‘massively more interesting. India can overtake China as an economic power despite losing on foreign investment front as New Delhi's reliance on its own resources will ensure more sustainable progress to enable it to surpass Beijing. "Indeed, by relying primarily on organic growth, India is making a fuller use of its resources and has chosen a path that may well deliver more sustainable progress than China's FDI-driven approach. While the Indian Diaspora may not be able to match the Chinese Diaspora as 'hard' capital goes, Indians abroad have substantially more intellectual capital to contribute than their Chinese counterparts. With the help of its Diaspora, China has won the race to be the world's factory. With the help of its Diaspora, India could become the world's technology lab.

 

India Can surpass China

Fifth. "Can India surpass China? It is no longer a silly question. It turns out that India has indeed made a wiser bet. If India could be seen as a tiger that could overtake Dragon China then its implications for China's future growth and for how Western foreign policy experts think about economic developments in China and India generally could be enormous. The rise of India as an economic Tiger could siphon TNCs FDIs away from China and make India the favored destination of the Foreign Direct Investments in first quarter of the 21st Century. The Giant Elephant would compete with the Giant Dragon for the foreign direct investments that fueled China’s economic progress in the 1990s and allowed China to leapfrog India.

 

India can also woo FDIs

Sixth. India might soon have the best of both worlds, as India looked poised to reap significantly more FDI in the coming years than it has attracted to date and India has more developed base of indigenous entrepreneurs than China. The Free enterprise and Capitalist institutions of India would allow Indian economy leapfrog china in first two decades of the 21st Century. Let us compare two Chinese provinces of Zhejiang and Jiangsu, which were at similar levels of economic development in 1980. The Zhejiang province in China laid more emphasis on indigenous entrepreneurs and organic development. The Jiangsu province relied largely on FDI. The former Zhejiang province was more prosperous than Jiangsu province in 2000 after 20 years. Similarly, India would become more prosperous than China, because like Zhejiang province of China, India laid more emphasis on indigenous entrepreneurs and organic development. Terming China's success in attracting FDI a "historical accident, billions of dollars that came of Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan might have inadvertently helped Beijing postpone politically difficult internal reforms.

 

Indian Entrepreneurs Outsmarted Chinese

Seventh. Indians can outshine Chinese entrepreneurs in publicly listed companies in USA and Europe. Though overseas Chinese are better entrepreneurs than overseas Indians, Indian   entrepreneurs are better entrepreneurs than entrepreneurs in Communist China. India has better pool of entrepreneurs than China because of the Communist political structure in China. Indian corporations can compete more efficiently than Chinese corporations, because Indian companies led by private capitalists, while Chinese corporations led by state capitalists. India registered a higher average score than any other country in the region, including China, and that the two Chinese firms which made it to the top 10 had significant state involvement as compared to all Indian firms, which were private initiatives. Not only is entrepreneurship thriving in India, the Indian entrepreneurs have become folk heroes in India. These success stories would never have happened if India lacked the infrastructure needed to support Premji of WIPRO and Narayana Murthy of Infosys and other corporate moguls. The capitalist infrastructure, democracy, a tradition of entrepreneurship, and a decent legal system have given India the underpinning necessary for free enterprise to flourish, which would overtake china very easily on a level playing ground.

 

India as Financial Services Super Power

Eighth. Indians have better resources to emerge as the financial services super power than China. After the merger of Hong Kong into China the overseas Chinese would lose the Hong Kong initiative and become hampered by the Communist system in Mainland China. If, for whatever reason, markets decide India is the flavor of the month and China is not, we could see a rush of foreign investment funds into the country. The role of overseas capital in China’s development is widely acknowledged. Imagine what $50-700 billion a year for the next ten years could do for India, in terms of developing India as the World’s Factory. Net FII inflows into the country during the first two-and-a-half months of the current fiscal are already 15% higher than total inflows in all of last year. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows have also been encouraging. Markets, especially financial markets, are anything but rational. Indeed herd mentality, as seen during 1978-200, is much more a feature of financial markets than other markets. So, while it is quite possible that such reports are the result of some newfound fascination for India and, possibly, investor fatigue with China, in reality, the reasons are immaterial.

