Given that there is no dearth of bad news, I was not paying attention to the steadily rising din of the China-India conflict in the Himalayas. I surmised - and remain of the same opinion - that the skirmishes wouldn't come to much. China has enough on its plate, with its trade war with America and unrest in Hong Kong, to start yet another conflict. And, while the current regime in India loves a little war, but taking on China is a completely different thing compared to needling a weak Pakistan. My expectations, therefore, were that both sides would play for the gallery a bit and then step back from the brink as they have always done in the past.
But blood has been spilled! The news that Indian (and possibly Chinese) soldiers were killed in the skirmish yesterday changes things. Indeed, I would still expect that the cooler heads will prevail and the Army commanders will be able to de-escalate the situation, but a new line has been crossed. It is in everyone's interest that these deaths were in vain, as no final settlement is ever possible in China-India border disputes. But we are all in a dangerous place right now, as soldiers' deaths always make it difficult for the governments to row back from aggressive postures. This is making me think again - is it possible that China and India may walk into a hot war?
It is indeed extremely unlikely. Given that the both states possess nuclear weapons, this is a war neither can win, or at least, can win without significant loss of life. Both economies are in fragile state - India's more than China's, but still - and there will be no winners in such a dispute. As far as the borders are concerned, they are never going to be 'settled' and both countries are better off accepting status quo and living flexibly in the border regions. This is what they have been doing for a while: Patrolling without guns! And, yet, we are dealing with deaths of personnel and an increasingly serious crisis, which makes it prudent to speculate what may make such a war plausible.
The uncomfortable truth is that it is far more plausible now than it ever was. We are in the middle of a geopolitical transition, with an America under Trump in full retreat from its global engagements and the post-war 'western consensus' in tatters. Bombast is not policy and Trump, a flawed man, is in a very weak position to face off determined adversories, let alone a major nation like China or India. The United States, while it may still have overwhelming power on the sea, may have little influence when the conflict moves inland. Whether or not one believes the overlordship of a dominant power is key to world peace, it is easy to recognise that the periods of transition, from a dominant overlordship to regional power balances, are particularly prone to conflict.
It is also the theatre of this current escalation that makes it more likely. China is strategically trying to shift the centre of gravity of the world economy, pinning its future on the stabilisation and regeneration of the ancient Silk Route. India has been a road block, as it recognised China's strategic ambitions may cut it off from the Asian hinterland. India has played its hand, perhaps unintentionally, by creating in Ladakh a Buddhist majority state, which changed the status quo. If China wanted to teach India a little lesson and establish, once and for all, its overlordship on the Silk Route, this summer is its time. It's a risky strategy, but one balanced by risks of a restive Tibet which Americans may try to foster next. A similar rationale prompted China into the 1962 war - and it may make sense again.
For India, a summer conflict makes no sense. This makes it vulnerable from a two-front war, just in case Pakistan wants to settle the Kashmir issue as the Chinese bites into Ladakh. The Indian government has gambled along the ideological lines in Kashmir by removing its special status last year, which has altered the status quo. Pakistan, battered as it is with its internal crisis and its government's lack of legitimacy, could do very little. But the China-India cnflict may offer it an opportunity to make some gains, both internally and externally. And, yet, the Indian government, weaker than it ever was, may see the conflict as an opportunity. Depends on who you believe, India is either looking at a prolonged recession or a mini-collapse of its economy as it emerges from Corona Virus, perhaps being the worst hit country of all. All the different crisis - jobs crisis, banking crisis, supply chain crisis - are about to form a perfect storm. Just as Mao used in 1962 conflict to save himself in the middle of the chaos of cultural revolution, a conflict, if it could be contained, might come handy for Mr Modi in the middle of his own cultural revolution.
But, as we know from history, governments struggling with legitimacy are portents of geopolitical conflicts and we have plenty of them in the region now. No one is fooled by President Xi's ambition or Prime Minister Modi's rhetoric; they both were long on rhetoric and short on delivery, and the Corona Virus crisis has exposed them. Prime Minister Khan of Pakistan, who serves at the pleasure of the Armed Forces, is also at a very difficult spot. They may all mistake a war as salvation, their little opportunities for oneupmanship, political brownie points or even a legacy. Each one may want to settle the Himalaya once and for all; each one may be crazy or desperate enough to think that's possible. Mr Modi has made the first move last year by changing the status quo; the others may try to take advantage of it now.
