“If humanity is to progress, Gandhi is inescapable. He lived, thought, and acted, inspired by the vision of humanity evolving toward a world of peace and harmony. We may ignore him at our own risk.”

Gandhi was always more than what we know where his political contributions, way of life, words of wisdom, ideals of lifestyle; enlighten India, and the world even today after so many years. How Gandhi’s techniques have sometimes been invoked even in the land of his birth, especially in recent incidents, would appear to be a travesty of his principles. As the countries across the globe has been in the grip of a series of crises ranging from Korea to the Middle East with a never-ending trail of blood and bitterness; Gandhi’s ideals echo somewhere far behind.

Gandhi since the start deviated from the claim of calling himself a prophet or even a philosopher. “There is no such thing as Gandhism,” he explained, “and I do not want to leave any sect after me.” There was only one Gandhian; the one who believes to see a changed India that lives in his eyes, he said, an imperfect one at that: himself. According to him, the real significance of the Indian freedom movement lied in its promise to be waged nonviolently, on the ideals of truth and goodwill and to not succumb to the brutal measures the other side initiated with.

He objected to violence not only because unarmed people had little chance of success in an armed rebellion, but because he considered violence a vicious weapon that spurted more problems than it resolved, and left a trail of hatred and bitterness in which genuine reconciliation was almost a distant dream (Parida, 2019).

This emphasis on nonviolence jarred alike on Gandhi’s British and Indian critics, as this novel idea even back then was met with a wide array of responses. To the former, nonviolence was a camouflage; to the latter, it was sheer sentimentalism – as the whites tended to see the Indian struggle through the prism of European history undermined the remarkably peaceful nature of Gandhi’s campaigns. While on the flip side the radical Indian politicians, who had drawn inspiration from the history of the French and Russian revolutions were vehemently opposed to the “Gandhian way of ushering peace” and strongly held that it was foolish to miss opportunities and sacrifice tactical gains for reasons more relevant to ethics than to politics.

This total allegiance to nonviolence did end up creating a gulf between him and the educated elite in India which saw force as the uptight tool to yield their lost power and prestige and temporarily bridged only during periods of intense political excitement.

His ideological proposition of doctrine of nonviolence was followed in accordance to its logical conclusion even by his closest allies: ‘the adoption of unilateral disarmament in a world armed to the core, the scrapping of the loaded armed forces, and the decentralisation of administration to the point where the state would “wither away” were certain aspects that raised doubts about the principle’s vitality even long back.

Even with its fair share of lacunas, India did not question the superiority of the principle of nonviolence as enunciated by their leader, but they did believe it to not be fitting conjunction to every aspect of practical politics. The Indian Constituent Assembly include a majority of members owing allegiance to Gandhi, but the constitution which emerged in 1949 was based more on the Western parliamentary than on the Gandhian model alone.

After understanding how even before his ideas were not adopted unilaterally since the start it’s important to put today’s world into context. As the changing times that we exist in, we need to realise the validity of these ideals that once accorded us freedom and led one of the greatest independence movements across the globe. The question one often ends up asking is if after Gandhi’s assassination on January 30, 1948, does his ideals of truth and non-violence remain relevant in 21st century India?

On ethical and behavioural paradigm Gandhianism has much meaning today because society is witnessing the degradation of values where virtues of self-control and righteousness are much needed in a materialistic world driven by the desire to achieve and acquire more. As the headlines are coloured with harassment incidents, the subjugation of women’s need and other gruesome acts with this ascending level of vicious violence Gandhian dream of a safe country for all still looks like an unachievable objective (Srivastav, 2019).

The shadow of a thermo-nuclear war with its incalculable hazards continues to hang over mankind with evolving technological sector and ever-increasing military capability of countries -from this predicament, Gandhi’s ideas and techniques may suggest a way out.