 

29(7) Weak Capitalism in China

Chinese Capitalism & Yang Bin’s Arrest

Arrest of Yang Bin could derail China’s Economy. The 18-year jail term on Yang Bin, the 2nd richest man in China, would scare present and future millionaires in China, and India should offer them investment opportunity in India, then India might get flooded with Chinese investments. China is a communist country and does not recognize private property. The Jail term for yang Bin, who had become the governor of North Korea's foreign trade Zone, is very good for India and India should contact Chinese investors in Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan and Hong Kong to dump China in favor of India. Political turmoil in China would derail China's economic miracle and India would soon overtake China in economic development and in attracting Transnational Corporations Foreign Direct investments. Jail terms for Yang Bin is an indication that Chinese businessmen would prefer to Invest in India rather than China. India should exploit this arrest of Yang Bin to attract Chinese investments into India. China jailed a fallen flower baron, once listed as the country's second-richest man, for 18 years on Monday for commercial crimes in a case underscoring the precarious position of China's entrepreneurial elite. The guilty verdict brought to a close a dramatic reversal of fortune for Yang Bin, the orchid-growing Dutch national detained last year just days after North Korea named him head of a planned free-trade enclave on the Chinese border. The Shenyang Intermediate Court in the northeastern industrial hub convicted Yang Bin on all counts. Yang Bin was convicted of contract fraud, forging financial instruments, bribery and illegally occupying and using farm land and was also fined 2.3 million yuan ($278,000).

 

$4 Trillion Theft of China’s Wealth

It is rumored that most of the foreign direct investments made in China made by the overseas Chinese in Communist China could have been the part of the $4 trillion that tope brass in Communist Party and Army stole and siphoned out of China to be brought back in name of FDIs. The Communist Party leaders and Chinese Army’s top brass leaders have misappropriated more then $4 trillion of State assets and siphoned out of China. The Russian communist Party leaders and Russian Jews had siphoned away more than $200 billion Russian hard currency out of Russia during process of liberalization. The Chinese have siphoned away more than $ 4 trillion of national assets. A string of scandals has affected high-profile entrepreneurs who rapidly amassed fortunes in the 1990s, working their political connections in the margins where business interests intertwine with those of government bureaucrats. Yang's financial empire began to unravel in October 2002, when Shenyang police took the gregarious businessman from his plush headquarters, as he was about to lead foreign journalists on a tour of the new Sinuiju economic zone in North Korea. Yang Bin, chairman of Hong Kong-listed Euro-Asia Agricultural (Holdings) Co Ltd, remained defiant and filed an appeal. He disagreed with the verdict. The 40-year-old Yang Bin was ranked as China's second-richest man by Forbes magazine in 2001 with an estimated fortune of $900 million. Yang Bin became the first of several high-ranking tycoons to run foul of the law since 2002, when the Communist Party invited the new capitalist rich to join their ranks in November 2002. Yang Bin’s trial came as Shanghai authorities investigated Zhou, the city's richest man, and the recently recalled head of the Bank of China's Hong Kong arm, Liu Jinbao, in the latest case to ripple through Chinese financial circles. It also coincided with a brewing corruption scandal over improper loans in Shanghai that has cast a cloud over the empire of detained property tycoon Zhou Zhengyi.

 

TNCs FDIs are Mostly Stolen Chinese Money

Savvy entrepreneurs exploit vacuums of power, ambiguities in emerging rules and opportunities to amass once unthinkable wealth. In China, it has occurred on an enormous scale. Yang Fan, an economist at China University of Political Science and Law in Beijing, estimates that from the beginning of reforms in the early 1990s through the end of the decade, nearly $4 trillion in public assets were transferred from state-owned companies to insiders, who had close links with top communist party and Chinese Army leadership. Most of the $500 billion Foreign Direct Investments that came into China could be the siphoned Chinese black money looted from State owned corporations by their managers. The most of the Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) in China even by those of the Transnational Corporations (TNCs) in China attributed to the generosity of the Overseas Chinese community, appears to be false, as majority of the Overseas Chinese community are anti-Communist and pro-Taiwan. It appears the most of the Transnational Corporations (TNCs) Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) was simply the stolen Communist China’s wealth siphoned abroad by corrupt Communist Party leadership and Chinese Army’s top leadership, reputed to amount more than $4 trillion. India should not worry that Foreign Corporations preferred China over India, it only meant that Chinese officials and military leaders are more corrupt than Indian officers and leaders, and that Chinese leaders stole China’s assets at grand scale, making China impoverished. India can easily catch up with China.

