How Can India Contain China

The Chinese ingress into the DoklamPlateau in the Sikkim-Bhutan-Tibet tri-junction seems to be a reaction to the Indo-US joint statement issued after the Modi -Trump meet last month; while China was unmentioned, the call for ensuring "freedom of navigation, overflight & commerce" in the Indo-Pacific, resolution of "territorial & maritime disputes peacefully" & regional connectivity vide "responsible debt financing instruments" while ensuring "respect for sovereignty & territorial integrity" - an endorsement of the Indian Position on CPEC(China Pak Economic Corridor" -  was a severe indictment of China. The eyeball to eyeball confrontation of about 3000 soldiers each supported by the belligerent media of their respective countries was a logical consequence, that has upped the ante forcing the intervention of diplomatic corps to strive for a face saver for both sides. The current confrontation would end – since the Indians enjoy tactical superiority in the current geography – but with the border delineation still unclear & undecided, the possibility of a confrontation in some other sector in due course cannot be discounted.

Brief History of the Indo-China Border dispute

While India reiterates the colonial British stance that the McMahon line is the official Indo-China border, the Chinese have rejected the Shimla agreement of 1914. Post the Indian independence, sovereignty disputes persisted in the eastern sector of Arunachal Pradesh (Tawang) & the western sector of J&K (Aksai Chin). Chinese Premier, Zhou Enlai, in 1959, proposed an Indian concession on Aksai Chin in lieu of a Chinese concession in Tawang to settle the boundary dispute which was rejected by India; the subsequent “forward post” policy implemented without military rigour led to the 1962 war humiliation; the diplomatic blitzkrieg failed since the super powers were involved with the more pressing Cuban Missile crisis then. India lost the entire Aksai Chin to Chinese occupation. Skirmishes recur & in Sept- Oct 1967 at Nathu La & Cho La & in 1987 at Sumdorong Chu, in Arunachal Pradesh, the Indians gave the Chinese a bloody nose buttressing Defence Minister Arun Jaitley’s argument that India of 2017 is not the India of 1962.

Why the Doka La Incursion?

The pronunciations of the Chinese think tanks alludes to 3 strategies: Put India on notice that any hobnob with the US to challenge the Chinese in the Indo-Pacific would be countered; force Bhutan to establish diplomatic relations with China & emerge out of the Indian security cover consequent to the 2007 agreement; & to snub & prevent the rise of a potential challenger – India. The Indian intervention is strategic for allowing the Chinese to own strategic heights overlooking the "Chicken's neck" - the Siliguri corridor - our only gateway to the North East is perilous & pregnant with consequences. While the current standoff would subside, the peaceful rise of China is an oxymoron considering the disputes in the East & South China Sea; therefore, a long term plan to contain China is a dire need.

Long term plan

 (1)Bharat Mala

Strategic expert Ajai Shukla indicated that the Chinese initially send herders into disputed areas, followed by the PLA (People Liberation Army) personnel to build watch towers & bunkers & finally seal the “creeping acquisition” vide building infrastructure.  China, intelligently, thus continues to gain territory without firing a single bullet or a missile.  India should therefore accelerate the construction of the “Bharat Mala”

For details see http://meetrk.blogspot.in/2015/05/geopolitics-of-infrastructure-indias.html

(2)Disproportionate focus on Air Defence

China has a military strength of 2.3 million against India’s 1.3 million; if Pak’s 0.6 million is added India faces foes enjoying a 2:1 advantage in conventional military terms; rational to assume that equipment advantage too shall be proportional although the relative advantages could differ in each category.

China is a $11 trillion economy & India 1/5^th that no; it is reasonable to assume that military budgets are proportional to the size of the economy. Thus while China cannot annihilate us – just as we cannot finish off Pak – since all are nuclear powers, we simply cannot wish away a military superiority in a  2 front war despite the brave averments of our Army Chief, Bipin Rawat, that India is ready for a 21/2 front war – the last half referring to the Maoist insurgency.

A disproportionate focus on the air force, air defence & missile strength should be the medium term plan to protect the land borders; in the absence of good border infra, mobile airlifting of defence forces to forward posts at lightning speeds should be our strategy which demands activation & renovation of border helipads/landing sites. Sea denial in the Indian Ocean is contingent on availability of 3 aircraft carriers & a disproportionate submarine superiority which we lack; India has 13 submarines - all nearing the end of their lifetime of about 25 years - while China has about 50 submarines; they have a higher no of nuclear submarines that can stay undetected under water longer. They have entered into an agreement to sell both Pak & Bangladesh their indigenously built subs encircling us further. 

However, there is one saving grace; the Chinese Armed forces are notorious for huge corruption in arms acquisitions, running private enterprises & nepotism in promotions affecting the capability matrix. While President Xi has been trying to mend the same, it is a long torturous process which can be exploited by India & its allies.

