Border face-off: China and India each deploy 3,000 troops

[Oracle]

The idea is to test just where the point or two before that. It's a tit for tat. Vietnamese give out tenders in area that is disputed making the chinese retaliate. Is Vietnam dissuaded or not. Turns out the Vietnamese called the Chinese bluff and stood firm. Current secstate was exxon chairman and with interests in the SCS too.

Yes. The cover of China's peaceful rise has been blown. They're making too many enemies and sowing mistrusts all over the neighborhood.

Don't know more but the chinese weren't responsible.

Friendly fire probably.

No rogue commanders or that is what serious Chinese watchers believe. Otherwise it means he is not in control and that is not the right impression to give. Tight control. No guns allowed either. So Xi coming over and having this happen means he okayed it. Its almost a show of force in your face. Testing Modi, how high he jumps. Pretty crass. Each US president got similar, bush, obama, within 6 months of entering office. Trump is getting his too.

Border intrusions are a way to build & maintain leverage. It's cost effective to get your way provided the other side bites. We never do but the media hypes it. It embarrasses the leader of the country in the eyes of his people and the region. China can move with impunity. They are doing the same with Bhutan, this makes the Bhutanese want to settle. India insists on being involved because of the risk any settlement will be at India's expense. Bhutan is in a critical area, China gets into Bhutan, its easy to reach Sikkim, Arunachal and the rest of the NE.

Various chinese media sites give the CPC plausible deniability. It's not official unless somebody official says so. I don't think the diplomats take these state media rants seriously. Just words.

Agree with you. Chinese foreign minister did say that Doklam is Chinese territory and that Indian Army has violated their sovereignty. A big LOL.

Bhutan wants to settle yes, but the Chinese wants this area and are willing to exchange land in other part. This makes it difficult for India. There's a lot of fear in Bhutan and insecurity vis-a-vis the Chinese. After the initial demarche from Bhutan, they have gone silent, like India. This is a tacit nod to the GoI to settle the issue as India deems fit.

Check out this video: Arun Jaitley (DM/FM) looks pretty relaxed and confident and is not hyping the issue. India wants the issue to settle down amicably, but the Chinese are adamant. The thing is India should not move troops unless the PLA does so. If there is a skirmish, let there be one. Leaving aside 1967, we owe the Chinese one BIG bang. I come from the school of thought that says China and Pak are rival countries, fortunately, India's foreign policy too thinks that. Absolutely no hard feelings for the common people of those two countries. Those are as normal and hard working as you and me.

True, its an impossibility because both sides can do equal damage here so neither is going to attempt it. There is no win. There is a balance of force. We need to work on gaining that balance in other areas and then we can get along just fine.

Taiwan is already carved out. What we need to do is establish diplomatic relations with them. And let the SFF man the borders with China.

Was Doklam standoff staged by China to appease Pakistan?

[Oracle]

China Going Strategically Berserk in 2017- A Global Concern

How should India deal with China?

Doklam: Keeping the Powder Dry!

[Oracle]

Chinese military has ability to defeat all invading enemies: Xi Jinping

The Chairman has been stressing on it again:

Xi also said the PLA should strictly follow the absolute leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and "march to wherever the Party points to."

[Double Edge]

TL;DR version of the Indian position. Pretty much summarises everything said in this thread.

Note how they point out that the Peoples Daily follows the party line very closely. If you want the Chinese equivalent of PTI then its Peoples Daily. I notice this topic has not shown up on RSTV, LSTV & DD now for well over a week.

Globaltimes seems to have more latitude and wants to go up against the TOI's and India today group. Headlines today, IT,'s tv arm is a direct Arnab competitor. Only good for making noise and upping temperatures. WWF style infotainment.

Agree with you. Chinese foreign minister did say that Doklam is Chinese territory and that Indian Army has violated their sovereignty. A big LOL.

In the CGTV clip, Chinese colonel was asking , what gives India the courage. Pertinent question. PLA wants to know why objecting now. As they see it India was less confrontational.

