The strategic competition between India and China in South Asia, especially in the Indian Ocean due to the Chinese “string of pearls” strategy, has been a key element underlining the narrative of bilateral relations in recent years. There are debates in both countries about the intention, capability, and the desirable policy course to deal with each other.
The lack of consensus in India is well-manifested in the three articles from the South Asian Voices series “India-China Relations: Heating Up or Cooling Down?” For Tuneer Mukherjee, to deal with a China that “has managed to bait nations out of India’s strategic orbit,” India “must reform its position of strategic autonomy.” Focusing on the aftermath of the Doklam standoff, Nazia Hussain argues that “both countries have much to lose if they let the territorial dispute over Doklam continue to define bilateral relations,” and therefore if they are to “move beyond the current stalemate… as both seem willing to do,” the Doklam dispute will not be the defining event of their bilateral ties. Advocating for a similarly practical and forward-looking position, Kashyap Arora and Rimjhim Saxena maintain that strengthening the India-China economic relationship can confer great gains for both, especially for India.
This article was originally published in South Asian Voices on May 4, 2018. Read the full article here.
China
The strategic competition between India and China in South Asia, especially in the Indian Ocean due to the Chinese “string of pearls” strategy, has been a key element underlining the narrative of bilateral relations in recent years. There are debates in both countries about the intention, capability, and the desirable policy course to deal with each other.
The lack of consensus in India is well-manifested in the three articles from the South Asian Voices series “India-China Relations: Heating Up or Cooling Down?” For Tuneer Mukherjee, to deal with a China that “has managed to bait nations out of India’s strategic orbit,” India “must reform its position of strategic autonomy.” Focusing on the aftermath of the Doklam standoff, Nazia Hussain argues that “both countries have much to lose if they let the territorial dispute over Doklam continue to define bilateral relations,” and therefore if they are to “move beyond the current stalemate… as both seem willing to do,” the Doklam dispute will not be the defining event of their bilateral ties. Advocating for a similarly practical and forward-looking position, Kashyap Arora and Rimjhim Saxena maintain that strengthening the India-China economic relationship can confer great gains for both, especially for India.
This article was originally published in South Asian Voices on May 4, 2018. Read the full article here.
Recent & Related
The UN Annually Votes on Ending the US Embargo on Cuba. What Does it Mean for Unilateral Sanctions and Their Impact on Human Rights?
Experts React: The Midterms and America’s Place in the World
The Lame-Duck Period is Full of Peril in the War on Iran
Is Reforming the UNSC Realistic? Article 27(3) of the UN Charter Offers a Starting Point.
Beyond the Populist Zeitgeist
A New Transatlantic Equilibrium
Forging a European Foreign Policy
A Superpower in Decline
What Is Going on in Cybersecurity?
The Implications of Ukraine’s Starshield Access for the US Military
Egypt’s Parallel Inc. & the Myth of Sovereign Efficiency
Four Years to 2030: Can Member States Deliver Affordable and Clean Energy for All?
Find an Expert
Home to more than 100 scholars and global affiliates, the Stimson Center is proud to be a magnet for the world’s leading experts on the most pressing foreign policy and national security issues of our time. Explore our experts and their work.