 

Communists Stole $4 Trillion from China

He Ran is hailed as one of China's most successful entrepreneurs, listed by Forbes magazine in 2001 as the China’s 82nd-richest person, worth about $70 million. The phenomenon has played out in many countries that shifted from state-planned to market economies, as savvy entrepreneurs exploit vacuums of power, ambiguities in emerging rules and opportunities to amass once unthinkable wealth. In China, it has occurred on an enormous scale. Yang Fan, an economist at China University of Political Science and Law in Beijing, estimates that from the beginning of reforms in the early 1990s through the end of the decade, nearly $4 trillion in public assets were transferred from state-owned companies to insiders. He Ran’s case simply explains that Communist System is more than corrupt than India’s system and that most of the Trans National Corporations’ Foreign Direct Investments in China just a camouflage of the Communist China’s State funds looted by corrupt Chinese officials and military leaders and siphoned abroad and brought back into China as FDIs. Chin had been transferring Chinese capital by under invoicing the Chinese exports and the agents of the military leaders pocketed the difference in foreign lands and deposited in foreign banks on account of overseas Chinese businessmen.

 

29(8) Conclusion

(1) Economic Basis of Sino-Indian Detente

First. Giant Indian elephant wants to mate with giant Chinese dragon to increase India’s exports to get a bigger slice of China’s $250 billion imports market. China’s dreams to quadruple its GNP to $16 trillion in next ten years provides great export opportunity to India. Indian economy is confident that on a level playing ground it can e-tango with dragon economy for mutual profits. Japanese economy is in deflationary phase and German economy is stagnant and will contract in near future. American economy might also get stuck in deflationary as US benchmark interest rates fall to 1% the lowest in 45 years. The five largest economies of the world are: United States, China, Japan, India, and Germany. Three of the five largest economies, namely, USA, Japan and Germany are either stagnant or in deflation and no longer hope for any robust economic growth in near future. Only with the Free trade with India could China possibly hope to quadruple China’s GNP in next ten years. India by fully integrating its economy with that of China, could also dream to quadruple India’s economy also in next ten years. If China could do, India would also do the same, if giant elephant agreed to mate with giant Dragon without any reservations.

 

To Indian exporters Chinese markets provide greater potential for exports much larger than the prospects to exports to US markets, simply because America might be heading towards deflation or stagnation as its benchmark interest rates heading towards lower than 1%. Sino-Indian détente based on the rock solid foundations of growing bilateral trade that reached $5 billion and could double in two years and quadruple in four years and might be as high as $200 billion in next ten years, if China were to realize its dream to quadruple its GNP in next ten years before 2013. Indian Software Yin matches well with Chinese Hardware Yang to produce Yin-Yang synthesis that would enrich the one-third population of the world. India’s strength in Software, Information technology, Knowledge based industries, biotechnology, chemicals, pharmaceuticals provides complementary support to Chinese strength in manufacturing industry. Indian software married to Chinese hardware as embedded chips could possibly dominate the telecommunications and consumer electronics markets worldwide. Increased bilateral Sino-Indian trade provides the rock solid economic foundation of closer Sino-Indian détente.

 

(2) Caspian Oil as Factor in Sino-Indian Pact

Second. Throughout 18th, 19th and early 20th Century The Great Game of Central Asia determined the diplomacy of Russia, India, Ottomans and China. The principle goal of the warring parties in the Great Power Game in 21st Century is to control, secure and influence the ownership and flow of oil and gas resources of Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan by determining the direction and location of the oil and gas pipelines that would transport the Caspian oil and gas resources to the industrial markets. China wants the Caspian oil and gas pipelines should transport Caspian oil eastward towards China. India wants the Turkmenistan oil and gas pipelines should transport energy resources southward overland through Afghanistan and Pakistan to Indian markets. India would like Turkmenistan oil to flow southward through Iran to Balochistan port and then via sea to India. United States and NATO developed military bases in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Iraq and Pakistan to control the oil and gas resources of Caspian Central Asia. India and China should open up the ancient Silk Road route to project India and China’s military power in Caspian Central Asia to weaken and undermine the American military and economic presence in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, and Azerbaijan. Joint control of the fabulously rich oil and gas resources of Caspian Central Asia provided the rock solid foundation of Sino-Indian Security ties to jointly project India and China’s military power over Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Afghanistan.

 

(3) Buddhism Factor in Sino-Indian Alliance

Third. Prime Minister Wen Jiabao pointed out that during last 2,200 years India and China had been friendly 99.9% times. Buddhism provides common bonds between India and China. Chinese Mahayana Buddhism is 90 percent similar to Hinduism. Chinese folk religion is 100% similar to ancient Hinduism. Chinese Taoism religion is 100% similar to modern Upanishad Hinduism. The Chinese concept of Tao is indistinguishable from Upanishad concept of unknowable Brahman. When pragmatic Communist China that refused to recognize the concept of private property could open up to invite Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) of the Transnational Corporations (TNCs) then there is no doubt that the new generation of leaders in china led by President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao would let religions bloom and grant full religious freedom in Communist China. There is no contradiction of Buddhist doctrines with Communism. India and China would become closest friends and allies whenever Communist China grants full religious freedom to Buddhists and Taoists in China.

