Almost all of what Saran says about China above can be said of India too:
.
[China’s pursuit of predominance at the top of the regional and global order, with the guarantee of order, has an unmistakable American flavour. It also echoes Confucius, who argued that harmony and hierarchy are intertwined.]
.
So, why is it so unacceptable for China to do the same-- Since Saran and other Indians happily accept US "predominance at the top of the regional and global order"???
.
[China uses templates of the past as instruments of legitimisation, to construct a modern narrative of power. One key element of the narrative is that China’s role as Asia’s dominant power restores a position the nation occupied through most of history. The period from the mid-18th century until China’s liberation in 1949, when the country was reduced to semi-colonial status, subjected to invasions by imperialist powers and Japan, is characterised as an aberration. The tributary system is presented as artful statecraft evolved by China to manage interstate relationships in an asymmetrical world. What is rarely acknowledged is that China was a frequent tributary to keep marauding tribes at bay. The Tang emperor paid tribute to the Tibetans as well as to the fierce Xiongnu tribes to keep the peace.]
.
See how the Indians "characterised as an aberration" the colonization by the British Empire. Indian "political discourse seeks to project itself as a successor state entitled to territorial acquisitions" and dominance of the British Empire":
.
'The problem is that India does not quite know its place. This makes sense when one considers its vision of its past and its expectations of its future. Independent India inherited the Raj’s armies -- the peacekeepers of Asia and Africa -- and with them, the Raj’s self-image as dominant east of Aden. It has always viewed itself as at least China’s equal in spite of the 1962 loss -- and even as its northern neighbor raced ahead economically. That was a minor setback, Indians feel; eventually we'll .. '
.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/view-indias-faceoff-with-china-in-sikkim-is-a-sign-of-the-future/articleshow/59692536.cms
.
.
India can have "east of Aden" all it wants, but pls leave China out. "The problem is that China doesn't quite know its place" either!!! To be honest, I don't think the Pakistanis, Vietnamese, the Koreans, will "know their place" in front of the self-appointed (or British appointed?) "peacekeepers of Asia and Africa" either.
.
Thus, India "uses templates of the past as instruments of legitimisation, to construct a modern narrative of power."
.
The real difference between India and China is that the former willingly submits itself to what it sees as the natural superiority of the white powers, and sees other non-white powers as naturally inferior not only to the whites by also to India itself, where as China sees to it that it is every country's own responsibility to put itself on the very top of the world order-- above the white powers even:
.
[Clint.Southwardin reply to L6QjhvJGVkJan 26th, 02:17
"The Chinese have been fed a myth that they are going to be the next superpower and the Middle Kingdom is going to be restored to its "natural" place - to its birthright."
.
This is what I said. "are going" is the same as "will" - future tense. Regardless of the debate about how you measure the size of economies hundreds of years (or even more than a thousand years ago) with little data available, and which side one falls on that debate, I was talking about Chinese expectations for themselves and the future, and what might happen if those expectations are thwarted, and they realize that recovering from the 19th century and the great leap backward is not going to be so emphatic as they had imagined.]
.
I have been watching this "feeding of a myth" thing for the past 2 decades. The "feeding" was done by Westerners. The Chinese always say that China is still a developing country, its people are still poor, its capabilities are limited, etc etc.
.
To the Chinese, there is nothing called "natural place" or "birthright". The Chinese believe that whatever you want to get, you must struggle for it and it is everyone's own responsibility to make it to the very top. Ditto for countries. This is a very destabilizing ideology-- For it not only means that the Chinese might one day challenge YOUR "modern world" which was made by YOUR "English speaking people", which is bad enough. This Chinese belief actually means that the Indians, Indonesians, Africans, Papua New Guineans too are entitled to put themselves at the very top of the international order-- As long as they work hard enough to get themselves there. Now, that would really flush YOUR "modern world" down the drain!!!
.
You don't seem to understand that the "modern world" is not your "English speaking people's" "birthright"! But then, what else can be your "expectations for yourselves"???
.
What you said above merely reflected your Anglo-Saxon mentality. I know because I spent more than a decade living in England. And YOU are the perfect embodiment of that mentality!}
.
[The belt and road also seeks to promote the notion that China through most of its history was the hub for trade and transport routes radiating across Central Asia to Europe, and across the seas to Southeast Asia, maritime Europe and even the eastern coast of Africa. China was among many nations that participated in a network of caravan and shipping routes crisscrossing the ancient landscape before the advent of European imperialism. Other great trading nations included the ancient Greeks and Persians, and later the Arabs. Much of the Silk Road trade was in the hands of the Sogdians who inhabited the oasis towns leading from India in the east and Persia in the west into western China.]
.
"The belt and road" is an admission that there was such a trade route that existed alongside others. That the "Greeks and Persians, and later the Arabs" had their "network of caravan and shipping routes crisscrossing the ancient landscape before the advent of European imperialism" does NOT preclude China having its own and certainly does not forbid China reviving the ancient connection for the benefit of all future generations!!!
.
My advice to India is that, if it want to place the game, create its OWN belt and road. It cannot make one out of Jealousy against China's project.
.
[Yet large sections of Asian and Western opinion already concede to China the role of a predominant power, assuming that it may be best to acquiesce to inevitability. The Chinese are delighted to be benchmarked to the US with the corollary, as argued by Harvard University’s Graham Allison, that the latter must accommodate China to avoid inevitable conflict between established and rising power.]
.
Has Saran asked WHY "Western opinion does NOT concede to India the role of a predominant power"???
.
[However, in other metrics of power, with the exception of GDP, China lags behind the United States, which still leads in military capabilities and scientific and technological advancements.
.
In reality, neither Asia nor the world is China-centric. China may continue to expand its capabilities and may even become the most powerful country in the world. But the emerging world is likely to be home to a cluster of major powers, old and new.]
.
China KNOWS that very well. That is WHY China is exhorting itself to do better very new day so that it can play a useful part in the coming Multi-polar world.
.
[Any emerging and potentially threatening power will confront resistance. China, like other nations before it, cultivates an aura of overwhelming power and invincibility to prevent resistance.
.
Despite this, coalitions are forming in the region, with significant increases in military expenditures and security capabilities by Asia-Pacific countries.]
.
China seeks to CO-operate with others. You can resist cooperation all you want. China will seek cooperation and mutual benefit with other partners.
.
[Doklam should be seen from this perspective. The enhanced Chinese activity is directed towards weakening India’s close and privileged relationship with Bhutan, opening the door to China’s entry and settlement of the Sino-Bhutan border, advancing Chinese security interests vis-à-vis India.
.
India has to carefully select a few key issues where it has to confront China, avoiding annoyances not vital to national security. Doklam is a significant security challenge.]
.
China wants a stable border with everyone-- including with India. China could have made a border agreement with Bhutan if India did not sabotage it:
.
'India’s acceptance of direct Bhutan-China negotiations was based on observation of China’s past strategy in territorial negotiation with smaller states such as Pakistan, Nepal and Myanmar that are not seen as a threat to China’s security. For them, China adopted a benevolent position and conceded their demands. But with Bhutan, it has taken a tough stand, and many in Bhutan blame New Delhi for it.'
.
'In 1996, after the 10th round of talks, it appeared that Bhutan and China had reached an understanding... But to China’s surprise, Bhutan revised its claims in the south and asserted a claim to larger territory than before, leading the talks to break down. China suspected the new claims were made at India’s behest and began to harden its stance.'
.
'That would be tantamount to India sabotaging an agreement between Bhutan and China.'
.
http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/geopolitics/article/2103601/bhutan-can-solve-its-border-problem-china-if-india-lets-it
.
Devil's
.
This is what I said. "are going" is the same as "will" - future tense. Regardless of the debate about how you measure the size of economies hundreds of years (or even more than a thousand years ago) with little data available, and which side one falls on that debate, I was talking about Chinese expectations for themselves and the future, and what might happen if those expectations are thwarted, and they realize that recovering from the 19th century and the great leap backward is not going to be so emphatic as they had imagined.]