Background:- You might have heard it before, how do you tackle a bully… STAND UP to it !!! Unfortunately, “bullying” has been China’s geopolitical policy. The bully is backed by a trillion dollar economic muscle which it got by being the “Sweat Shop” of the world and of course no country wants prosperity at that cost of human rights violation and what not. Now, it just can not keep its hands in its pocket, because it is not in the very nature of bullies.
In diplomacy there is a saying that “Speak softly and Carry a big stick, you will go far” and that is what India needs to do now. To stand up to a bully you don’t need bravado, a “slap in the face” will do just fine.
Many though that when India could not get NSG, it was India’s loss, WRONG, China had to fire its bureaucrats because it faced the diplomatic isolation, almost all supported India, even Mexico and Italy after the PM’s visit. So China’s isolation is apparent.
It also knows that its sweat shops are going to be closed sooner than later, and you no need humans to assemble what can be done by machine now with a bit of Artificial Intelligence. Hence the OBOR initiative, to sell its products and dominate the region geopolitically.
Nevertheless, the bullying is back and lets get into the matter at hand.
Details :-
Nothing illustrates this better than China’s recent efforts to test India’s responses in the tri-junction of Sikkim, Bhutan and southern Tibet, where it is building a road from where it can threaten the Chicken’s Neck region of India, which connects India to the rest of the North-East. It destroyed some bunkers on the Indian side, and has trespassed into areas claimed by Bhutan. In the resultant standoff, it arrogantly reminded us of our 1962 defeat.
To which, Defence Minister Arun Jaitley mildly retorted that the India of 2017 is not the India of 1962. China has – not unexpectedly – responded that even China is not what it was in 1962, and will take “all necessary measures” to safeguard its territory.
The China of 2017 is acting like that T-Rex in Jurassic Park, which tests a different part of the electrified fence each time to check for weaknesses. It tests India repeatedly in areas of weakness, whether it is in Ladakh, or the North-East. In 2013, a platoon-sized Chinese army contingent pitched tents 30 km south of Daulet Beg Oldi and demanded that India demolish bunkers some 250 km south in Chumar as these were reportedly a threat to the Chinese. After a standoff, India appears to have obliged.
Something similar is happening in Doko La, an area held by Indian troops near which the Chinese are trying to build a road through Bhutanese territory. Indian and Chinese troops are in a faceoff because India is intervening on behalf of Bhutan, with which India has a 50-year treaty.
The Chinese are trying to test the status quo here for a simple reason: technically, they are not encroaching on Indian territory or territory claimed by India, but doing it with Bhutan, which has no power to resist. If Bhutan and India cave in to this bullying, China will have moved its borders forward a wee bit. It will start believing that in an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation, India will, often, blink first.
To be sure, China is operating from its own sense of weakness, despite apparent strength. It knows that with every passing year, its hopes of becoming hegemon of Asia will diminish. Seen from the Chinese side, the window of opportunity for it to act is narrow.
First, China knows that it enjoys relative impunity right now thanks to the space opened up by Donald Trump’s confused policies. The US policy on Asia is no longer coherent, and India cannot count on the Trump administration to come to its aid if attacked by China. The EU is mired in its own economic woes, and Russia has been bought off with Chinese business deals. Japan is not a military power, but will start developing its own defence over the next decade. If China wants to force any issue with India, it must do so in the next five years.
Second, China knows that India’s own internal weaknesses will take a while to sort out. It could take nearly a decade for our economy and military preparedness to rise to a level where it becomes invulnerable to Chinese threats.
This can happen during the 2022-2025 period, depending on our rates of growth. Currently, China’s GDP is about five times India’s in nominal dollar terms ($11.8 trillion versus India’s $2.5 trillion, according to the IMF), but only 2.5 times in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP, with China at $23 trillion and India at $9.4 trillion). By 2022 or 2025, India’s PPP-based GDP will be half of China’s.
This is why China is trying to flex its muscles now, when India is in a position of relative weakness. Five or 10 years later, both the Indian economy and the military will be too big for China to confront through force of arms. And the US and Europe may also be in better shape than now to rein in China.