 

(4) Inter-marriages for Sino-Indian Race

Fourth. Brown Indian Elephant wants to mate and procreate with yellow Chinese Dragon to create a mixed brown-yellow race that would inherit Chinese materialism and Indian idealism. China is short of women due to the restrictive ‘one-child only policy.’ It is high time that one hundred million Indians should intermarry with one hundred million Chinese to create a new mixed race, half-Indian and half-Chinese.

 

(5) China’s Industrial Output Surpass USA

Fifth. India would emerge as world’s leading Agricultural & Services Super Power. China has emerged as the world’s largest industrial power of the world and replaced USA in terms of Industrial sector GDP, and India has no option but to accord greater respect to China more than it gives to the United States. United states would never be able to overtake China in terms of Industrial output and GDP. India has competitive advantage in Service industries and knowledge based industries. India could increase its service sector exports to China. The United States, China and India are the three leading super powers in the world. Russia plus European Union would become the fourth superpower of the world. In the 1999 US GNP ($8.7 trillion) the value added by Agriculture sector is 2% ($174 billion), by Industry sector is 26% ($2.26 trillion), by Manufacturing sector is 18% ($1.57 trillion) and by Services sector is 72% ($6.26 trillion). In the 1999 China’s GNP ($4.1 trillion) the sector wise value by Agricultural sector is 17% ($697 billion), by Industry sector is 50% ($2.05 trillion), by Manufacturing sector is 24% ($984 billion) and by Services sector is 33% ($1.35 trillion). In 1999 India’s GNP ($2.2 trillion) the sector wise value added by Agriculture sector is 28% ($616 billion), and by Industry sector is 25% ($550 billion), by manufacturing sector is 16% ($352 billion) and by Services sector is 46% ($1 trillion). The Service sector contributed towards the GNP of the USA ($6.26 trillion), in China ($1.35 trillion), and in India ($1 trillion). (Source: World Bank. World Development Report 2000/2001) If China were to quadruple its GNP by 2013 then China’s service sector would contribute around ($6 trillion) in 2012 the 1999 Services sector GDP of USA. India’s service sector exports to China could top $500 billion annually in 2013.

 

Indian Elephant should court and mate with Chinese dragon because Chinese Industrial output has overtaken the industrial output of the United States. China would be forced to transfer labor intensive industries to India to move the food chain, if it were to realize its dream to quadruple China’s GDP by 2013 to $16 trillion) twice the size of 1999 GDP of USA. China’s Industrial output is 3.73 times India’s industrial output and 2.87 times India’s Manufacturing output. China’s industrial output would overtake US industrial output within a year. China’s Industry sector contributed 50% of GNP ($2 trillion) 92% of the GDP of US Industry sector ($2.26 trillion), and 373% of the Indian Industry sector’s GDP ($550 billion). China’s manufacturing sector contributed ($984 billion), 62.7% of US Manufacturing sector GDP and 287.5% of India’s Manufacturing sector GDP.

 

(6) India is Agricultural Superpower

Sixth. The 1999 Agricultural sector GDP are: China ($697 billion), India ($616 billion), USA ($174 billion), Canada ($23 billion), Australia ($13 billion), Brazil ($95 billion), Argentina ($25 billion), Kazakhstan ($7 billion), Indonesia ($101 billion), and Zimbabwe ($5.5 billion). India has competitive advantage in Agriculture. Indian agricultural sector output ($616 billion) in 1999 was 88.4% of China’s Agricultural output ($697 billion) and 354% of United States Agricultural output ($174 billion). India not United States would be the Agricultural power of the world. India is the super power in the service industries. The Agriculture and Services would catapult into great power status in near future. China’s industrial GDP surpassed the industrial output of China. India’s Agricultural GDP was 3.5 times the Agricultural GDP of the United States. The Agriculture sector value added as % of GDP was: Australia (3%), Brazil (9%), Canada (3%), China (17%), France (2%), Germany (1%), India (28%), Japan (2%), Kazakhstan (10%), New Zealand (7%), Peru (8%), Venezuela (5%), USA (2%) and Zimbabwe (19%). (Source: World Development Report 2000/01) India should negotiate large countries having empty lands to lease to Indian farmers on long-term lease basis so that these agricultural lands currently under utilized could increase agricultural production under Indian management and contribute towards the solution of the world’s problem of hunger and overpopulation.