The official Indian line only goes so far. Is there anything more. Is India also gambling.

India does not accept China’s contention that the Sikkim-Tibet border is settled. Perhaps, Indian strategists reckon that since much of the 4,000-km China-India border is disputed anyway, why not add this 220-km stretch to it, especially since this encompasses the strategically important trijunction.

Are we upping the ante. This is why its not like anything before.

I had high hopes that Modi & Xi as strong leaders would be able to come to some sort of understanding. But as it turns out the two didn't click and when Modi visited Beijing last year he returned empty handed. This is when the relations start to take a dip. In the past it was the Chinese making the transgressions to put pressure, now we've copied them and done it ourselves this time. If so then there is more to come. Come up with a another pretext and have another standoff somewhere else later. Now it is us forcing the boundary question on them. No shots necessary to get the point across. We will only know after more time.

Bhutan wants to settle yes, but the Chinese wants this area and are willing to exchange land in other part. This makes it difficult for India. There's a lot of fear in Bhutan and insecurity vis-a-vis the Chinese. After the initial demarche from Bhutan, they have gone silent, like India. This is a tacit nod to the GoI to settle the issue as India deems fit.

China wants access to the important mountain passes. They offered a package deal to Bhutan in the 90s which India nixed. So its going to be more of the same. The Chinese do not seem interested any longer in making any real concessions.

Check out this video: Arun Jaitley (DM/FM) looks pretty relaxed and confident and is not hyping the issue. India wants the issue to settle down amicably, but the Chinese are adamant. The thing is India should not move troops unless the PLA does so. If there is a skirmish, let there be one. Leaving aside 1967, we owe the Chinese one BIG bang. I come from the school of thought that says China and Pak are rival countries, fortunately, India's foreign policy too thinks that. Absolutely no hard feelings for the common people of those two countries. Those are as normal and hard working as you and me.

What more can one skirmish achieve over the present situation ? Why not more standoffs along the LOAC or apply pressure in other areas. Keep surprising them till both sides soften up and we can get real progress on this question or let it be which would also be a worthy objective. Letting them have the upper hand as we've done for the last ten years is getting us nowhere. To this point we have been lacking in building up sufficient leverage to extract meaningful concessions from them. They have no incentive to settle and in fact have the initiative. Inject uncertainty into their planning and maybe we get less of this nonsense. This should be the plan on both east and western fronts.

Was Doklam standoff staged by China to appease Pakistan?

No, this is strictly India -China. They aren't going to stick their necks out for the Paks. Blocking India at NSG, Masood Azhar are nods in the pak direction.

They refer to the US as only offering superficial support to lndia, well how spectacular has the Chinese record been in helping the Paks? When the '65 war broke out China demanded India vacate two points along the border. Where ? not near the Pak border but in the NE. Nathu La was one which the general in charge refused and another were we complied. Why that one was given up isn't explained. Then went the Paks ran crying to them, Chou en Lai fired them for settling too soon with us. Great help there.

[Oracle]

TL;DR version of the Indian position. Pretty much summarises everything said in this thread.

Note how they point out that the Peoples Daily follows the party line very closely. If you want the Chinese equivalent of PTI then its Peoples Daily. I notice this topic has not shown up on RSTV, LSTV & DD now for well over a week.

Globaltimes seems to have more latitude and wants to go up against the TOI's and India today group. Headlines today, IT,'s tv arm is a direct Arnab competitor. Only good for making noise and upping temperatures. WWF style infotainment.

Yeah, lol.

In the CGTV clip, Chinese colonel was asking , what gives India the courage. Pertinent question. PLA wants to know why objecting now. As they see it India was less confrontational.

The official Indian line only goes so far. Is there anything more. Is India also gambling.

The answer lies in which party is ruling India right now. They have a majority. Hate the Nehrus' & the Gandhis'. And the PM comes from the RSS school of thought. The Chinese should have known this, or at the very least anticipated it. Not very bright. And who is the NSA and his accomplishments(?).
I agree with the article, and I've been saying this all through. We have stood up to Chinese hegemony as it affects our national security. No permanent friends, only permanent interests. The interesting thing is Bhutan gave India the reason to stand up to the PLA, and the world is taking notice.

