Power and Peace: Sino-Indian Relations from 1971--2010

Scholars have typically described the Sino-Indian relationship as one characterized more by conflict and enmity than by cooperation. The forces propelling the two countries toward an adversarial relationship are presumed to be far greater than those encouraging stable ties. Many of these analysts accept the central assumption associated with the neorealist school of international relations theory—that states operate in an anarchic international system in which they must ensure their own survival. This is believed to make cooperation difficult and conflict likely between states seeking to enhance their security. Yet Sino-Indian relations broadly improved from 1971-2010, progressing from a deep freeze in the early 1970s to a largely cooperative and productive relationship in this century. This change occurred even as the neighboring countries each prioritized the accumulation of greater economic and military power.;This research investigates the causes of the stability in this relationship and provides implications for some of the key assumptions scholars use to analyze international politics. The history of almost four decades of Sino-Indian ties is reviewed in detail to identify what drives each country's approach to the other and thereby explain the overall improvement in bilateral relations, as well as several interstitial periods of increased tension. The quantity and quality of high-level meetings, military exercises, agreements, and negotiation sessions between the countries and the number and severity of incidents of diplomatic spats are all potential indicators of the state of the relationship. The stated opinions of leaders, analysts, and members of each country's foreign policy elite regarding the other state are also referenced to gauge perceptions of the bilateral relationship in each country.;The empirical record does not reflect the notion that Chinese and Indian concerns about each other's rising power in the anarchic international system rendered it difficult for them to cooperate. Instead, the increase in power political thinking in Beijing and New Delhi over the past four decades contributed to the relationship becoming more, not less, stable. India's intensified focus on policies that increased its strength reduced its sense of insecurity vis-a-vis China and mitigated the effects of the security dilemma between the countries. China responded to India's growing power in the international system by moderating policies inimical to Indian interests. Each country actively sought to limit the impact of the major differences between them. India's close relationships with the Soviet Union in the late 1970s and 1980s and then with the US after 2000 generated an incentive for Beijing to court New Delhi. China's ties to Pakistan, while a key irritant in the relationship, also encouraged India to maintain stable ties with China rather than face two enemies on it borders. The Sino-Indian relationship improved in part because the countries grew to expect one another to take moves that comported with a calculation of their power political interests. Spikes in tension between the countries were generally a result of mistrust over a border dispute that is rooted in Beijing's concerns over internal stability in restive Tibet.;The evidence from this case demonstrates that neorealism oversimplifies and mischaracterizes the mechanics of systemic, power political forces in international relations. Anarchy and states' focus on power are more benign than typically thought. A state may always have in view the potential for future conflict with another country, but at the same time that state will have an interest in seeking to prevent a lasting hostile relationship with the other. The international system does not forge lasting friendships. It does, however, enhance stability and reduce potentially conflict-causing tensions between states that one might expect to be adversaries given the assumption that they are threatened by one another's quest for power.