My op-ed in Mint: There is no one China policy

Competition in zero-sum games, co-operation in positive-sum games

My op-ed in today’s Mint is a synthesis of several posts and discussions on this blog. Many of you might rightly say that it is stating the obvious. But sometimes the obvious has to be stated as well (and the need to do so is not always so obvious).

4 thoughts on “My op-ed in Mint: There is no one China policy”

  1. @Nitin:

    Not having a One China policy is not the same is not having a China policy at all! I know that is a non-sequiter but our political masters/ diplomats are highly capable of such a justification.

    As I said here about the new Western portrayal of {[US + India] versus China}:

    …there is a pressing need to move away from this sumptuary portrayal. India, as a self-confident and emergent nation, must be considered on its own terms. It should neither be considered as an appendage of the US nor a competitor to China. A fair portrayal has to take cognizance of the fact that the paramount consideration for India’s actions is its own national interest. Nothing more, nothing less.

    That is why India should not have pulled out of four-way exercise in the Indian Ocean. It is believed that the decision to restrict it to a two-way exercise between India and US was done to cater to Chinese sensitivities.

  2. Interesting, mellowed op-ed. It seemed rather in the NI mould, until I glanced upon this:

    It is a game that requires China to improve its relative power. China has two strategies for winning: one, to develop its own power; two, to contain competitors. India’s will be to counter this. Nuclear weapons have made it unlikely that the contest will escalate to war.

    That, I think is one reason we’re behind in this race(if my sense of the context/sentence is right). The intelligentsia, almost entirely believing China can only be matched with, and not beaten. In fact, the aim should be further, and more ambitious – of being the best in the World – that’d include relagating the West to backbenches too.

    Not only is it fallacious, it is eminently dispiriting – when you’re just playing for a draw. To borrow a cricketing example, it would be the major difference between the Aus/SA teams and most other teams, especially India – and the win/loss records. Most teams lose, while playing for a draw. As a country, we should not make *that* mistake.

  3. Oops, meant to say:

    That, I think is one reason we’re behind in this race(if my sense of the context/sentence is right). The intelligentsia, almost entirely believing China can only be matched with, and not beaten.

    Not only is it fallacious, it is eminently dispiriting – when you’re just playing for a draw. To borrow a cricketing example, it would be the major difference between the Aus/SA teams and most other teams, especially India – and the win/loss records. Most teams lose, while playing for a draw. As a country, we should not make *that* mistake.

    In fact, the aim should be further than matching/beating China, and more ambitious – of being the best in the World – that’d include relegating the West to back benches too.

  4. Nitin
    Will China ultimately melt in this ongoing Global Economic Cauldron?

    -It has virtually halted imports of Metals & Crude recently,
    -the global financial predicament will surely slow down FDI’s ,
    -It relies heavily on exports & obviously International consumption charts are going to nosedive ,
    -It has heavily invested in American Bonds which will be severely hit because of these bailouts (seems to have just being initiated, there’s more to follow)
    -& what to comment of it’s banking system…sigh..
    Are these observations reasonable? Or is it an illogical mental leap?

Comments are closed.