the other night I heard on the news that ‘maoist guerrillas’ had shot 30 odd police in Chhattisgarh.. now I had to check the map.. (and spelling).. it is rather startling if you think about it. . mmm. its between Calcutta and Bombay closer to the former.. orthadox newspaper mentions ‘8 maoist affected states’ as if they had something like swineflu.
different travellers/commentators say that there is huge social unrest throughout India, with civil wars of various intensity from the most famous in Kashmir and the standoff between Pakistan and India, to Orissa and stonethrowing among the hillbillies. that the ‘rebels’ are ‘maoist’ is interesting. they progressed to government in Nepal where I am pretty sure they weren’t described in the same terms as swineflu. they tell me that in Orissa it is basically about landrights.. (a struggle against some australian (in this instance) mining company who probably sent goons to drive them off their traditional land.) (they’ve had practice …. plenty.)
the ‘maoists’ are probably about as coordinated as the response of delhi. my guess is that no one wants to rock the boat too much while it merrily drifts down the ganga. somehow I doubt that they qualify as maoists.
prior to the 1950s the contact between India and china was on a very subjective level..( journey to the west … bodhidarma..)
it was the 1950 summit between mao and stalin that determined the future course of much of international relations between India, china and the erstwhile superpowers. mao ze dong, distinctly unimpressed with joseph stalin.. played the usa card and opened dialog with the ‘west’ to spite stalin.. while the ussr shifted its attention to India. Nehru developed along socialist, non-aligned lines. china took the way of industrializing on the heavy industry model broadly simular to japan, increasingly disassociated with ussr..and coming to favour the pakistanis… its kinda bizarre when you think about it.
that 1950 meeting was the juncture…
in some ways china has left india behind. a long way. infrastructure, literacy… the list is long. yet it is not an easy task to make such comparisons. the cultural differences are deep.
India lags in material development on the one hand but its people escaped the fate of some 70 million individuals in china who perished as a result of the peace-time policies of the communist regime. there is absolutely nothing bizarre about that.
such a lag is a measure of india’s strength not its weakness.
.
both became founded sovereign states at about the same time.. 1949/1950.. india was quick to recognise the prc.
since then there has been some border friction (aksai chan near Pakistan.) between the two and differences of opinion over tibet.. though the central concern of both states has been internal development….
in October ‘62 the pla taught the Indian army a lesson and then unilaterally withdrew. from then on sino-pakistani relations improved while prc -indian relations cooled significantly ..there has been the odd accusation from both sides of interference in domestic affairs..
they have nothing to gain from hostility. it is interesting to compare the two economies --like apples and oranges.... they have developed along different lines.
the disagreement over Tibet was settled with the trade-off of recognition of chinese sovereignty for settlement of claims to sikkim I think is how it went though I haven’t read the text.
while the teaching of the buddha struck a deep note in traditional china, maoism was never welcome in Hindustan. it maybe the reason why any deviation from orthodoxy is there branded ‘maoist rebel’.
non-agression is the key in the subject of India-china relations. * if the indians want to be aggressive they don’t have to go all the way to china.. the chinese of course have a fairly long list of options.
Posts