Unfortunately, his motives and methods are often misunderstood, and this perspective of a judged vision completely resonates with what he battled with the British Raj. He advocated nonviolence not because it offered an easy way out, but because he considered “violence a crude ineffective weapon; thus it is to be stressed that rejection of violence stemmed from choice, not from necessity” as many mistakenly portray.

Horace Alexander, who held Gandhi in his highest regard and witnessed his speeches, graphically describes the attitude of the nonviolent resister to his armed opponent: “On your side, you have all the mighty forces of the modern State. On my side, I have nothing but my conviction of right and truth, the unquenchable spirit of man, who is prepared to die for his convictions than submit to your brute force. Here we stand; and here if need be, we fall.” Thus he highlights here how detached from being a craven retreat from danger, nonviolent resistance demands courage of a high order, the courage to resist; the courage to call out injustice without rancour, to unite all with the idea of peace, to invite suffering but not to inflict it, to die but not to kill.

Looking at India’s present state of affairs, one would probably surmise that Gandhism cannot have any relevance in this twenty-first century; wherein the age of social media and instant gratification, we accord a secondary place for ethics and honesty. Gandhi is rightly called the Father of the Nation because he single-handedly stood up against the mighty British Empire, filled the zeal of independence in millions and brought us freedom as we stand today as the world’s largest surviving democracy. However, today, Gandhi is mostly forgotten and his relevance questioned even by his ardent devotees.

Since independence, the country has witnessed many violent communal riots which run parallel to his most-followed ideology of ‘secularism’ while also neglecting the ideal of ‘Sarvodaya, a broad Gandhian term meaning ‘universal upliftment’ or ‘progress of all’. On the contrary, the irony in today’s India is a unique distinction of being the country where industrial giants and nominees of richest people in the world come from while at the same time more than 30 per cent of its population lives in dire poverty and 45 % is unaware of their rights (Baura, 2017).

What is required is a global non-violent awakening of principles Gandhi gave birth to, where his name should transcend the bounds of race, religion and nation-states, and emerges as the prophetic voice of the twenty-first century. Where his passionate adherence is resonated in every corner of the world and thus more than ever now is the time to make Gandhi relevant.

As all of us move towards an all-pervading materialistic, agnostic and consumerist culture, as we fight these big wars and grapple with crises; the common ordinary people in this modern age need Gandhism to hold on to.

SOURCES

-Baura, R { 2017 , June }. Relevance of Gandhi in Modern Times. mkgandhi.org. https://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/relevance-of-gandhi-in-modern-times.html

-Srivastav, R { 2019, August 13}. Bapu’s way : the relevance of Gandhi in Modern India and the World. One travel. https://www.onetravel.com/going-places/the-relevance-of-gandhi-in-modern-india-and-the-world/

-Parida, O {2019, October 1 } . Relevance of Gandhianism in today’s world. The Times of India. https://timesofindia.com/blogs/the-rock-bottom/relevance-of-gandhianism-in-todays-world/

The post THE RELEVANCE OF GANDHI IN TODAY’S TIME appeared first on WISER WORLD.

However, it was not just the collapse of the Twin Towers and the partial destruction of the Pentagon that made the attack globally monumental. It was what followed post 9/11 Attack – primarily in terms of the US’s counter-response to the attack and secondary in terms of the attack’s impression upon the larger eastern and western ideological realms.

“U.S. Under Attack” was inked as headlines after three commercial airliners were used as bombs to destroy the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan followed by twin towers as well as part of the Pentagon which serves as the headquarters of defence. Another hijacked U.S. airliner Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, supposedly intending to crash into the White House in Washington, DC.

INTRODUCTION

The United States suffered an unprecedented loss of life on September 11, 2001, from what was labelled a “terrorist attack.” Mainly on the basis of data from professional association surveys and government agencies, it was found that the United States and many other countries of the world have been significantly affected by the events and aftermath of that morning’s events.

