BY EDWARD THEOPHILUS

The conflict between India and China had not been reported in extended history as we understood, and it recorded in the current era after the independence in 1947, why was an unending conflict originated was also a difficult question to answer, and whether it will be ended soon or later is a vital matter for both countries. The experience of the international arena since the cold war provoked the relationship between India and China. Many analysts doubt the reason for the antagonism and contributory factors to originate between the two countries. Outsiders of the Sino-Indian region could read that the Tibet uprising and granting asylum to Dalai Lama by India would have originated the difference between the two countries. What was the major reason to grant political asylum to Dalai Lama by India was a complicated issue that should be critically analysed by interested personnel.

Dalai Lama was a spiritual leader of Tibet Buddhism, and China has refused to accept the leadership of Dalai Lama, whose policies are related to religion and political administration. The communist policies of China may have contradicted the philosophy of Dalai Lama and the international operations of Dalai Lama show he is the peaceful and attractive orator who talks about secular matters attractive way and indirectly he does international politics against China.   

When the conflict was cradled, the answer to the question showed simple, howbeit was entrained after 1959, and why it has been continuing is a tough question to answer, but from the point of view of the Sino side it is not a simple matter. Many international power blocs are reluctant to talk about the issue and policies implemented, showing that they don’t know about the issue. The common practice is when a conflict incurred between two countries, the UNO intervene and come to an agreement between two countries and settle the problem, however, when the original armed conflict incurred in 1962, China was not a member of the UNO and it could assume that the situation existed may have contributed to a long-term problem between the two countries. After entering China to the UNO and gaining VETO power, the problem should have been solved as the conflict concerned with many surrounding countries.  

According to published literature, there were no strong hints to explain the difference between China and India. China followed communism that had not been strong respect for religious philosophies and it would have been the influential factor for continuing the problem. The international power blocs may have been indirectly influencing both sides. The recorded history about conflicts between China and India suggested that a lack of international authority with the membership of the UN would have the biggest weakness to continue the problem. There might exist written documents concerning the problem, but researchers had no opportunities to read them.

It is possible to assume that China and India had maintained peace between the two countries despite conflicts that would have incurred and not been recorded for historians’ analysis in later periods. During the early Communist era, the disagreement had and Russia was with the side of India and supplied weapons to it, disregarding the philosophical unity between Russia and China. India was a market for weapons in Russia and the relationship was used to gain weapons by India. People in the region know that Russia advised India to play a police role in the Indian ocean despite the proposal of a Peace Zone by Sri Lanka. When laterally thinking the uniting of South Indian, China and Russia would be an excellent market for international trade and political differences between these countries have prevented the opportunity.  

When logically thinking, it is easy to assume that the conflict between India and China is a hegemony-related problem than any other. The south Indian region was a united country with India, and the hegemony of India was challenged by Chinese actions that were a displeased matter to India. The best lesson to be learned by Sri Lanka is when a small country has no economic power, that country cannot go over the power giants and needs to learn how to live peacefully like small countries around Russia. The best example was given by Mr.J.R.Jayawardane, the Indo-Lanka agreement in 1987 was a way of learning to live without surrendering to India. International analysts showed that after the July riots in 1983 Ms.Indira Gandhi wanted to take over Sri Lanka, notwithstanding the intention of Ms.Gandhi, her advisors found India cannot find a regime to control the country despite the intention there a population of over 90% of Sri Lanka which was against the Indian intention.  

Potential conflict between China and India was prevented by the British government during the colonial era, as many analysts assumed, the British government did not want to engage in a war with China, and such conflicts would have badly affected the relationship between China and UK. The British administration before the independence in 1947 did not promote anti-Chinese attitudes in the colony in support of Indian people and the UK had a concern about Hong Kong which was a part of China.

The UK was a small country with a lower population, and China was a large country with massive human resources. The other vital aspect that should keep in mind is that the British government did not want to take its war with China on account of a colony’s problem.  The colonial history indicates that colonial countries had been acquired by the UK by tactical agreements rather than embarking on expensive wars. For example, the Kandyan Kingdom of Sri Lanka had been acquired by giving up armed struggle and manipulating the Kandyan Convention, which was written in an unknown language to Sinhalese.  The attitudes of Indians and Chinese were nonidentical and associated with the human culture of the areas located. In this situation, it is quite possible to assume that Sino-Indian conflicts were eluded by British rule.

The role played by India after the independence led to a severe conflict based on the demarcation between the two countries and early 1960s, there was an armed conflict between India and China. The war generated considerable damage to India. Sri Lanka intervened on behalf of both countries to cease the armed struggle, but it did not create a long-term wave of peace between the two countries. However, the intervention of Sri Lanka halting the armed struggle between India and China was a historical gesture between India and China, as well as a reflection of the neutral international relationship of Sri Lanka with neighbouring countries.

Economic activities of China have been positively changed and promoted by Western nations as the administration Deng Shia-o Peng helped the Western countries to expand the market and China to change the attitudes about market economic system becoming the most favoured Nation of the USA during the regime of Bill Clinton, based on many reasons that were economic and security related.

Sri Lanka has become a victim of the Sino-Indian conflict and has been in a difficult situation developing economic policies. Sri Lanka needs quick attention to the foreign exchange shortage problem. In addition, Sri Lanka needs to attract foreign direct investment and supports for product quality improvement. For these two areas, Chinese supports are crucial and Indian attitudes show it wants to take over current Sri Lanka’s successful development programs and some analysts question the investments of Adani are helping Sri Lanka or an attempt to maintain Indian hegemony over Sri Lanka. When the policymakers associate with Chinese and Indian investors, they have critical abilities to negotiate what Sri Lanka expects.

China was an influential country and has trillions of GDP, of which a small portion could spend as economic aids which are not grants but support for generating foreign exchange, employment, and much economic support to Sri Lanka. After the Korean War in the 1950s, China supported Sri Lanka through the Rice-Rubber pact, the economic impact of the pact was tremendous and economic advisors supported by the Western nations (Prof Dudley Seers) criticised the pact presenting a market-related argument stating that Sri Lanka could have purchased rice at a lower price and sell rubber at a higher price in the open market if there wasn’t pact between Sri Lanka and China.

After the Rice-Rubber Pact, China helped Sri Lanka frequently, India objected to these Chinese bits of help, and frequently, India objected to Chinese supports other countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal. The major argument of India was the Chinese aids would threaten the security of India, but how foreign aids would denounce the security of India has not been clearly explained. Chinese supports to these South Asian countries does not promote taking weapons against India and most probably it restricts the marketability of Indian goods and services. Truly, it is an economic threat, but not a security threat. The economic relationship between Western countries and China also may be a threat to India, but it is not expressed because it might be a joke among educated people.  

When the Finance Minister, Mr. Basil Rajapaksa visited recently India, it has reported that India agreed support Sri Lanka to purchase Indian products and the credit facilities could be used only to purchase goods and services of Indian origin.

Hegemony is in this world since the beginning and neither Sri Lanka nor India nor China could stop hegemony that should not use for economic activities of people.