Third, China also faces internal vulnerabilities, and again the time horizon for offensive external action is narrow. Its population growth is decelerating, and now rises at the annual rate of about 0.5 per cent, against India’s 1.2 per cent.
China’s working age population has been declining since 2012, and will fall 25 per cent by 2050. This means both a steady rise in wages, which will worsen its competitiveness, and a fall in the growth rate in future.
In contrast, India’s demography is in a sweet spot, and the working age population continues to rise. These are positive indicators for future growth.
Another concern is China’s excessive internal debt, which is now reckoned at 260 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). This forced rating agency Moody’s to downgrade Chinese debt in May, and is indicative of the possibility that as growth slows, the debt problems could get worse.
China’s belt-and-road initiative is intended to create growth outside China by offering its Asian and African neighbours soft loans, which, in turn, will create construction opportunities for Chinese firms.
China believes that it must act while India is still not big enough. To strengthen its bargaining power with India, it is also buying out potential allies in the neighbourhood (Nepal, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, etc). The intrusion in Bhutan is intended to convey the same message. The bully is telling that tiny kingdom that partnering with India can be injurious to your health.
So, what should India’s response be?
One, we must bide our time. This is not the time for belligerence. We must talk softly, and keep beefing up your military power so that China knows it will get a bloody nose even if it has more firepower right now. This means avoiding unnecessary rhetoric in the public sphere, including in the media.
Two, we must engage China diplomatically to convey the sense that its belligerence can only be counter-productive. China, in fact, does not need to be told that if it attacks India, the rest of Asia will gang up against it despite its blandishments. So, targeting India will not help it anywhere.
Three, we must attempt to drive a wedge between Pakistan and China, China is turning a blind eye to this, because it is using Pakistan to get at India instead of acting on its own – except by offering pinpricks in Ladakh and now Bhutan. But as Chinese investments in Pakistan, including the port of Gwadar, increase, Chinese workers will be under threat from Pakistan’s various insurgencies on the western borders, including the restive Baloch freedom fight.
India needs to keep its head down and focus on building its own internal military and economic strengths for the next decade. After that, China can’t do much. We have to talk softly, and grow the size of our stick in the next decade.
Bullies need standing up to, but there is no need to talk loudly or lose eye-contact in the process.
Recent Posts
- In the Large States category (overall), Chhattisgarh ranks 1st, followed by Odisha and Telangana, whereas, towards the bottom are Maharashtra at 16th, Assam at 17th and Gujarat at 18th. Gujarat is one State that has seen startling performance ranking 5th in the PAI 2021 Index outperforming traditionally good performing States like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, but ranks last in terms of Delta
- In the Small States category (overall), Nagaland tops, followed by Mizoram and Tripura. Towards the tail end of the overall Delta ranking is Uttarakhand (9th), Arunachal Pradesh (10th) and Meghalaya (11th). Nagaland despite being a poor performer in the PAI 2021 Index has come out to be the top performer in Delta, similarly, Mizoram’s performance in Delta is also reflected in it’s ranking in the PAI 2021 Index
- In terms of Equity, in the Large States category, Chhattisgarh has the best Delta rate on Equity indicators, this is also reflected in the performance of Chhattisgarh in the Equity Pillar where it ranks 4th. Following Chhattisgarh is Odisha ranking 2nd in Delta-Equity ranking, but ranks 17th in the Equity Pillar of PAI 2021. Telangana ranks 3rd in Delta-Equity ranking even though it is not a top performer in this Pillar in the overall PAI 2021 Index. Jharkhand (16th), Uttar Pradesh (17th) and Assam (18th) rank at the bottom with Uttar Pradesh’s performance in line with the PAI 2021 Index
- Odisha and Nagaland have shown the best year-on-year improvement under 12 Key Development indicators.
- In the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Goa and Tamil Nadu and, the bottom three performers are Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar.
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers were Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Mizoram; and, the bottom three performers are Manipur, Assam and Meghalaya.
