Vijay Gokhale has warned that "India being risk-averse may no longer be justified," a reference to the fact that China assumes there would be no immediate retaliation to low-level coercion along the Line of Actual Control.
Former Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale has stated that the Chinese assumption that there will be no immediate backlash to low-level coercion on the Line of Actual Control "because India is risk-averse may no longer be valid." This statement comes at a time when details of a new clash between Indian and Chinese troops in the Tawang sector of Arunachal Pradesh are beginning to emerge.
Gokhale, a former Indian ambassador to China, said that the 2020 Galwan incident "reshaped national public opinion against China" in a study that was published by Carnegie India and titled "A Historical Evaluation of China's India Policy: Lessons for India-China Relations."
The concept of exercising strategic restraint has been given a new meaning. This has resulted in a shift in the desire for taking risks among members of the political class, and as a direct consequence of this, the
In August of 2020, a counter-operation against the Snow Leopards was taken out in Rezang La/Rechin La. This was a premeditated escalation on the part of India, which China had not foreseen and did not prepare for. According to what he said in the article that was released on Tuesday on the website of Carnegie India, where he is a non-resident senior fellow, the Chinese premise that there would be no immediate blowback to low-level pressure on the LAC because India is risk-averse may no longer be accurate.
"Even if the leaders of China are accurate in believing that the relationship between India and the United States will not become an alliance, it is still worthwhile to examine if there is a chance for China to make a strategic error following the military stalemate in Ladakh. The changes in Indian strategic thinking since 2020 should be examined against two assumptions made by China: the first is that India would not purposefully escalate militarily in response to low-level coercion, and the second is that India will not build allies against the coercer.
According to him, there is now strategic clarity in India's decision-making and strategic circles around the question of whether or not China is a partner or a competitor. Previously, there was uncertainty over this question. It is now widely believed that China's behaviour is hostile, and very few people are ready to give the country the benefit of the doubt.
"India is now more willing and committed to enhancing military capacity in preparation for the situation of armed coexistence that it expects to prevail along the LAC," Gokhale wrote, stating that Chinese scholars may also need to revisit the idea that an Indian response to future military coercion will remain indefinitely low. Gokhale was referring to the idea that an Indian response to future military coercion will remain low. It is possible that it is not appropriate to judge India's future reactions and behaviour based on the country's existing capabilities.
He also cautioned that the geopolitical repercussions for China are expected to worsen in the near future.
Comments