As an unprecedented attack on a country not usually affected by external terrorism, often cited as an example of leading powers it allows a unique study of how the notion of terrorism changed after the traumatic series of events. As a result of the “9/11 attack”, a number of changes were triggered as the economy, society and civilians recovered, the Arab world and Western allies diverged on the spectrum. Many of the initial logistical changes appear to have diminished over time as things restored normalcy but severed relationships between countries, prejudiced views and discriminatory practices linger on as memoirs of the incident.

WHAT IS TERRORISM?

Coined during the French Revolution to describe “the reign of terror” the term originates from the Latin word “terrere,” which reflects frighten or tremble and had positive connotations. Today, terrorism has transformed into a more menacing spectre where throughout the years, various scholars have attempted to define what constitutes ‘terrorism’.

Yet, the term is so loaded with conceptual problems that a totally accepted universal definition of it ceases to exist and the irony is that the recurrent theme of violence has become the daily part of the political drama of modern times. Where the U.S. Department of Defence defines it as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological”.

On the other hand, the Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism quotes it as, “any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger, or seeking to cause damage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardise national resources is – terrorism”.

Terrorists have a myriad of potential targets in the world; they strategically aim to disrupt high-profile landmarks, crowded public places with low security, targets that would hurt their enemy’s economy, and anywhere that could cause maximum harm to their enemy’s citizens. Perhaps it is in this regard that the attacks on the WTC affected the health of US civilians in uncountable ways: it created psychological distress for millions, exacerbated mental disorders among the younger segment of groups and jeopardised social cohesion which functions as the founding pillar for mental health.

THE EVENTS OF 9/11 ATTACK

Described by the U.S. Department of State as the deadliest international terrorist attack in human history it involved four separate but coordinated commercial aeroplane hijackings by 19 hijackers belonging to the Al Qaeda terrorist branch resulting in over 25, 000 injuries with $ 10 billion worth of property damage.

As all the aeroplanes had just taken off and were filled with jet fuel for their transcontinental flights, their intentional crashes into buildings had the effects of a bomb exploding as the fuel ignited upon impact and hundreds suffered the cost.

The 19 hijackers on 9/11 were described as ‘terrorists’ who came from various Middle Eastern countries. NBC Nightly News (2002) said the 19 hijackers all entered the United States illegally as with over 6,000 mi of land borders, 95,000 mi of seacoast, guarding all possible entrance points into the United States and keeping out any foreign entities that can accelerate chaos is almost impossible.

GLOBAL EFFECTS & GOVERNMENTAL MEASURES

The United Nations passed a resolution condemning the 9/11 attack while Interpol focused its attention on bringing justice by organising an 11 September Task Force in response to the attacks.

The attacks on 9/11 in the United States have directly and indirectly drawn many other countries into the fray against terrorists by tightening their security guidelines to even racial profiling measures.

The 9/11 attack triggered a number of responses within the global hegemony where the initial tenor of the populace in the United States was shock, sorrow, and outrage. Views were highly foreshadowed as reports of hate crimes and acts of discrimination against Muslims and Arabs became a regular phenomenon. While on the other end of the spectrum people opened up their hearts and pockets in an initial outpouring of donating blood and money to help the victims who bore the brunt of the tragedy. Employees became more oriented towards spending time with loved ones and balancing work and home time as well extending a hand of help to those in need. The testing times brought out the best spirit in people as the citizens of the United States were drawn much closer together; there was a significant increase in cohesion of the populace.

Stringent government changes were put in order as greater coordination of the intelligence and law enforcement communities like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and FBI was emphasised. Forty government agencies and units were assigned to collect intel on terrorism by employing multiple mechanisms.

A cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security was formed in the national government to overlook the supervision while congress laid the stone for the formulation of the Transportation Security Administration to hire and employ over 40,000 federal baggage screeners for checked baggage at the 429 U. S. airports.

President Bush declared “War on Terrorism” and received tremendous public support where his approval rating as President soared to 70% and solidified his image as a ‘strong’ leader.

There was an incursion into Afghanistan by the United States and its allies to find and destroy those guilty for 9/11 where the U.S. after the infamous invasion of Iraq; officially listed it under the U.S. Department of State as a sponsor of terrorism.