Are we upping the ante. This is why its not like anything before.

I had high hopes that Modi & Xi as strong leaders would be able to come to some sort of understanding. But as it turns out the two didn't click and when Modi visited Beijing last year he returned empty handed. This is when the relations start to take a dip. In the past it was the Chinese making the transgressions to put pressure, now we've copied them and done it ourselves this time. If so then there is more to come. Come up with a another pretext and have another standoff somewhere else later. Now it is us forcing the boundary question on them. No shots necessary to get the point across. We will only know after more time.

Finders, keepers. Actually, I think and it's my opinion that the relation dipped when Xi was in Gujarat and the PLA transgressed into Ladakh. If you remember, the transgression continued for some days. But as is India's nature, it tries making amends again and again just to be disappointed by China on the NSG and Masood Azhar issues. It seems Modi and Doval have learnt their lesson. Both leaders are strong, but the value systems are different. China is capitalist dollar-wise, communism still helps them sleep.

China wants access to the important mountain passes. They offered a package deal to Bhutan in the 90s which India nixed. So its going to be more of the same. The Chinese do not seem interested any longer in making any real concessions.

It's not Chinese land anyway. Nor is Tibet and Taiwan. Concessions or no concessions, we're not interested for a change. Do you think the highers up were not in the loop when IA pushed back the PLA. That a skirmish was possible or even a short swift war. Everything was taken into account and planned for, including logistics. The Chinese came unprepared, because they didn't study Modi and Doval as much as they should have.

What more can one skirmish achieve over the present situation ? Why not more standoffs along the LOAC or apply pressure in other areas. Keep surprising them till both sides soften up and we can get real progress on this question or let it be which would also be a worthy objective. Letting them have the upper hand as we've done for the last ten years is getting us nowhere. To this point we have been lacking in building up sufficient leverage to extract meaningful concessions from them. They have no incentive to settle and in fact have the initiative. Inject uncertainty into their planning and maybe we get less of this nonsense. This should be the plan on both east and western fronts.

I agree. Keep the dragon confused and occupied. But, but, fire up the western border at an intensity never seen before. We're doing that right now, just take it 5 notches up.

No, this is strictly India -China. They aren't going to stick their necks out for the Paks. Blocking India at NSG, Masood Azhar are nods in the pak direction.

They refer to the US as only offering superficial support to lndia, well how spectacular has the Chinese record been in helping the Paks? When the '65 war broke out China demanded India vacate two points along the border. Where ? not near the Pak border but in the NE. Nathu La was one which the general in charge refused and another were we complied. Why that one was given up isn't explained. Then went the Paks ran crying to them, Chou en Lai fired them for settling too soon with us. Great help there.

Well, let's take into account history from last week. Nawaz Sharif went all guns blazing about CPEC this CPEC that, did the Chinese save his ass? And yeah, I know. A settled, prosperous India is not in Pak/China's interests. I have been saying this for the last 10 years. And I have also said that we should treat China like we treat Pakistan - a rouge regime. Keep engaging the West, build a robust economy and arm our forces to the teeth.

[Oracle]

True, its an impossibility because both sides can do equal damage here so neither is going to attempt it. There is no win. There is a balance of force. We need to work on gaining that balance in other areas and then we can get along just fine.

It's not just Tibet, it's Tibet, Nepal, Sikkim & Bhutan, the NE because all share a common culture and religion. Great game on. Nepal plays India off China and does not come out ahead. Bhutan decided it was impossible to walk the tightrope between India and China so for now sticks with India.

I missed this in post # 120. You probably edited it the same time I was replying.

Agree the part in bold.

The rest - well, actually food habits are more or less same, but religion and culture is a bit different. Leaving Assam, Tripura, Manipur, others states have a Christian majority. Manipur probably has a Christian majority too, not so sure about that as of today. And, this is the diversity India is known for. Sikkim and Tibet is pre-dominantly buddhist. Oops, Tibet probably is Han now. Nepal is Hindu.