(3)Trade

China exports & imports to India are worth about $60 billion & $10 billion respectively; indian exports have been dipping & imports galloping increasing the trade deficit. Squeezing China on trade is difficult despite the deficit since exports to India account for only about 2.5% of Chinese overall exports. Trade sanctions even if implemented will ensure that the goods find their way into India vide a third country courtesy their pricing superiority. China supplies cheap telecom & power equipment & barring their imports shall lead to increased consumer expenses in those sectors. Furthermore, sanctions would be an anachronism in a scenario where India is a supporter of “free trade” under the WTO (World Trade organization) aegis. Efforts should, therefore, be more concentrated on reducing trade deficit & gaining greater market access in China.

(4)Challenge the “One- China” Policy

As per strategic expert Brahma Chellaney, India should use the 3T’s – Trade, Taiwan & Tibet – to tame the Chinese. Trade sanctions are suicidal but imposing non-tariff barriers to force China to the negotiating table would be wiser counsel.

China can’t be overtly prickly about its sovereignty while being insensitive to Indian concerns on CPEC (China Pak Economic Corridor) passing through POK (Pak Occupied Kashmir). China should be gently reminded about the same & other fault lines.

Hong Kong was ceded to China in 1997 by the British & this region has been governed under the “One Country, Two Systems” principle bequeathing its citizens greater democracy. However China has been slowly wresting greater control & President Xi was welcomed by demonstrators when he visited it as part of the 20 year celebrations recently.

Fault lines, in China, that can be exploited include Tibet, Taiwan, Manchuria, Inner Mongolia & Xinjiang - which account for about 58% of the total area - post factoring in a Chinese response: support for Maoists & North eastern rebels; & supporting the  independence of Sikkim. Support for the Muslim Uighur rebels of Xinjiang would be a wrong strategy since it would willy- nilly mean supporting Muslim fundamentalism pushing the Chinese to support insurgency in J&K. When the Dalai Lama was allowed to Arunachal Pradesh this year, China reacted by renaming 6 areas of Arunachal; expect, therefore, an Indian action to be responded by a severe reaction from China. China persists with issuing staple visas to the inhabitants of Arunachal & J&K which they deem as "disputed areas"; an Indian retaliation on similar lines is in order.

(5)Military co-operation US-India-South Korea-Japan-Vietnam-Australia

India gained greatly during the Bangladesh war of Independence in Dec 1971 courtesy the treaty of Peace, Friendship & Co-operation signed in Aug, with the Soviet Union the same year; else President Nixon was keen on the US intervention in the war on Pak’s behalf & only the fear of a Soviet support for India held him back; the USS Enterprise - of the 7th fleet - however did sail towards Indian waters.

To take on the Chinese behemoth a US-India-South Korea-Japan-Vietnam-Australia “string of pearls strategy” is in order; these countries would come together courtesy their common grouse against an aggressive China in the East & South China Sea.

For Details see http://meetrk.blogspot.in/2015/07/disputes-over-islands-in-east-south.html

While being part of Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” made eminent sense, prudence now demands that we should be wary of Trump’s eccentricities & “deal” prone nature.

(6)Bide for time

China’s “One Child Policy” has 16 retirees per 100 today which is projected to increase to 64 by 2050; a greying population has its own strategic challenges; social strains in the absence of a good social welfare net are inevitable.

In the unlikely event of China declaring war, Indian media along with the world media - including those operating from Hong Kong - would start beaming stories that could elicit war protests forcing the intervention of the UN. While Chinese media would only play the official line, news from Hong Kong, Taiwan & the Chinese diaspora would trickle to the mainland leading to a stock market crash killing the prospects of the soft landing of the Chinese economy which has been kept afloat through govt. intervention; flight of capital would accentuate the process.  Indian economy too would suffer collateral damage though. India should therefore bide for her time; strengthening cyber warfare capability to infiltrate Chinese weapon designs & future power projections should therefore be our short term ploy.

Conclusion

China is too large to be taken on alone. Shunning Chinese products as advocated by rabble rousing twitteratti is not a completely thought through solution. Planning to grow the economy at a rate at least 1.5 times our Northern neighbour for the next 2 decades & strengthening our defences simultaneously would be a better strategy. In the intervening period following our “string of pearls strategy” advocated earlier would be a better alternative.  

China still prides itself as the “Middle Kingdom” around which the entire world revolves; perhaps, it believes that it is the only civilization that has forced its way back after an interregnum unlike the Indians, Mongols, Greeks or Romans. The Indian civilization too demands a similar glory & a peaceful rise of the Asian neighbours based on the principles of “Panchsheel” is always a preferred option. India’s ascent is not at the expense of China’s rise; however, if our actions are interpreted as a challenge, so be it.