Even though the U.S. retaliated after the great shock but its economy was adversely affected by business spending dropping significantly. Analysts noted how terrorist strikes were the single greatest loss for the insurance industry in 2001 while the travel industry also decimated. Employers were mentally affected by the 9/11 attack in numerous ways and thus the importance of crisis management teams and plans took centre stage, where disaster plans were revised and meetings away were drastically curtailed. Increased security procedures led to the slower and more costly movement of services, and over-cutting costs often not viable for small business to withstand. Bernasek (2002) estimated that it would cost the United States an extra $151 billion a year because of the 9/11 terrorist attacks including an extra $6 billion for people costs such as extra absenteeism. Employers took leaves of absences and time off to recover from the troubling events of the 9/11 attack. With the passage of time, however, the initial effects of 9/11 declined and life in the United States generally reverted to pre-9/11 behaviours where national surveys have shown little lasting change on the U.S. population and economic market since the 9/11 attack.

POLARISATION OF VIEWS POST 9/11 ATTACK

Ideological and political conflict between the Western and Arab and Muslim world is one of the most dominant phenomena that override the relations across global issues of the present era where struggle and strive is mediated, reproduced, and circulated mostly by headlines and media. While U.S. and Western media have previously dominated the global mediascape, the emergence of the new Arab public sphere opens the way for productive dialogues, better mutual understanding and to curb hostility that has seeped in over years of projecting one-sided narratives.

One still needs to understand the need where Western mechanisms need to break with stereotypes of Arabs and Islam, incorporate more Muslim voices into its programming and provide a safe platform for real dialogue and debate rather than ideological posturing and polarisation.

Likewise, the emergent Arab public sphere should be open to Western dialogue as well as the diversity of views in its region as these opposites need to take into account how it will be one of the challenges in the coming years and calls for critical communication, interaction and deliberation between the Middle East and the West which has been so fraught with danger and will no doubt continue to be a site of immense importance and conflict.

THE DIVIDE

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, Islam and Muslims started to come to the forefront of the Western media, albeit not for very positive reasons; it flared the already existing one-sided view westerners kept of the eastern world. Because Osama Bin Laden cited religious motives for his criminal attacks, a debate started brewing in the Western media over the real essence of Islam and whether it encouraged violence and promoted hatred, particularly against non- Muslims.

Many media outlets referred to the 9/11 terrorists simply as ‘‘Muslims,’’ which fuelled stereotyping further and did nothing to help stop the verbal and physical attacks taking place against Muslims in the U.S. at this critical time; it was noted how after the events of 9/11, ‘‘the U.S. media immediately fell back on the prevailing —and stereotyped—narrative about Arabs and Muslims and reverted to its historic tendency to present the world, as Henry Kissinger’s quotes, ‘a morality play between good and evil’’.

Despite the fact that all Arab countries condemned the attacks and took a solid stance against ‘ terrorism’ in all forms, for the most part, voices communicated through the mass media still failed to differentiate between Arabs and Muslims, on one hand, and terrorists, on the other.

Political scholars in Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR, 2001) noted that ‘‘many media pundits focused on one theme: retaliation; while not paying heed to what follows in the aftermath.
For example, on September 12, 2001, Steve Dunleavy wrote in the New York Post: ‘‘The response to this unimaginable 21st- century Pearl Harbor should be as simple as it is swift—kill the bastards. A gunshot between the eyes, blow them to smithereens, poison them if you have to. As for cities or countries that host these worms, bomb them into basketball courts.’’

Even leaders of importance who uphold the ideals of rationality and diplomacy took sides like the former U.S. Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger commented on CNN, ‘‘There is only one way to begin to deal with people like this, and that is you have to kill some of them even if they are not immediately directly involved in this thing’’. Statements like this coincided with and may have contributed to an increasing anti-Muslim sentiment which slowly seeped into other western nations who believed they were ‘‘doing the U.S. a favour.’’

