For a long time, I have often told Indian friends: when it comes to war, your biggest enemy is not China, but the Himalayas. Crossing the towering peaks of the Himalayas, which reach over 8,000 meters in altitude, is an almost impossible task. Even if your troops somehow manage to cross, what lies ahead is the vast and harsh Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, stretching for thousands of kilometers. What kind of war could you possibly fight there? Therefore, India should neither proactively provoke conflict nor be pushed into the abyss of confrontation by others. The only viable path between China and India is peace.

We must fully understand the complexity of India’s geopolitical situation and the internal fragmentation of its values, spiritual beliefs, and decision-making logic. Only then can we apply the right remedies. In my view, China’s policy toward India must be flexible and adapted to local conditions. At a minimum, China must be prepared for three approaches: to cooperate with India in certain areas; to maintain strategic competition in others; and, if China’s interests are infringed upon, to respond resolutely.

As such, China must first clarify its own strategic objectives regarding India. At the same time, we must understand what the United States and other countries want from India, as well as India’s own motives. A purely hardline approach would make meaningful dialogue with India difficult. Moreover, we cannot sit idly by while the U.S. uses India as a pawn to contain China.

In today’s world, few topics are as challenging to study as India. Even analyzing the United States is relatively easier. After all, the U.S. has a history of only 250 years, with most of its population made up of immigrants. It is a nation that has practiced white supremacy, committed genocide against Native Americans, enslaved African people, and discriminated against Chinese and Japanese immigrants, viewing all “people of color” as second-class citizens.

The U.S. is both complex and straightforward. We can identify a few consistent historical themes: racism, white supremacy, bullying, and global hegemony. As Professor Paul Kennedy noted, America is currently in a state of “overreach” — a concept that captures its situation in a single word.
India, by contrast, is completely different. It has a five-thousand-year-old civilization, yet it has long suffered from foreign invasions and domination. Modern-day India is like a miniature United Nations, fragmented by race, skin color, social class, and the caste system. This fragmented structure is entirely different from China’s unified national model.

China is a unified, civilizational state with more than five thousand years of continuous history. Despite having 56 ethnic groups, China has a high level of national cohesion and ethnic integration. In contrast, India’s deep societal divisions, exacerbated by the caste system and cultural fragmentation, prevent a unified national consensus. For this reason, China should focus on resolving the border dispute with India once and for all, thereby laying a solid foundation for centuries of peace between the two civilizations.

Of course, when you talk to Indians, their intentions become quite clear: they believe that the so-called “Arunachal Pradesh” belongs to India; they also claim the Aksai Chin region. In addition, Indians think that China’s actions in Bhutan and Nepal infringe on their traditional sphere of influence. They even regard the entire South Asian region as within their natural domain of influence.

I believe Chinese scholars and officials should directly explain to India that what they call the “border line” was arbitrarily drawn by British colonialists with a pen and a map. China has never recognized these lines. If someone created a problem, then go settle the score with them.
The so-called McMahon Line was drawn by the British authorities at the time. If you think this line is valid, then we could draw our own line and assign the entire Ganges River basin to someone else. Would you accept that? That’s why we must remind India not to take the colonial boundaries drawn by the British too seriously.

In fact, I think China should make this clear: we do not recognize any illegal borders that were unilaterally drawn by the British colonial government of the time. It is now time to say this out loud.

Otherwise, China and India will continue to waste energy and resources on disputes over arbitrary lines drawn by the British, falling right into the trap left behind by colonialists. We must make this point absolutely clear to India: do not believe the words of the British. After all, when they ruled India, they treated Indians as second-class citizens. Do you really want to become second-class citizens again?

The British colonial government committed many immoral and illegal acts. Should these now be treated as absolute truths? If India insists on basing its border claims on lines drawn arbitrarily by colonial rulers using just pen and paper, then that is unacceptable. Only by acknowledging this premise can we begin to consider whether China and India have the wisdom to move beyond these historical entanglements.