Nepal, well, we had to get rid of the King. Then China took notice, and played the maoist card. China can't win in Nepal, we have the upperhand. Yeah at times, there are pinpricks, and then Nepal gets back in line. SriLanka learnt it the hard way, and is still in the classroom as far as foreign policy is concerned. Bhutan is a very happy kind of nation and truth be told, they don't have the capability to irritate India, unless India screws up big time.

[Oracle]

And yeah, some economics too, German quality at Chinese prices: This is how China is preparing to conquer India's car market

[Oracle]

Xi Jinping may not change his stand on Doklam easily

[Double Edge]

I missed this in post # 120. You probably edited it the same time I was replying.

Agree the part in bold.

The rest - well, actually food habits are more or less same, but religion and culture is a bit different. Leaving Assam, Tripura, Manipur, others states have a Christian majority. Manipur probably has a Christian majority too, not so sure about that as of today. And, this is the diversity India is known for. Sikkim and Tibet is pre-dominantly buddhist. Oops, Tibet probably is Han now. Nepal is Hindu.

I got that old chinese formulation wrong. Tibet is the palm and the fingers are Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim & Bhutan. There is a religious and cultural link. Maybe less with Nepal than the others. Their thinking was since Tibet was central the others would fall in line. Course once they overran Tibet the others saw the writing on the wall. No way were they going to join in. Bhutan had a simple choice remain sovereign to the extent possible or subordinate.

Nepal, well, we had to get rid of the King. Then China took notice, and played the maoist card. China can't win in Nepal, we have the upperhand. Yeah at times, there are pinpricks, and then Nepal gets back in line. SriLanka learnt it the hard way, and is still in the classroom as far as foreign policy is concerned. Bhutan is a very happy kind of nation and truth be told, they don't have the capability to irritate India, unless India screws up big time.

Nepal is a mess if we compare with Bhutan. Hydro projects there are coming up and within a few years Bhutan will have the highest per capita income in south Asia. Managing the economy could go better though. If CPEC is bad for Pakistan. Look at Bhutan

How much is India responsible for the rupee crunch in Bhutan? While this question might seem like an anomaly within the broad discourse on India-Bhutan relations, it continues to be raised because of India’s economic presence in Bhutan as a major trade and development partner. Indeed, some Bhutanese contend that the nature of India-Bhutan bilateral trade is the primary causal factor for the rupee crunch. In this regard, it is pointed out that 60 per cent of Bhutan’s deficit spending is in India. Many, in fact, narrow it further to the hydel sector and argue that construction activities within Bhutan are too dependent on imported labour and that imported Indian goods (trucks and dozers in particular) has led to the rise in capital expenditure. Commenting on the nature of dependence on India, one local businessman noted that “90 to 95 per cent of what we borrow from India goes back to India.” Instead, he argued, “given that Bhutan is a small economy, even if one-fourth of the total investment by India stays in Bhutan, Bhutan in the long term would benefit.”

Why are there Indians in Bhutan ?

at the same time, he also emphasized that the fault also lies with Bhutanese policy makers and Bhutanese contractors, and that India is not solely responsible for the existing state of affairs. In this regard, Droji pointed to the lack of capacity of Bhutanese contractors, who only seek to profit from contracts by sub-contracting the works to Indian companies.

.. and we really are trying to help them. The problem of rupee crunch is spending more than earning. Once they get up to 10MW of hydel output things may improve. They will then be making more selling it back to us.

While it cannot be said that the rupee crunch has had a direct impact on India-Bhutan relations, it nevertheless points to some emerging issues in the India-Bhutan economic engagement. The rupee crunch is an important pointer to the fact that Bhutan’s business sector is feeling squeezed by some of the economic policies being adopted by the Indian government. While loans, grants and lines of credit offer a solution to deal with immediate crises, it is important to gauge the long-term impact that Indian policies can have on bilateral relations.