The Arab Dilemma

It is difficult to draw a conclusion with one side as dual variables have functioned simultaneously where the Western media have produced dominant negative stereotypes and demonised Islamic fundamentalism, and in turn how Arab media have promoted negative images of the West and offers a rigorous narrow crevice to hold dialogue.

Chomsky (2001) asserted that the mainstream media in the U.S. constitutes a well- run propaganda systems that hold the immense capacity ‘‘to drive people to irrational, murderous, and suicidal behaviour’’ where citizens need to resist the notion of responding to terrorist crimes and must hold the wisdom to see both sides of the story.

During the post-9/11 era tensions and hostilities have been intensified due to the Bush Administration “war on terror” and Osama bin Laden and other radical Islamic groups promoting “Jihad” where Bush and bin Laden’s rhetoric and worldview and how their binary discourses and extremist rhetoric have shaped the representations of each side in their respective media.

This bias was further aggravated by what could be called ‘‘jihad journalism’’ a concept narrowly created to meet the partisan need where such slanted coverage was ‘‘the hallmark of the post-9/11 era’’ and a ‘‘a result of racist jingoism”.

CONCLUSION

A decade has passed since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Most of us remember where we were when we learned of the attacks, although our memories of the event and of our feelings that day may not be as accurate as we suspect as it is a known fact how the 9/11 attack did far more than destroy buildings and kill thousands of innocent people, it divided beyond boundaries and devastated perceptions beyond mending. They interrupted routine patterns and tugged at our social fabric, not simply in New York City, but across the global platform. They shattered a sense of security and perceptions of vulnerability among residents of the Western world even those who did not know anyone who died that day have been touched by the tragedy in one way or another. It now falls on to us to usher in peace, leave what’s all left behind and look beyond what is projected.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbas, T. (ed) (2007). “Islamic Political Radicalism in European Perspective”. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Andrew Silke. ( 2003) . “Beyond Horror: Terrorist Atrocity and the Search for Understanding” . Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 26(1) ,pp. 37–60.

Bergen, P. (2006). ‘What were the causes of 9/11?’

Bobbitt, P. (2008). “Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty First Century”. London: Penguin Books.

Maxwell Taylor and Ethel Quayle ( 1994 ) . “Terrorist Lives” . London: Brassey’s, Publication

Richard A. Clarke. ( 2004 ) . “Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror” .New York: Free Press, pp. 227–238.

The post 9/11 ATTACK: THE RIFT THAT DEFINES THE EAST AND THE WEST appeared first on WISER WORLD.

One shouldn’t presume that Beijing and New Delhi have always been on the opposite poles of the spectrum as serious attempts have always been made to facilitate discussion and promote diplomacy in its truest essence. From the Panchseel Agreement of 1945 to the recent Galway valley violence of 2020 – do these countries still believe in dialogue for peace’ as the belief that the Ministry of External Affairs holds or has– Hindi-Chinni Bhai-Bhai period already becoming into Hindi-Chinni bye-bye period.

While promising a stable bilateral relationship it is imperative to note how cross-cutting sensitive issues of the border dispute, country contours, diverging projections of geopolitical interest, security ties with other powers, close affiliations with Pakistan and the United States forces us to look at multiple vantage points in this already complicated affair – thus raising the burning questions whether as INDIA and China both take over the world stage are they willing to ‘confront’ and ‘concile’?

“Today, being the biggest developing countries in the world, China and India are both committed to developing their economy and raising their people’s living standards’’

– Li Peng

INTRODUCTION

The past 60 years of India- China relations have signalled that both countries have been making a concerted effort to embark on seeking mutually acceptable resolutions to the main contention relating to a boundary issue. The major provocations which confront this asymmetrical correspondence been to build mutual trust and confidence. The trust deficit which plagues both sides has decimated the robustness of bilateral relationships where the element of trust is an essential pillar in maintaining a sustained balance. Somehow, the lack of these essential components of confidence-building feigns grounds of hostility towards one – another and gives rise to biases dwelling on power dynamics.

