AS the world watches helplessly, Asia's two largest countries, India and China, have begun a slow, but deadly race to be the major power in the continent.
Yet why this competition? Together they could easily have been among the most powerful bloc, a real force in the world.
The seeds of discord lie in China's world view and more particularly its own place in the world. Of all the civilisational countries, China bases its claim to greatness on the principle of historical continuity. In this perspective there is no place for any other. In the past it has brought China into conflict with Japan and Russia.
In a more reactive manner, India also sees its place in Asia in important terms, based again on its claim of being one of the world's oldest civilisations. But India has not wanted to dominate, but to be taken seriously.
More recently India has been geostrategically cornered by a resurgent Islamic country, Pakistan, claiming its existence on Islamic values along with China. Together, Islamic fundamentalist Pakistan and communist, confucian China has revived old Hindu fears of domination and subjugation.
All Indian governments have had this fear, but the Hindu nationalist BJP, more militant and more convinced of India's place in the world, have decided to meet the Chinese challenge.
Pakistan is really a Chinese proxy in this war between Asia's two giants. What motivates Pakistan is not security, but its inferiority complex in relation to India. Why, for example, should India want to swallow Pakistan after the 50-year-old British partition of the Indian subcontinent? War on Kashmir is possible, but that would be a localised conflict with conventional arms. Pakistanis are convinced that whatever India does they must too, justified or not.
It's a vicious circle with Pakistan trying to keep up with India, and India keeping up with China. It suits China to have Pakistan to keep Indians occupied and the Pakistanis in turn get military support, and a security shield from China. In a way it suits India too.
By being rather erroneously grouped with Pakistan, India has been able to build up its arsenal quietly which it aimed more against China than Pakistan. Most countries think India is building up against Pakistan, but in reality these nuclear tests and its long-range missile programme, and the sea-based missile projects, are all aimed against China.
An India which can be counterbalanced against China should be in the interest of the West. In many ways India is more developed. It is a democracy, it has a free economy, and now it has taken five nuclear blasts to convince the west that India is at the same level as China.
Regrettably it is Western values of power and importance that has led India up the nuclear path. For too long the west has seen India as poor because it did not have the military might of China. It was this Western belittling of India that led India to explode five nuclear bombs, and if they are ever used in anger, the West will be responsible.
India's strategic value vis-a-vis China has suddenly been realised by some Western nations, something that had not happened before last Monday. France, Britain, and to an extent Germany, have not joined the sanctions imposed by the United States.
In the final crunch, the countries that have gone the whole hog on sanctions are the Scandinavian countries, and countries like Holland and Austria. Others include Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and Australia. None of which matter to India except Japan whose one billion dollar aid package could hurt India. The West is quite divided on sanctions and the unified stand of the European Union has failed to materialise. Western unity has broken on the Indian question.
Much will depend on how India continues with free market reforms. The budget in the next few weeks should show if the liberalised trend of the economy continues. Should it, much of the West's criticism of the nuclear explosions will be muted.
Already India is planning to reward countries which have not imposed sanctions. France may get the one billion contract to supply the Airbus to Air India instead of Boeing, which were the favourites earlier. Similarly Britain is expected to win several contracts for not going along with the United States and some European states.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article