As a Chinese person, I feel fortunate. In 1978, China and India had roughly the same economic size; in fact, India’s GDP was even larger than China’s in a few years. After the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, India had just shaken off British colonial rule.

At that time, India inherited a comprehensive railway system, a functioning civil service, and massive government infrastructure left by the British. In terms of industrialization, India led China in many areas. Yet today, China’s economy is nearly five times the size of India’s.

China now leads by a wide margin in electricity generation, steel manufacturing, automotive production, shipbuilding, aerospace, and many other key industries. Although Western analysts often group China and India together, by 2025 the two countries are fundamentally different: one is a highly industrialized and modernized China, the other is an India still plagued by underdevelopment and confusion.

Thus, I believe that in China’s dialogue with India, we must uphold the principle of equality and mutual respect. But we also need to make one thing absolutely clear: the border disputes between China and India were not caused by China. China is the victim. Nor were they caused by India, since India as a modern state didn’t exist when these lines were drawn. The culprit was Britain. If there is any historical debt, let us settle it with the British together. Then, and only then, can we jointly reject the dirty, unreasonable, and illegal colonial legacies and rebuild the China-India relationship on solid ground.

This brings me to the topic of China’s southern Tibet region. Every time this issue is mentioned, it breaks our hearts. The customs there are identical to those in Tibet proper. Locals practice Tibetan Buddhism, and there are numerous temples and monks. That land naturally belongs to Tibet. If you debate with the British, they may claim Tibet never belonged to China. But in fact, Tibet became a part of China more than 800 years ago.

Historically, Britain used various means to seize land and wealth, including the illegal drawing of the McMahon Line. What does this have to do with China-India relations? China will never accept such actions, and India should not either. My recommendation is that China and India have reached a new stage. From today, we should place all these issues openly on the table, discard the McMahon Line, and draw a new, clear boundary.
We should investigate the origins of the native population in southern Tibet, their cultural and historical roots, and then determine whether the British-drawn line holds any legitimacy at all.

To resolve China-India issues, we must confront the historical injustices. When the British ruled India, they treated Indians as second-class citizens. At the same time, they drew the so-called McMahon Line without China’s participation or consent. Why, then, should today’s India treat this line as sacred?
If Indians are willing to become second-class citizens again, then we can continue discussing the McMahon Line. But it is contradictory to both criticize British colonialism and uphold colonial-era boundaries as sacred. That is neither realistic nor acceptable.

Yet, India’s erratic and high-frequency shifts on key strategic matters may ironically present China with a rare opportunity. China and India are neighbors—this is an unchangeable fact. At present, China’s comprehensive national strength is about five times that of India, and we should recognize and make use of this advantage.

Russia has its own calculations with India; so do the United States, Europe, and Japan. China must be clear-eyed: in the long run, our approach to India should not be limited to present-day circumstances. India has a civilization stretching back 4,000 to 5,000 years, though it has often been divided, occupied, or dismembered by stronger powers. In dealing with India, China should uphold the principles of equality while also demonstrating the confidence and wisdom needed to resolve long-standing historical disputes.

We should pay close attention to India’s relationships with Russia, the U.S., Japan, and Europe, and to the global reach of its soft power. In fact, if you go to Africa, you’ll see Indian communities everywhere. Visit cities in the Middle East, and you’ll see the same. The same goes for Canada, where Indians are everywhere. In Fiji, over half the population is of Indian descent. Many Caribbean countries have significant Indian populations as well.
Across the world, Indians serve as presidents, prime ministers, scientists, and in other influential roles. India’s population is still growing, while China’s population is declining and aging at an accelerating pace. Therefore, in discussing China-India relations, we must take a long-term view—looking 50, 100, even 500 years into the future.

The China-India issue must not be dragged out any further. The longer we delay, the greater the potential risk. While China still maintains significant advantages in military, political, and economic power, we must seize this moment to resolve the issue once and for all, with wisdom, foresight, and courage.

Editor: LQQ