The deepening of relations can be traced to the signing of the Strategic and Cooperative Partnership for Peace and Prosperity in 2005 and A Shared Vision for 21st Century in 2008 which serves as a reminder of our neighbourhood while laying foundations for a future that envisions us growing together; however it’s saddening to see how we are walking on eggshells now as our cordial relations reach a breakthrough.

Undoubtedly, India and China have emerged as the two rapidly growing economies and their bilateral relationship to a greater extent has assumed global and strategic relevance. The objective of this article will be to assess and analyze the broad overview of India-China relations, throwing light on issues that fragment them while we chart our future prospects of convergence. It is of utmost importance to questions what lies the way forward for both the ‘dragon’ and the ‘peacock’ as uncertain times dawn and reciprocal development is the need of the hour.

EVOLUTION OF RELATIONSHIP

Taking a glimpse of the past 70 years gone by, China-India relations have moved ahead despite wind and rain and have followed their own course of growth despite all odds. Since the 1950s, the leaders laid the stone to establish diplomatic relations between China and India, as they Cooperatively championed the ‘Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence.’

As consensus was maintained in the era of initial cordiality the Panchsheel Agreement was signed which ascribed the ‘guiding principles’ of India-China bilateral relationship as its ideals of ‘non-interference in each other’s internal affairs while respect for territorial unity, integrity and sovereignty’ coursed through both nations.

However, it was Zhou Enlai’s trip to India in June 1954 which was a mark of China’s intent to uphold it promises while also reinstating another historic event where a communist head of government was making a peacetime visit to a non-communist state.

The animosity and hostilities gained momentum during the decade of 1959 – 1976, where this rough patch resulted in the infamous war of 1962. During this period, there was a sharp shift in the perception of China where negative connotations of it being seen as an aggressive neighbour that sought to humiliate a democratic India garnered headlines. A dramatic transference of ideologies as well as values of peaceful and friendly consultation,

established strategic and cooperative partnership for peace and prosperity, while achieving all-round development of bilateral relations marked the much of 1980s.

In the post-1998 scenario after India detonated a nuclear device, China was a staunch critic of this development thus putting a roadblock in their relationship. However, the situation changed after the realisation set in about each other’s contribution to the global economy and to a greater extent started broadening the then-existing bilateral ties. The strain in the relationship was replaced by an era of cooperation in the economic sphere while disagreements on respective political fronts.

While tracing the genealogy of Sino – Indian relations we come across the phase commenced by the Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi by initiating the concept of “hometown diplomacy” which ranged from informal summits in Wuhan and Chennai to strategic communication on long-term issues of global and regional importance while agreeing to facilitate development and close partnership

Today’s achievements of China-India relations embody the concise and regular efforts of several generations from whom we need to draw inspiration from the past as experiences of the present tragically make us critical of each other’s intentions.

As we stand on the brink of a new starting point present-day decision-makers should draw wisdom from our thousands of years of civilisations and explore authentic ways to stay true to the essence of ‘ brotherhood’ envisioned years ago as we look forward towards; “enhancing mutual trust, focusing on cooperation, managing differences and seeking common development”.

CHALLENGES TO THE INDIA-CHINA PARTNERSHIP

Indian President Ram Nath Kovind and Prime Minister Narendra Modi often resonate with the philosophy, where the whole world is seen as a family of the whole rather than functioning in splinters, which runs parallel with the Chinese philosophical concept of “universal peace” and “universal love” thus reiterating the belief that the “Dragon-Elephant Tango” does hold the potential to create a new chapter in building a community with a shared future if they agree to make credible and foresighted peaceful endeavours towards the issues of contention like :

• To devise an early settlement of the border problem and to prevent the enduring stalemate from completely undermining the confidence that remains between the two nations
• To reconcile regional strategies in South Asia, Central Asia, ASEAN, and the Indian Ocean;
• To promote confidence-building measures and eliminate misperceptions while avoiding the misreading of each other’s strategic intentions,
• To envisage each other’s core interests and strategic sensitivities
• To reinforce the bolstering effect of vibrant trade, economic links and developmental ties in sustaining a stable bilateral relationship;
• To breathe more substance into the existing framework of the declared Sino-Indian strategic partnership.