I am full of foreboding, therefore. It may be crazy that China and India, two still poor and rising powers, would want to fight one another, which will harm them and given nuclear deterrance, would be inconclusive. But then, countries don't fight wars as often as interests do, and we may have a case here when even a futile and costly conflict may help some people.
Finally, it may seem the Americans may benefit - given that this will curb China and its arms suppliers will find more willing buyers - but that's only in Donald Trump's twisted imagination: As the guarantor and chief beneficiary of the current world order, the United States hardly benefits from the breaking of it. Corona Virus has exposed Trump as a weak leader who doesn't know what he is doing and it's unlikely that he would be able to do anything to contain the crisis. Churchill may have said that the Americans could be counted on to do the right thing after all options have been exhausted, but it's doubtful if Mr Trump knows his options.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
A week into lockdown and things are beginning to change. Mornings are late, afternoons are lazier and evenings never end; meditations are filling out the time for Yoga routines and Netflix profiles are strewn with half-finished movies. This state-mandated, state-funded period of idleness is being likened to being called up to serve, but is nothing like that: Such a comparison is really an affront to the idea of service. Instead, this is just one long streak of panic; of the centre not holding and life not going on as usual. With the usual patterns and rules in suspended animation and business talk - and business - being rendered meaningless, space is opening up for unusual questions: Is Capitalism about to end? Is this the death of globalisation? Does it get uglier from here? My grandfather's generation would have scoffed at us. They saw through wars and pandemics. But, in fairness, we haven't had a life-ending crisis of our own. Notwithstanding the experiences of th
I wrote a note on Kolkata, the city I come from and would always belong to, in July 2010. Since then, the post attracted many visitors and comments, mostly critical, as most people, including those from Kolkata, couldn't see any future for the city. My current effort, some 18 months down the line, is also prompted by a recent article in The Economist, The City That Got Left Behind , which echo the pessimism somewhat. I, at least emotionally, disagree to all the pessimism: After all Kolkata is home and I live in the hope of an eventual return. Indeed, some change has happened since I wrote my earlier post: The geriatric Leftist government that ruled the state for more than 30 years was summarily dispatched, and was replaced by a lumpen-capitalist populist government. Kolkata looked without a future with the clueless leftists at the helm; it now looks without hope. However, apart from bad governance, there is no reason why Kolkata had to be poor and hopeless. It sits right
Introduction: Hastings in the history of Indian Education Whether or not one includes Warren Hastings in the history of Education in India is a matter of perspective. If writing the history of education means writing the history of schools, the impact of Hastings' administration would be quite limited. If anything, the rapid implosion of local rulers in Eastern, Southern and Northern India during Hastings' tenure had meant a bleak period for the indigenous education system, as patronage and funds would have dwindled away for many of them. The Company administration really concerned itself with the schooling of the natives only after 1813, as Nurullah and Naik rightly pointed out ( see my earlier post ) and one can legitimately start the story at this point. However, if history of Education in India is to encompass the transformation of Indian Scholarship, on which foundation the new, colonial, system of Education would be built, the story must start with Warren Hast
The ‘Why’ Question? Adolf Hitler was appointed the German Chancellor by President Von Hindenburg on 30th January 1933. This was an extraordinary turn of events. Previously, President Von Hindenburg consistently refused to appoint Hitler the Chancellor, despite the impressive electoral performance of NSDAP in July 1932, Hitler’s uncompromising demand of the Chancellor’s post and a repeat election in November 1932 which failed to break the deadlock. Explaining his refusal, Hindenburg wrote in a letter on 24th November, “a presidential cabinet led by you would develop necessarily into a party dictatorship with all its consequences for an extraordinary accentuation of the conflicts in the German people.” The question ‘why’ Hitler was appointed Chancellor, despite the President being acutely aware of what might follow, is therefore a significant one. The NSDAP had election successes throughout 1932, and was already the biggest single party in the Reichstag and various Landtags acros
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.