The geopolitical ambitions of China transcend beyond the borders. As part of this social and cultural transition, and moulding of public opinion, honing in nationalism is imperative. China’s has exhibited revanchist, hegemonic and expansionist intent, in the two China Seas, Taiwan and Ladakh, and against South East Asian Nations, that have evoked internal passions. Over a period of time, China took calculated risks to change the military balance of power in the South China Sea. Yet, the US and the allied militaries continue to operate in China’s stated exclusive economic zones (EEZs) in the freedom of navigation operations and not recognising China’s incorrect claims in South China Sea. This is despite China’s attempts to exercise control over all military activities within its EEZs. There is an increased risk of military confrontation, by the repeated incursions in Taiwan’s territory and at the Senkaku Islands. As an aside, there has been deterioration in relations with US, ongoing trade frictions and recriminations over the coronavirus pandemic.

Under the geopolitically and economically important venture, China’s colossal infrastructure investments under BRI were targeted to usher in trade and growth for global economies. The high cost and political impact of this Chinese-funded infrastructure development has led to debt burden for the recipient nations. Apparently the costs of many projects have skyrocketed, there is lack of transparency in tendering processes and the mandatory use of Chinese corporations/firms, managers, supervisors and workers, many nations have had internal protestations, political backlash and even cancellation of contracts. China has extensive trade relations with large number of countries, though other that Pakistan as a near client-state, there are no extensive alliances. There are repression and human rights violations, of the Uighurs, Mongols (in Inner Mongolia) and Tibetans, and in Hong Kong, that never seem to relinquish centre stage.

To cut the chase, the constant triumphalism of rise of China in global influence, economically, technologically and militarily must not be overlooked. However, the argument that “China is a Declining power – and that’s the problem: The United States needs to prepare for a major war, not because its rival is rising but because of the opposite” (Foreign Policy, dated 24 September 2021), is compulsive and deserves serious consideration. If China peaks too early, and is unable to reach the well publicised important goals and timelines (2027, 2035 and 2047) of national rejuvenation, the internal and external stresses and outcomes are unpredictable.
Mindful of this realpolitik, there is a need to shed rhetoric, emotionality and sentimentalism in India. There are three critical and imperative considerations:

• First, China is seriously constrained by and anxious of the warmth evident in India-US relations, the way QUAD has fashioned itself, and its ambit and its overtures to South East Asian Nations. India’s relations with China or being part of QUAD are not a function of India-US relations. India distinctly retains strategic autonomy in pursuance of her own national interests and objectives, like in relations with other nations like Russia or France, as part of organisations like BRICS or SCO, or continuing trade and economic interaction with China.
• The newer apportioning of blame of the incursions in Eastern Ladakh of 2020 that led to the serious incident at Galwan Valley on 15 June 2020 must be taken as permanence in belligerent attitude. Galwan Valley incident was tactical issue, but it was not a small incident, it had strategic and in fact global ramifications. The boundary is disputed, and resolution of the dispute is mandatory to proceed with other facets of relationship. For India, territorial integrity is a prime responsibility, and without formal resolution, progress on other facets of relationship, like economy, will remain problematic. China’s reference to boundary as a national sovereignty issue and not a territorial one is an attempt towards increasing nationalism. India is also a large country with second largest population, the Himalayas in the North, large maritime frontier and capable, modernising military. Hence, threats or admonishments of miscalculation of Chinese comprehensive strength are counterproductive.
• India is focussed towards national and socio-economic development of her people, and does not prefer war in any manifestation, as it will have far-reaching ramifications for both countries and South Asian and global landscape. Yet, that does not deter preparations to meet such eventualities. India must continue in its endeavours to obviate any strategic surprise from any adversary, along the land or sea domains or along the technological frontiers.

The Chinese State is continually dishing out calculated information through direct controlled media or through deliberate propagandist pop-ups incessantly, to mould public opinion and push for the cultural change. Another important sub-text is that the National People's Congress in March 2018 had approved the removal of the two-term limit (prevalent since 1990) on the Presidency, effectively allowing President Xi Jinping to remain in power for life. The two-terms of President Xi will end in 2022, and will have to be approved in the 20th Party Congress to be held in October/ November 2022, for which public and CCP opinion has to be assured. The immediate future is to predict and assess if the trajectory is right, by the 20th Party Congress that may rubber-stamp the extension of tenure of President Xi beyond the ten years. Or otherwise, singular efforts can be initiated in China to prove indispensability!

In sum, India and China are matured, ancient civilisational countries. Peace and tranquillity are imperatives for India, as they are for China. India has also shown infinite patience and long-term desire for peace. There is a limit to which the Agreements and CBMs can function; following which events can take their own course, outside the realm of Protocols. As there is trust deficit among both forces, there could be an equal and opposite reaction, to any situation on the LAC. Events have a life of their own and it cannot be guaranteed that the next ones will not spiral of control and create an international incident, and even escalation. This must be avoided at all costs, and there must be forward movement on the delimitation-de-escalation process, as an immediate necessity. The offer of passing on boundary issue to future generations has let many a generation pass on, and is no good! We need to make a beginning, decide the process and modalities of talking boundary and LAC, and start rebuilding trust. Best is to resolve, what can be resolved, and there are many such areas where negotiations can commence. Trust will have to be rebuilt, and understandably it will take immense time and effort. We have to make a beginning, for the good of our peoples. The momentum itself will generate trust.

As Bob Iger of the Walt Disney Company once remarked, “…The riskiest thing we can do is just maintain the status quo.”