THE WAY THAT LIES AHEAD

This journey of facilitating change and strengthening the relationship needs to be steered by mastering the four keys of “leading, transmitting, shaping and integrating” – the basics of enhancing trust and to instil confidence amongst one – another.

“Leading” pertains to reaching consensus and guide the direction of the development of bilateral relations under the guidance of leaders. “Transmitting” means to transmit the leaders’ consensus to all levels as they get translated into tangible cooperation and outcomes. “Shaping” refers to go beyond the mode of managing differences while accumulating the positive momentum of shaping bilateral relations. “Integrating” at the end concerns strengthening exchanges and cooperation while promoting convergence of interests and achieve common development.

There is no doubt in saying that the levels of engagement between India and China have increased certainly but India, at the same time, requires to move forward with a sophisticated approach to deal with the emerging strategic challenges being emanating from China. Power dynamics often remain at the core of weak reciprocal agreements however this holds no vitality in the context here as, despite the fact that China has become increasingly assertive not only at the regional level but also at the global level, India has not shown any displeasure so far in strongest terms.

In the current circumstances, it is obvious that trade has come to be viewed as an increasingly important facilitator of relations especially in the shadow of lingering political mistrust as issues ranging from the long-running protracted border dispute to China’s close affiliations with Pakistan to India’s cordial allegiance with the US defies the purpose of simplifying the conflict.

The signing of an Agreement on “Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the Border Dispute”, by both India and China is a major stride in moving ahead in terms of reaching a consensus on this major irritant while also joining hands in a promise to maintain peace and tranquillity on the border front. But, at the same, it’s needless to highlight that this requires a careful assessment especially on the intent and declarations of outcomes.

China has always been a hardcore follower of following the tenets of the ‘Monroe Doctrine’. The attempt has always been to deny access to other powers in the region that it perceives as exclusively within its sphere of influence. As the time has come to breathe more substance into the existing framework of strategic partnership it is essential on the part of India to remind Beijing how these stipulated actions have been damaging the interests of other regions especially to the countries in the East and South-East Asia.

In the long term, neither Indian nor Chinese defence strategists can rule out the possibility of a renewed confrontation over the disputed territory (Tibet, Kashmir, Myanmar, or the Indian Ocean ) as China becomes the other alternative unchallenged power and India continues to increase its circumference of influence thus signalling that a Sino-Indian rivalry in southern Asia may well be a dominant feature of future Asian geopolitics of the twenty-first century thus compelling the regional actors to choose sides. The nature of the rivalry will be facilitated by how domestic political and economic developments, as well as internal mechanisms of these two countries, affect their power, their outlooks, and their foreign and security policies on the international platform. On the flip side, it can also be noted that while they are competitors for power and influence in Asia, China and India also share interests in maintaining regional stability as well as exploiting economic opportunities while promoting regional cooperation – all of which could act as indispensable factors in influencing their relationship.

Last but not least, there comes a pressing necessity where one under these idealistic terms of co-operation, unity and oneness must not forget the real question where countries wonder: ‘WHETHER CO-OPERATION AND COMPARATIVE ELEMENTS IN BETWEEN POWERFUL WORLD POWERS COEXIST ?’

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Keshab, Chandra & Ratha, (2014); ‘India-China Bilateral Relations “

Kumar, R. (2007), “Cultural and Economic Relations between India and China”

Nehru, J. (1946), “The Discovery of India”, Oxford University Press; pp 30-42 .

The post INDIA-CHINA BILATERAL RELATIONS: CONFRONTATION & CONCILIATION appeared first on WISER WORLD.