 

(7) Complementary Economies India-China

Seventh. India’s competitive strengths in Agriculture and Services sectors complemented China’s competitive strengths in Industry and Manufacturing sectors. It is likely that services sector would contribute $6 trillion towards China’s projected $16 trillion GDP in 2013 AD and India could possibly carve out a large piece of the China’s service sector imports. China’s markets offer greater attraction for India’s exporters than the markets of stagnant United States. No wonder that Indian Giant Elephant is so passionate about mating with Chinese Giant Dragon, because the Dragon surpassed the American Eagle in terms of Industrial GDP.

 

(8) Geopolitics Overpopulated China India

Eighth. Geopolitical worldview of India and China coincide, because India as well as China is overpopulated land power, dependent on imported oil and gas resources from Arabian Gulf, facing security threats from sea power and air power United States determined to establish American oil colonies in the Middle East and Central Asia.

 

(9) India China Share 1750 World Output

Ninth. Percentage Shares of World Manufacturing Output by Civilization or Country, 1750-1980 (in percentages): 1750, 1800, 1830, 1860, 1880, 1900, 1953, and 1980. (a) West (Western Europe + North America) share of the world manufactured goods: 1750 (18.2%), 1800 (23.3%), 1830 (31.1%), 1860 (53.7%), 1880 (68.8%), 1900 (57.8%), 1953 (77.4%), 1980 (74.6%). (b) China’s share of the world’s total manufactured goods: 1750 (32.6%), 1800 (33.3%), 1830 (29.8%), 1860 (19.7%), 1880 (12.5%), 1900 (5.0%), 1953 (6.2%), 1980 (2.3%). (c) South Asia (India + Pak) share of the world’s total manufactured goods: 1750 (24.5%), 1800 (19.7%), 1830 (17.6%), 1860 (8.6%), 1880 (2.8%), 1900 (2.3%), 1953 (1.7%), 1980 (1.7%). (Excerpt of data from Paul Bairoch, International Industrialization Levels from 1750 to 1980 Journal of European Economic History, Fall 1982, as quoted by Samuel P Huntington in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order)

 

In 1750 India accounted for 24.5%, China for 32.8%, West Europe and North America for 18.2%, Russia and Orthodox Europe for 5.0% and Japan for 3.8% of the worlds manufacturing output. In 1800, India accounted for 19.7%, China for 33.3%, West for 23.3%, Russia for 5.6% and Japan for 3.5%. In 1830, India accounted for 17.6%, China for 19.7%, West for 31.1% and Japan 2.8%. In 1860, India accounted for 8.6%, China for 19.7%, West for 53.7%, Russia 7.0% and Japan for 2.6%. In 1880, India accounted for 2.8%, China for 12.5%, West for 68.8%, Russia for 7.6% and Japan for 2.4%. In 1900, India accounted for 1.7%, China for 6.2%, West for 77.4%, Russia for 8.8% and Japan for 2.4%. In 1913, India accounted for 1.4%, China for 3.6%, West for 81.6%, Russia for 8.2% and Japan for 2.7%. In 1928, India accounted for 1.9%, China for 3.4%, West 84.2%, Russia for 5.3% and Japan 3.3%. In 1938, India accounted for 2.4%, China 3.1%, West 78.6%, Russia for 9.0% and Japan 5.2%. In 1953, India accounted for 1.7%, China 2.3%, West 74.6%, Russia for 16.0% and Japan for 2.9%. In 1963, India accounted for 1.8%, China 3.5%, West 65.5%, Russia 20.9% and Japan 5.1%. In 1973, India accounted for 2.1%, China 3.9%, West 61.2%, Russia 20.1% and Japan 8.8%. In 1980, India accounted for 2.3%, China 5.0%, West 57.8%, Russia 21.1% and Japan 9.1%. Indian share of world manufacturing output was 24.5% (1750), 19.7% (1800), 17.6% (1830), 8.6% (1860), 2.8% (1880), 1.7% (1900), 1.4% (1913), 1.9% (1928), 2.4% (1938), 1.7% (1953), 1.8% (1963), 2.1% (1973) and 2.3% (1980). Similarly Chinese share declines from 32.8%, 33.3%, 29.8%, 19.7%, 12.5%, 6.2%, 3.6%, 3.4%, 3.1%, 2.3%, 3.5%, 3.9% and 5.0%. (Paul Bairoch, International Industrialization Levels from 1750 to 1980, Journal of European Economic History, (fall 1982), 269-334.

 

(10) China-Japan-India Common Market

Tenth. The 1999 GNPs of China ($4,112 billion), Japan ($3,044 billion), and India ($2,144 billion) adds to 3-country GNP of $9,299 billion, more than the combined 2-country GNP of ($9,076 billion) of United States ($8,350 billion) and Canada (726 billion). The Combined China, Japan India GNP exceeded the combined GNPs of 14-country EU ($8,018 billion) of Germany ($1,839 billion), France ($1,294 billion), UK ($1,234 billion), Italy ($1,196 billion), Spain ($659 billion), Netherlands ($364 billion), Belgium ($277 billion), Switzerland (196 billion), Austria ($193 billion), Denmark ($129 billion), Finland ($110 billion), Ireland ($72 billion), Norway ($118 billion), Portugal ($151 billion), Sweden ($184 billion). The China-Japan-India GNP also exceeded the combined 15 EU country + Russia GNP ($8,947 billion). The combined GNP of India China & Japan ($9.3 trillion) exceeded the combined GNPs of United States & Canada ($9.1 trillion), as well as the combined GNP of 15 European Union countries + Russia ($8.9 trillion).

(Source: World Development Report 2000/01). The size of the 3-country Asian Common Market is almost equal to the 3-country NAFTA and bigger than 15-country European Union. The economic predominance of India and China had been a known historical fact. In 1750 AD India (24.5%), China (32.8%) and Japan (3.8%) accounted for total of (61.1%) of world’s total manufactured goods. In 1999 the GNP @ PPP for China ($4,112 billion) was 10.59% of world GNP, Japan ($3,043 billion) was 7.84% of world, and India ($2,144 billion) was 5.53% of world. The Combined China Japan India GNP ($9,299 billion) was 23.96% of world total GNP ($38,805 billion). If China succeeded in quadrupling its GNP in next ten years by 2013 then it is likely that by 2015 combined share of China, India and Japan would be not far behind the 61.1% share of the world output that India, China and Japan in 1750 AD produced from total world’s manufactured goods. It is destined that by 2050 AD and latest by 2075 AD India, China and Japan would produce 60 percent of the world’s total manufactured goods. India should court China as well as Japan so that three Asian giants herald the Asian Century before 2015 AD.

 

(11) G10 Economic Security Council

Eleventh, Prime Minister Vajpayee’s Summit Diplomacy in China that resulted in Sino-Indian Détente got its first reward, when the EU informally invited China and India to the Group of Eight. European Union’s Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy invited giant dragon China and giant elephant India to the Group of Eight in July 2003 to make it Group of Ten. The nuclear and space powers, China and India the world’s 2nd largest and 4th largest economies should have a place in the Group of Eight, if the G8 is supposed to represent large economies. In the global clash of civilizations, Europe led by France and Germany welcomed India and China to the exclusive club, Group of Eight (G8) to recognize 21st Century is the Century of Asia. The Group of Ten (G10) would consist of USA, China, Japan, India, Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Russia and Canada, the world’s 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, and 12th largest economies respectively, in terms of 1999 GNP at Purchasing power parity. The Group of Ten could function as the Economic Security Council of the world. The G10 Group should deal with economic issues, and also deal with energy, labor and environment issues. The Group of Eight should be replaced by a forum including a greater number of participants, such as China and India, and dealing with a broader range of issues demanded EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy. "European Union would rather favor a sort of Economic Security Council, where countries like China, India, Brazil or South Africa plus the present G8 members would sit around the table during a visit to the Chinese city of Dalian. European Union would support a revamping, a reshuffling of the G8, which is a bit of an old, dated formula. Group was created 30 years ago and one does not know of any other institution of that kind which was created 30 years ago and is now very relevant. The G-10 forum replacing the G8 should not just deal with narrow economic issues but also include matters such as energy, labor and the environment on its agenda. "Coming together in the 1970s was mostly about economic development. Coming together in 2000s is about much more than that. Even in its present form, the G8 has reflected the gradual broadening of the agenda occupying the leaders of the world's most powerful countries. While economics remains the core issue when the G8 meets, recent summits have also addressed matters such as terrorism, crime and infectious diseases. In the eyes of the European Union it would not be a problem for China to gain membership, even though the current G8 consists of industrialized democracies. G-8 is a very informal setting, there is no rule about membership and there is no institution and permanent HQ of the G-8. Speculation that China and India might one day join the G8 was fueled earlier this year when Chinese President Hu Jintao and Indian prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee were invited to attend talks on development running parallel with a summit of the group in Evian, France. At the time of Hu Jintao's visit to France, Chinese officials said China did not aspire for membership in the exclusive club Group of Eight, arguing that as a developing country China did not qualify. Indian officials have indicated that India desires to join the G8, largely because of its failed attempts to grab a full seat in an expanded Security Council of the United Nations, which currently has Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States as its current permanent members. The G8 consists of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. The first meeting of the Group of Six (G6) was in Rambouillet, France, in 1975, when six countries participated in talks on the economic slowdown of that period.

 

(12) War can’t derail Sino-Indian Detente

Twelfth. Indians love China and do not fear China. Elephant wants to mate with Dragon but would ferociously fight Dragon if dragon wants to eat the cubs. Giants Indian Elephant and giant Chinese Dragon are militarily equal, equal super powers and though china is economically stronger but India technologically more competent and politically more stable. If China doesn’t recognize Sikkim as part of India, Fine, then India should support the secession of Tibet from China. Sino-Indian Detente is based on free trade ties and quid pro quo on Tibet and Sikkim. India should declare the independence of Tibet, if China backs tracks on Sikkim. India should work towards Buddhist religious revolution in China to overthrow atheist evil Communism in China. Buddhist Han People of China love Hindu Indians and vice versa. Wars should not hamper trade ties. Giants can love, mate, fight and war at the same time. When elephant mates, it looks like a war zone. Border skirmishes and even all out war should not hinder the open market and free trade between two Asian giants. China must learn that it won 1962 War because of the treason of Nehru and Krishsna Menon, who were traitors. Obviously India and china is rival in Caspian Oil and Burma. China realizes that Communism in China cannot survive 2005. Chinese Communist Party leaders and military generals looted $4,000 Billion Chinese govt. property and siphoned in the West, just as Russian Jews and Russian Mafia had siphoned $200 billion Soviet capital in the West. Chinese Communism heading for collapse. Buddhism would replace Communism as the ruling ideology in China. Hindu India and Buddhist China would be great allies, friends and partners. Let 100 million Indian boys and girls inter marry with 100 million Chinese boys and girls. Let India and China fight wars to modernize their armies, but their borders should remain open and free trade between India and China. India does not fear that china can flood Indian markets. Let Giant Elephant and giant Dragon mate and make love as well fight as they are rivals, lovers and because of their size there are only two giants left to love, mate, hate, procreate and fight.

 

(13) India & China are Super Powers

Thirteenth, the combined GNP of China, India and Japan exceeds the combined GNP of USA and Canada, and exceeds the combined GNP of 15 European Union members plus Russia. Asia has clearly overtaken Europe in economic power, military power and nuclear power. It is 21st Century of Asia. India, China, Brazil and South Africa deserve their place under sun. The world's top four largest economies of the world are: USA (1st, $8.4 trillion GNP), China (2nd, $4.1 trillion), Japan (3rd, $3 trillion), and India (4th, $2.2 trillion). The combined GNP of China and India ($6.3 trillion), more than the combined GNPs of 6 G-8 states, Germany ($1.8 trillion), France ($1.3 trillion), Britain ($1.2 trillion), Italy ($1.2 trillion) and Russia ($927 billion) (Source: World Bank, World Development Report 2000/2001).

 

(14) Southern Common Market

Fourteenth, the Southern Common Market (SCM) should be formed to include: China, India, Brazil, South Africa, plus Japan and Russia, having combined GNP of $ $11.6 trillion, bigger than NAFTA and European Union. It is high time that the Old Europe of weaker smaller powers should let Giants of Asia, South America and Africa take their rightful place among the Great Powers.

 

India China Japan Common Market. Asian Common Market would become great economic power. Indian rupee is highly undervalued. The real exchange rate of Indian rupee should be $1=Rs. 10, not $1=Rs. 47 as it now. In Jan 1965 1$=Rs. 4.70. If you include black economy then even today India has surged ahead of Japan. European economies would never ever be able to match Indian economy in size. India produced 24.5% of world's manufactured goods in 1750 and china produced 30% of the world goods. India, china and Japan produced 61% of world's manufactured goods in 1750, and these countries in 2100 would produce 60% of world's GNP and control 60% of world trade. The 21st Century is the Century of Asia. If India and China could become friends like Germany and France are now, then Asia would dominate the world. Had Indian Empire not supplied 3,500,000 soldiers for Allied forces, the outcome of the 2nd world War might have been different. West must repay India for the victory that Indian troops brought for Allied Powers.

