Former NSA Predicts India-China War Within 5 Years

Discussion in 'Politics' started by bearice, Apr 12, 2010.

  1. India and China are touted as white knights coming to the rescue of the world economy. Considerable hope rests on these two countries, with fast-paced growth, developing domestic markets and high savings rates, reviving demand and leading other languishing parts of the world out of recession.

    The two rising powers, however, may yet be clashing knights. For in New Delhi it is fear of Beijing, rather than partnership, that all too frequently characterises the trans-Himalayan relationship. While some size up trade balances and growth trajectories, others are measuring missile ranges and comparing military parades.

    Distrust of the bigger, faster-growing neighbour, which today sees the start of President Barack Obama's first visit to the country, is giving rise to some colourful tales. Stories circulate about China's toy factories producing plastic globes that mark India's territories on the Tibet plateau as Chinese. Google Earth, as viewed from China, apparently claims a swath of territory for the Communist party. In daring raids, People's Liberation Army soldiers nip across the border to daub boulders in red paint.

    Amid the media-fuelled paranoia, few Indians have articulated Beijing's supposed dark intentions with greater clarity than Delhi's former national security adviser, Brajesh Mishra.

    Mr Mishra advised Atul Behari Vajpayee, the former premier. His views, albeit hawkish, are respected by the current Congress party-led government and carry weight with the diplomatic community.

    So his recent forecast that India might face a second military front within five years turned heads. The former intelligence chief predicted that India could find itself locked in an armed stand-off simultaneously with Beijing and Pakistan, the traditional rival.

    China and India have once before come to blows. They fought a brief high- altitude war in 1962 that brought humiliation to the Indian army and ended Jawaharlal Nehru's vision of a brotherhood between the two Asian powers.

    Mr Mishra's suspicions of China have been newly aroused by Beijing's warm relationship with Islamabad and its supply of military hardware to Pakistan's army.

    They have also been stoked by territorial claims to Arunachal Pradesh, a north-eastern Indian state, and predictions on Chinese websites that India, a country of huge diversity, is doomed to fall apart.

    Mr Mishra says China's stridency in its territorial ambitions has grown over the past two years to a level not seen since the early 1960s. Moreover, he accuses China of trying to bring into question India's sovereignty over the state at the international level.

    Tensions have certainly risen. Among the points of friction are India's harbouring of the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan leader, and Beijing's unsuccessful efforts to scupper last year's Indo-US civil nuclear deal, which ended India's status as a nuclear pariah. This year Beijing objected to the Asian Development Bank's strategy for India, which included lending money for projects in Arunachal Pradesh. New Delhi has also sparred with Beijing over China's visa policy towards residents of Kashmir, which it chooses to interpret as a challenge to its sovereignty.

    Military strategists interpret China's policies as a regional power play. They say that tying India up within its own borders prevents it from projecting itself in the region and rivalling China.

    Economists explain the friction as part of a world economy pecking order: China is nipping at the heels of the US, India at the heels of China.

    Manmohan Singh, India's prime minister, acknowledges "problems" after finding himself the subject of a Chinese official rebuke for campaigning in Arunachal Pradesh during a state election. But he keeps faith with the Nehruvian vision of friendship. He considers there to be plenty of room in the world for the two to grow their economies amicably, without conflict.

    In spite of the fighting talk in India, the relationship between India and China holds much more potential than antagonism. China's impressive record of infrastructure development and lifting people out of poverty holds lessons for India. Likewise, India's democratic credentials and inclusiveness are instructive to China.

    In spite of very different paths over the past six decades, there is more that is complementary than hostile. The economic statistics alone show the relationship is far more nuanced. China is India's largest trading partner. Bilateral trade has leapt over the past five years, from $15bn to $50bn (€34bn, £30bn). Indian outsourcing companies, such as Genpact, are opening call centres in China; telecommunications hardware from China is finding a growing market in India as 15m users are added to its mobile networks every month.

    The two have shown the ability to co-operate in multilateral negotiations at the World Trade Organisation and over climate change at the UN.

    "Indo-Pak" was a hyphenation born out of 62 years of bruising hostility. "Chindia" is shorthand for rising prosperity.
  2. I'm a paleface, but would side with the darker skinned nation in this one
  3. I am not making any predictions about the outcome of any conflict, in fact if i had to put my cock on a block i would bet the Chinese would have the upper hand. But i would support India idealogically.
  4. James006


    although this is somewhat concerning I think I have to point out to you fine gentlemen

    that as soon as Israel attacks Iran In November a whole world war 3 will start,

    and you will all begin to realize that taking over the world by your leaders AIPAC and puppet US government isn't gonna fly
  5. India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20 centuries without ever having to send a single soldier across her border.

    Hu Shih, former Ambassador of China to USA
  6. Empires are a forgone era. To conquer land means you have to take care of the population. In a world with dwindling resources and rising commodities prices it doesn't pay to conquer poor nations unless they have natural resources and very poor people.
    Tibet is a negative investment for China, all headaches no gain.
  7. War means less people and less people means more resources for the surviving people.
  8. As long as God is with Israel, so am I. The people of Israel have gone through so much over the last 5,000 years, yet they are still here. They have got their land, lost it, got it back, lost it,got it back. Where else on earth has that happened with any people? Generally when a people get conquored and lose their land, thats it for them. They integrate with the new culture and the old one is gone. Not with the Jews though. Even without a home they do not get broken apart. Where else does that happen?
  9. that's why i am paying a mexican hitman to get you. ADIOS
    #10     Apr 12, 2010