That article was from five years back, maybe things have changed

From Stobdans article i linked earlier. he's also authored a broader paper

The economic aspect of Indo-Bhutan relations is not sufficiently articulated in the open strategic discourse as yet but studies have highlighted how Bhutan’s economy has become dependent or auxiliary to India’s economic intervention model. The study has found that over 60% of government expenditure goes into the import of goods from India. This is not only detrimental to Bhutan’s sustainable growth but also unsuitable for a healthy bilateral relationship with India. India’s stranglehold over Bhutan’s economy along with unfair business practices often leads to economic crisis such as the debt and rupee crunch. The fundamentals of economic dependency including the hydropower projects are becoming subjects of debate, essentially to highlight the massive Indian influence in Bhutan. Many Bhutanese analysts have begun to view the dependency relationship in the geopolitical context of India-China zero-sum rivalry and the manner and extent to which Bhutan has been sacrificing its interests. The remedy they see lies in balancing the nature of Bhutan‘s relations with India vis-ŕ-vis China.

So you have a reaction coming.

Bhutan goes to the polls next year

[Oracle]

Paper dragon: How Global Times fiercely serves China

Through the India-China standoff on Doklam, Indian experts on China have been following announcements by 'Global Times.' The hyper-nationalistic newspaper is believed to be mouthpiece of Chinese government. So its anti-India offensive, going to the extent of calling for a war over Doklam,- is perceived to be Beijing's message to the world at large.

Watching the Global Times' pronouncements being ceaselessly dissected reminds me of my stint with the paper in 2009, when I was the only Indian on the paper's staff during its launch. When I first met Hu Xijing, the editor-in-chief of Global Times in March 2009, he spoke warmly of India. "China always wants to extend a friendly hand to India. The two are natural partners since ancient times," he said. Zhang Yong, the young, affable managing editor, was equally cordial.

Though Global Times is state-owned, and the editorial readership is connected to the Communist regime (Zhang served on the 2008 Olympics Committee), it initially set out to be a market-driven product.

At a lunch meeting to welcome all the 'foreign experts', Hu spelt out GT's vision-`to facilitate the world to see the real China; its growth story, with both its beauty and ugliness'. The ''experts' included journalists like Richard Burger, who wrote an outspoken blog, 'The Peking Duck'. At the lunch, Hu promised stories that would push the envelope. True to his words, the first ever coverage of the Tiananmen Square tragedy in China appeared in GT that year, though it was simply referred to as 'June 4'. GT also published articles that raised eyebrows; including one on gay rights and one on how urbanisation was robbing China's rural wealth and increasing inequality.

However, this enthusiasm did not last. Soon, it became apparent there was a filter in place and any story critical of the Communist Party or government would be blocked. By 2011, Burger had left the paper. He described a staff meeting where Hu ordered his team to visit online forums and social media sites and criticise dissident artist Al Weiwei.

In an interview, Hu was asked if government officials had ever given him instructions on editorial matters. He responded, "It's rare". But he conceded, "There are always some orders in China's system...I am defending the State's interests." Some who know the functioning of GT well believe Hu uses the op-eds to amplify Chinese officials' private conversations. So GT says what the officials would really like to, but can't due to diplomatic considerations.

Activists have mocked Hu for being a `high-profile 50cent party member' -referring to netizens' groups supposedly paid 50 Chinese cents for each online comment supporting the Communist regime.This does not bother Hu. As long as GT fulfills its self-appointed role of being the party watchdog, it will be allowed to make occasional high-decibel, jingoistic war cries, as in the Doklam standoff. The problem for Hu will arise if India and the world stop treating the paper as a reference.

China violates border again, this time in Uttarakhand's Barahoti on July 25

[Double Edge]

Sumdurong Chu was a much more serious affair. We learnt how to defend Tawang and Arunachal became an official state out of the process.

http://www.indiatimes.com/news/the-s...cy-260266.html


http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/Curr..._msingh_260413

The GOI, made an offer to China to withdraw from the area with an understanding that India would not reoccupy the vacated area, the following summer. This was rejected by the Chinese. At the Seventh round of border talks that were held from 21-23 July 1986, despite the standoff, the issue was discussed “intensively” with no solution, resulting in acrimony and tension.