 

(15) Secession of Hong Kong from China

Fifteenth, Britain should have declared Hong Kong sovereign free country in 1997, just as it created Pakistan in 1947. USA demanding freedom of Christian leader Suu Kyi in Buddhist Burma/Myanmar, the West should demand similar freedom for Hong Kong Chinese. Britain, India and USA should demand that Chinese Buddhists get the freedom they deserve in the world's 2nd largest economy and world's fastest growing economy. China gets the unfair trade advantage vis-à-vis India and other free world if it can control its people to work for peanuts by use of draconian laws, while rest of the world, especially India, suffers industrial unrest, sponsored by pro-China socialistic trade unions. The Chinese people of Hong Kong have a fundamental right to secede from China, if the draconian Chinese leaders refuse to grant Buddhist religion the Freedom of religion and Chinese Capitalists the free enterprise and freedom that Rich China must give to its citizens. Communist China must either open up or break up. Communist China has no right to deny freedom to the Hong Kong Capitalists. The USA and UK and India should work towards the secession of Buddhist Hong Kong to join in federation with Chinese Buddhist Singapore. Communist China has worst record of Human Rights. Just as USA imposed economic embargo on Buddhist Burma/Myanmar for political suppression. The US Senate must impose economic embargo for all imports from China for political suppression in Hong Kong. If China suppresses freedom in Hong Kong then Capitalist southern China would break away from Northern China dominated by Mandarins. For the integrity of China, Buddhist Hong Kong should be given full political freedom.

 

The West should support Hong Kong secession. Britain, India and USA should demand that Chinese Buddhists get the freedom they deserve in the world's 2nd largest economy and world's fastest growing economy. China gets the unfair trade advantage vis-à-vis India and other free world if it can control its people to work for peanuts by use of draconian laws, while rest of the world, especially India, suffers industrial unrest, sponsored by pro-China socialistic trade unions. The Chinese people of Hong Kong have a fundamental right to secede from China, if the draconian Chinese leaders refuse to grant Buddhist religion the Freedom of religion and Chinese Capitalists the free enterprise and freedom that Rich China must give to its citizens. Communist China must either open up or break up. Communist China has no right to deny freedom to the Hong Kong Capitalists. The USA and UK and India should work towards the secession of Buddhist Hong Kong to join in federation with Chinese Buddhist Singapore. Communist China has worst record of Human Rights. Just as USA imposed economic embargo on Buddhist Burma/Myanmar for political suppression. The US Senate must impose economic embargo for all imports from China for political suppression in Hong Kong. If China suppresses freedom in Hong Kong then Capitalist southern China would break away from Northern China dominated by Mandarins. For the integrity of China, Buddhist Hong Kong should be given full political freedom.

 

 

 

© 2006 Copyrights All Rights Reserved Author: KALKI GAUR

Kalki Gaur Books are as follows:

Kalki Gaur, “GLOBAL CLASH OF RACES” (2006)

Kalki Gaur, “DIPLOMACY OF CIVILIZATIONS” (2006)

Kalki Gaur, “MANIFESTO OF NEOCONSERVATISM” (2006)

Kalki Gaur, “HINDU HOLY GITA – MOKSA VIA RELIGIOUS WARS” (2006)

Kalki Gaur, “DA VINCI CODE AS CLASH OF RELIGIONS” (2006)

Kalki Gaur, “GLOBAL CLASH OF RELIGIONS” (2006)

Kalki Gaur, “GNOSTIC BIBLE” (2006)

Kalki Gaur, “POPULIST MANIFESTO” (2006)

The complete text of 5,000 pages of Books by Kalki Gaur available for free download at following Kalki Blogs for academic and non-commercial usage.

http://360.yahoo.com/gaurkalki   ; 

http://360.yahoo.com/clashofreligions  ; 

http://360.yahoo.com/diplomacyofcivilizations  ; 

http://clearblogs.com/kalkigaur/  ; 

http://kalkigaur.blogstream.com/  ;

http://my.opera.com/kalkigaur/blog/  ;

http://my.opera.com/kalkitv/blog/  ;

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/  ;

http://diplomacyofcivilizations.blog.com/  ; 

http://kalki.newsvine.com/

http://kalkimail.googlepages.com/

http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/

© 2006 Kalki Gaur Copyrights All Rights Reserved, Email: kalkimail@gmail.com