- Among the 60:40 division States, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh are the top three performers and Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Delhi appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland; and, the bottom three performers are Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh
- Among the 60:40 division States, Goa, West Bengal and Delhi appear as the top three performers and Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Bihar appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh and Tripura were the top three performers and Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh were the bottom three performers
- West Bengal, Bihar and Tamil Nadu were the top three States amongst the 60:40 division States; while Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan appeared as the bottom three performers
- In the case of 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Assam and Tripura were the top three performers and Nagaland, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttarakhand featured as the bottom three
- Among the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa and the bottom three performers are Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Goa
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Mizoram, Sikkim and Nagaland and the bottom three performers are Manipur and Assam
In a diverse country like India, where each State is socially, culturally, economically, and politically distinct, measuring Governance becomes increasingly tricky. The Public Affairs Index (PAI 2021) is a scientifically rigorous, data-based framework that measures the quality of governance at the Sub-national level and ranks the States and Union Territories (UTs) of India on a Composite Index (CI).
States are classified into two categories – Large and Small – using population as the criteria.
In PAI 2021, PAC defined three significant pillars that embody Governance – Growth, Equity, and Sustainability. Each of the three Pillars is circumscribed by five governance praxis Themes.
The themes include – Voice and Accountability, Government Effectiveness, Rule of Law, Regulatory Quality and Control of Corruption.
At the bottom of the pyramid, 43 component indicators are mapped to 14 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are relevant to the States and UTs.
This forms the foundation of the conceptual framework of PAI 2021. The choice of the 43 indicators that go into the calculation of the CI were dictated by the objective of uncovering the complexity and multidimensional character of development governance
The Equity Principle
The Equity Pillar of the PAI 2021 Index analyses the inclusiveness impact at the Sub-national level in the country; inclusiveness in terms of the welfare of a society that depends primarily on establishing that all people feel that they have a say in the governance and are not excluded from the mainstream policy framework.
This requires all individuals and communities, but particularly the most vulnerable, to have an opportunity to improve or maintain their wellbeing. This chapter of PAI 2021 reflects the performance of States and UTs during the pandemic and questions the governance infrastructure in the country, analysing the effectiveness of schemes and the general livelihood of the people in terms of Equity.
Growth and its Discontents
Growth in its multidimensional form encompasses the essence of access to and the availability and optimal utilisation of resources. By resources, PAI 2021 refer to human resources, infrastructure and the budgetary allocations. Capacity building of an economy cannot take place if all the key players of growth do not drive development. The multiplier effects of better health care, improved educational outcomes, increased capital accumulation and lower unemployment levels contribute magnificently in the growth and development of the States.
The Pursuit Of Sustainability
The Sustainability Pillar analyses the access to and usage of resources that has an impact on environment, economy and humankind. The Pillar subsumes two themes and uses seven indicators to measure the effectiveness of government efforts with regards to Sustainability.
The Curious Case Of The Delta
The Delta Analysis presents the results on the State performance on year-on-year improvement. The rankings are measured as the Delta value over the last five to 10 years of data available for 12 Key Development Indicators (KDI). In PAI 2021, 12 indicators across the three Pillars of Equity (five indicators), Growth (five indicators) and Sustainability (two indicators). These KDIs are the outcome indicators crucial to assess Human Development. The Performance in the Delta Analysis is then compared to the Overall PAI 2021 Index.
Key Findings:-
In the Scheme of Things
The Scheme Analysis adds an additional dimension to ranking of the States on their governance. It attempts to complement the Governance Model by trying to understand the developmental activities undertaken by State Governments in the form of schemes. It also tries to understand whether better performance of States in schemes reflect in better governance.
The Centrally Sponsored schemes that were analysed are National Health Mission (NHM), Umbrella Integrated Child Development Services scheme (ICDS), Mahatma Gandh National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SmSA) and MidDay Meal Scheme (MDMS).
National Health Mission (NHM)
INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (ICDS)
MID- DAY MEAL SCHEME (MDMS)
SAMAGRA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN (SMSA)
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS)