“Historically, China has always betrayed India despite India's acts of friendship towards Beijing.”
~ Ted Misinjro
Introduction
Throughout modern history, the relationship between India and China has been a complex and often fraught affair. Though the two Asian giants share deep civilizational roots, geographical proximity, and growing global aspirations, their bilateral relations have repeatedly suffered due to mistrust, geopolitical rivalry, and strategic misalignments.
A central theme that recurs across decades is that India has consistently extended a hand of friendship towards China — a gesture that has often been met not with reciprocity, but with betrayal. From Nehru’s idealism in the 1950s to recent border skirmishes in Ladakh, India's policy of engagement has been tested time and again by China's duplicity and strategic maneuvering.
This op-ed explores this recurring pattern, shedding light on key historical episodes where India's outreach was met with aggression, deception, or opportunism by China. It also critically examines the motivations behind India's diplomatic posture and China's strategic behavior, offering insights into the lessons New Delhi must heed as it shapes its future China policy.
I. The Seeds of Idealism: The Early Years of Indian Foreign Policy
At the time of independence in 1947, India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, envisioned a post-colonial Asia bound by mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and shared development. Nehru viewed China — then undergoing its own revolutionary transformation — as a natural partner in this vision. Despite lacking a clear demarcation of borders with China and facing internal calls for a hardline stance, Nehru prioritized building goodwill.
India was among the first nations to recognize the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1950, even before many Western powers did. It also advocated for China's admission to the United Nations and supported Beijing’s sovereignty over Tibet. This marked a significant diplomatic shift, as India willingly relinquished its influence in Tibet — a traditional buffer zone between the two nations — in favor of peaceful relations with China.
But the goodwill was not mutual. In 1950, as China invaded and occupied Tibet, India responded with muted criticism, choosing not to antagonize Beijing. The signing of the Panchsheel Agreement in 1954 further underscored India’s idealism, promoting the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. Nehru believed moral diplomacy would shape China’s behavior. History, however, would prove otherwise.
II. The Betrayal of 1962: A Nation Taken by Surprise
The clearest and most painful instance of China’s betrayal came in 1962. Despite years of diplomatic engagement, China launched a full-scale military attack on India across the Himalayan front. The war, brief but brutal, shattered Nehru’s idealistic foreign policy and exposed India’s strategic vulnerabilities.
China justified the invasion as a response to India’s “Forward Policy,” wherein Indian troops had established outposts in disputed areas. However, this narrative ignored years of Chinese provocation, including the surreptitious construction of a road in Aksai Chin — a territory India considered its own — and the rejection of repeated Indian proposals to negotiate the border.
What made the betrayal starker was the context: India had not only supported China diplomatically but had gone out of its way to placate Beijing’s sensitivities. The slogan "Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai" (Indians and Chinese are brothers), once emblematic of the bilateral relationship, died on the icy heights of the Himalayas.
The psychological impact on India was profound. Nehru’s health deteriorated, and the nation was left to rebuild its foreign policy from the ruins of trust. The 1962 war became a defining moment that still haunts the Indian strategic psyche.
III. The Nuclear Question: China’s Opposition to India’s Strategic Sovereignty
India’s nuclear program has long been a sore point for China. When India conducted its first nuclear test in 1974 (Smiling Buddha), China swiftly condemned it. But the deeper betrayal came later. In the years leading up to India’s 1998 nuclear tests, China worked behind the scenes in international forums to block India’s strategic rise.
After the Pokhran-II tests in 1998, Beijing aligned with Pakistan to isolate India diplomatically. It pushed for sanctions and questioned India’s right to possess nuclear weapons — even as it had itself become a nuclear power decades earlier. China’s proliferation record also came under scrutiny, with reports surfacing of Chinese assistance to Pakistan’s nuclear program, directly threatening India’s security.
India’s strategic restraint — especially in not aggressively countering China’s support to Pakistan — was met not with acknowledgment, but with continued efforts to undermine its security architecture. The betrayal here was not of war, but of principle — the principle of sovereign equality.
IV. The China-Pakistan Axis: An Alliance Against India
Perhaps the most enduring and strategic betrayal by China has been its deep and unwavering alliance with Pakistan. Despite knowing Pakistan’s use of terrorism as state policy against India, China has consistently shielded Islamabad in international forums.
Be it blocking India’s efforts to designate Jaish-e-Mohammed chief Masood Azhar as a global terrorist at the UN Security Council, or vetoing India’s entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), China has weaponized multilateral diplomacy to thwart Indian interests.
The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship project under Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), runs through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir — a territory India claims as its own. By investing in CPEC, China has not only violated Indian sovereignty but has entrenched its presence in the region, bolstering Pakistan’s strategic posture.
India, meanwhile, has largely refrained from interfering in China’s internal disputes — be it Hong Kong, Xinjiang, or Taiwan — hoping for diplomatic reciprocity. None has come. Instead, Beijing’s duplicity has only deepened.
V. Doklam and Ladakh: The Return of Border Hostilities
The 21st century has seen renewed tensions at the border. In 2017, the Doklam standoff emerged as a flashpoint when Chinese troops began building a road in a disputed tri-junction area involving India, Bhutan, and China. India, honoring its treaty obligations with Bhutan, intervened to halt the construction. The standoff lasted over 70 days before China backed down, but it revealed how Beijing tests red lines under the guise of infrastructure development.
Then came the Ladakh confrontation in 2020. In the Galwan Valley, 20 Indian soldiers were martyred in a violent clash — the first fatalities along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in decades. The incident shocked the Indian public and further eroded trust. China, once again, denied culpability, obfuscated facts, and manipulated media narratives to portray itself as the aggrieved party.
What made these events betrayals rather than mere conflicts was the backdrop: both countries had, in prior years, agreed to maintain peace along the LAC, signed multiple confidence-building agreements, and even engaged in summit-level diplomacy. Yet, China altered the status quo unilaterally.
VI. Trade, Technology, and Trust: A Fractured Economic Relationship
India’s economic engagement with China has also suffered from asymmetry and strategic mistrust. For years, India welcomed Chinese investments, technology, and consumer goods. In return, it ran a massive trade deficit — often exceeding $60 billion annually — while struggling to access the Chinese market.
Moreover, China has used its technological might to intrude into India’s digital ecosystem. Concerns over surveillance, data privacy, and cyber intrusions have prompted India to ban numerous Chinese apps, restrict telecom infrastructure investments, and tighten scrutiny on Chinese capital.
Yet, even as economic ties grew, political relations remained mired in suspicion. India’s willingness to accommodate China economically — despite political differences — was yet another gesture of friendship that Beijing exploited rather than reciprocated.
VII. China's Global Ambitions and India's Strategic Dilemma
Beijing’s pursuit of global dominance — through initiatives like the Belt and Road, assertive posturing in the South China Sea, and attempts to reshape multilateral institutions — has brought it into increasing conflict with other major powers. India, despite its commitment to strategic autonomy, finds itself gravitating toward like-minded partners such as the United States, Japan, and Australia.
China views India’s participation in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) with suspicion, branding it an “Asian NATO.” Yet, it ignores the fact that India’s pivot to strategic balancing is a reaction — not a provocation. India’s patience, diplomacy, and preference for peace have been met with intimidation and coercion.
The irony is stark: India seeks multipolarity and peaceful rise, while China demands hegemony and obeisance. This divergence in worldviews lies at the heart of the betrayals.
VIII. The Way Forward: Realism Over Romance
India’s future China policy must be informed by historical realism, not emotional idealism. Engagement remains essential — especially for economic and regional stability — but must be built on the principle of reciprocity and strategic clarity.
India must:
- Strengthen alliances with like-minded democracies while preserving its autonomy.
- Invest in defense modernization and infrastructure along the border.
- Counter China's influence in South Asia and the Indo-Pacific through economic outreach and diplomacy.
- Leverage trade and technology policy to minimize dependencies on Chinese systems.
- Shape global narratives that expose China’s double standards and violations.
Friendship should be extended to those who respect it. China’s track record — from 1950 to Galwan — suggests that India must recalibrate its expectations and hedge its bets.
CONCLUSION
The arc of India-China relations is a cautionary tale of how idealism without safeguards can invite betrayal. From Tibet to Galwan, from the Panchsheel Agreement to CPEC, India has repeatedly reached out, only to be met with deception. This does not imply that hostility must define the future — but it does demand that India embrace a new realism.
In diplomacy, as in life, trust must be earned — not assumed. China has not earned India’s trust. Until it does, India must engage with vigilance, invest with skepticism, and prepare with resolve.
Author's Bio: Teddy Okello is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya and Program Lead at the Institute for Policy and Diplomacy, Nairobi, Kenya. His work focuses on review, critique and development of national and regional frameworks for governance, finance, health, infrastructure, climate change/sustainable development, international trade, peace and security and geopolitics. +254715310677
No comments:
Post a Comment