Meanwhile, the Chinese 'dug in' to prepare to stay through the winter of 1986. The Indian Army then air lifted a Brigade from 5 Mountain Division to Zimithang and occupied the ridges dominating the Somdurong Chu. Deng Xiaoping took a tough stand and said that it was time to "teach India a lesson”, a message conveyed through the visiting US Secretary of Defence, Caspar Weinberger during a stopover at New Delhi from Beijing.

Simultaneously, the PLA moved 20,000 troops of the 53 Group Army and 13 Group Army along with guns and helicopters. There were reports that unemployed Tibetan youth were recruited at RMB 300 per month, essentially for administrative duties. Tibetans also reported movement and mobilisation of PLA in the areas around Lhasa and parts of the Tibetan plateau.

The Indian Army moved up to three divisions into the positions around Wangdung, maintaining them by air. In addition as many as ten divisions were mobilised to the Eastern sector with almost 50,000 troops in Arunachal Pradesh alone with substantial assets from the Indian Air Force. Simultaneously, the Indian Army conducted a massive air- land exercise called 'Chequerboard ' which commenced in October, 1986 and continued till March 1987.4 This was in conjunction with another major military exercise called ‘Brasstacks’ on the western borders.

These exercises demonstrated the will and capability of the Indian armed forces to fight a war on both fronts

[Oracle]

Protectionism against Chinese products will boomerang on India: China daily, they want trade continuity and our money and still be an irritant. It doesn't happen that way. Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman holds 'candid' talks with Chinese counterpart on growing trade deficit

India watching China’s bid to court Bhutan

Unconditional withdrawal only way for India to save face

India created 'Chinese threat' to cover up internal failings, claims Beijing daily

India's Uncompromising Stand Against China in the Himalayas Is Backed Up With Hard Power

The Week Donald Trump Lost the South China Sea, ahhh Trumph!

Western media favors Delhi due to bias

A 4000 year old civilization reduced to moaning bitches by the CPC.

[Oracle]

[Oracle]

Breaking: Modi Govt. Hits China Exactly Where it is Required..Major Setback has left China Fuming

34 lakh diamond heist at Mumbai expo solved, 2 Chinese held at airport, really? You guys had to do this during the border stand-off. Indian police is known for .... custodial generosity.

[Oracle]

China’s tough stance on India dispute raising concern across Southeast Asia, analysts say - scmp
Beijing’s handling of protracted conflict in Himalayas has had a spillover effect in the region and fuelled suspicion

The protracted border dispute between China and India in the Himalayas has created a “spillover effect” as China’s neighbours become unsettled by its tough handling of the escalating conflict between the two Asian giants, foreign policy experts have said.

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi and his Indian counterpart Smt. Sushma Swaraj are scheduled to attend the Asean foreign ministers’ meeting in Manila later this week. And while the North Korean nuclear crisis and South China Sea disputes are expected to dominate the meeting, analysts will also be keeping a close eye on how members of the 10-nation group interact with China and India.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations generally regards a robust Indian presence in the region as a useful deterrent against China, which has been increasingly assertive in its approach to handling territorial issues, as has been the case in the Himalayas.

China and India last week held their first substantial talks since the dispute broke out more than a month ago in the Dolklam region, where the pair shares a border with Bhutan. Chinese State Councillor Yang Jiechi met Indian National Security Adviser Ajit Doval in Beijing, though neither showed any signs of backing down and tensions remain high.
Also last week, China’s defence ministry issued its strongest warning yet to India, with a spokesman saying Beijing had stepped up its deployment along the unmarked border and would protect its sovereignty “at all costs”.

Richard Javad Heydarian, a political scientist at the Manila-based De La Salle University, said the stand-off in Doklam had had a “spillover effect” by fuelling suspicion among countries that are caught in separate territorial disputes with China.

“People are asking, if China is really peaceful, why are there so many countries having disputes with China?” he said.

Such sentiment may create fertile ground for Southeast Asian countries to leverage China’s influence with engagement with India.
Vietnam’s foreign minister and deputy prime minister, Pham Binh Minh, has called on India to play a greater role in the region and to partner with Southeast Asian countries on strategic security and promoting freedom of navigation in South China Sea.

A few days after Minh spoke, Vietnam granted Indian Oil firm ONGC Videsh a two-year extension on its plan to explore a Vietnamese oil block in an area of the South China Sea contested by China and Vietnam.

Analysts said recent developments have wide strategic implications – pointing to how Asia is increasingly defined by the China-India rivalry and the renewed tensions between the two Asian giants.

Nisha Desai Biswal, former US assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asia, was quoted by Indian media PTI as saying that China needs to acknowledge that “there is growing strategic and security capability across Asia” and that “India is a force to be reckoned with”.

Wang Yi on Tuesday backed Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte’s idea of forming joint energy ventures in the disputed South China Sea, warning that unilateral action could cause problems and damage both sides.

Duterte on Monday said a partner had been found to develop oil fields and exploration, and exploitation would restart this year.

However, analysts warn that India’s strong position in the standoff has strengthened the hawkish voices in the Philippines who seize opportunities to criticise Duterte’s détente policy towards China and “push forward the narrative that the Philippines needs to be careful on how to approach China and its territorial expansion”, Heydarian said.

Under Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “Act East” policy, India in recent years has formed strategic partnerships with Southeast Asian countries including Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, and Northeast Asian countries including Japan and South Korea.

During the “India-Asean Delhi Dialogue IX” early this month, Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj said New Delhi remained committed to enhancing maritime cooperation with Asean as well as upholding freedom of navigation and respect for international law in the region.

Heydarian suggests that India’s upgrading of its strategic partnership with Asean and increasing its strategic presence in the South China Sea could be a way of pushing back against China.

Even a non-claimant Southeast Asian state such as Thailand “would see the benefit of China being challenged in the South Asia theatre”, said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, an international relations scholar at Bangkok-based Chulalongkorn University.

“India’s standing up to China can only be a boon for Southeast Asian countries even when they don’t say so openly,” he said, “Any major power keeping China in check can only yield geopolitical benefits to Southeast Asia as the region is wary of China’s growing assertiveness.”

But Pongsudhirak also said that India, a “latecomer to Southeast Asia’s geopolitics”, still lacks strategic depth in terms of military reach and economic wherewithal. “But in combination with other middle powers like Japan, India can have a significant impact in Southeast Asia’s power dynamics,” he said.

Despite Southeast Asian countries’ welcoming attitude, India has remained cautious towards more strongly engaging with the region, observers said.

“Southeast Asia is a natural extension of India’s security horizons in light of its growth as a regional power,” said Rajesh Manohar Basrur, a South Asia specialist with Nanyang Technological University.

Basrur said that while competition with China is a major driver of India’s engagement with Southeast Asia, India’s commitment to the region remains limited with measures amounting to no more than “symbolic acts such as military exercises, [to] generate a strategic environment aimed at building up political-psychological pressure on [China].”

Sourabh Gupta, a senior specialist at the Institute for China-America Studies in Washington, said that as India tries to limit fallout from its Doklam intervention, it will not want to expand the theatre of conflict or widen the geography of competition in the short term.

“But I can foresee India making a qualitatively greater effort, albeit quietly, to build up Vietnam’s naval and law enforcement capacity to confront and deter Chinese assertiveness,” he said.

Gupta also warned that the situation in the South China Sea could lapse into even further conflict.

“India and China have a fairly rich menu of boundary management protocols which effectively translate into engagements between very lightly armed personnel from either side when a standoff breaks out,” he said.

“That is different from the situation in the South and East China Sea where engagement protocols are still very rudimentary and could see sharp escalatory spirals.”