Though
I have written about this many times, it was more of an incoherent set of
comments in response to something else.
Every
country has got it’s own philosophy of governance. An older civilization which
has stood the test of time and which has been ruled always in the same way for
ages is not going to change that easily. Even if there is a blip, it is but
natural, with passage of time, these countries will tend to move towards their
natural state. The question is, is there any such natural state in the modern
world?
Let’s
take the two main points of focus in Asia – China and India. China
traditionally follows something called a Mandala System. Mandala in Sanskrit
means a circle. The system works like this. China is the big circle. There are
some neighbouring entities for China like Korea, Tibet, Mongolia, Vietnam,
Manchuria and others. Then, there is another level of smaller circles for these
second level circles – Ladakh, Bhutan, Sikkim etc. Anything lesser than that,
though possible(like Zanskar), is not that practical enough.
The
second level circles are such placed geographically that they can’t interact
with any other country. Same goes for the third. Now, how does this model work?
China, by being the bigger circle, linking all the smaller circle offers it
free access to all the second level circles. A Tibetian can go and work/trade
in Korea, a Korean can serve as a part of Chinese imperial Army in Vietnam.
But, China will never interfere in the internal policies of any of these
smaller circles. In case, say, Tibet is facing an invasion, China doesn’t send
an army. It’s Tibet which will fight the war. Only if Tibet says I need help,
China will pitch in. For a war in Tibet, China doesn’t order Korea or Mongolia
to send troops. Tibet can ask, but China doesn’t. Once the war is won, China
will simply go back – it won’t stay and dictate policies. In return, China asks
paper vassalage. So, what benefit China has got? Markets for it’s produce and
extra military depth. What has the vassals got? A free market and a master who
doesn’t bother about the internal independence. The vassals are more advantaged
than the master and they will be in eternal gratitude for that – they
voluntarily accept the position of a vassal. Take, for example, Japanese
invasion of Korea in 1500s. Korea tried to beat back the invasion. It failed
and China had to come to correct the situation. And, China simply went back.
The story changed after 1750 where Qing
China decided to directly annex these vassals. This went on and off –
when the centre was weak, the vassal got independent. The situation is this.
Qing doesn’t know the way of life of Tibet. It doesn’t know how to rule the
people and what endears them to the Tibetians. This bondage, in return,
resulted in rebellion against China. For something which China is voluntarily
getting, it is expending tremendous energy to enforce it through the use of
force – there are popular rebellions, there is army highhandedness, there are
policies which people didn’t like. But, when China withdrew from Tibet, the
status quo was reestablished.
This
is the situation China is in today. It is forcibly attempting to control entities
which voluntarily follow China. And to maintain this façade, China needs a
strong centre. It needs to project itself as a street bully whom everyone
prefers not to approach. It is the same reason why China is acting such
belligerent. It needs to project that it is strong and can never afford a war
which can impact this status quo.
What
is Indian model, then? India is not a single country – there are always small
kingdoms which are out of reach of a strong centre which theoretically
represented India. This centre, as time progresses, will absorb some
independent kingdoms which flexed it’s muscles after the last round of chaos
which gave this new centre to form(to make more sense, take it something like,
Lodhis came strong, they wilted and were taken down by the Mughals. There were
rebellions, which the Mughals gradually suppressed) – some of these were
absorbed into the royal lands and the rest, allowed to govern on their own, but
all of them are governors, not vassals. He may be a governor appointed by the
ruler in the centre or a hereditary king, but he is just a governor. He has to
maintain an army according to his stature and will be summoned to fight a war
anywhere. Note that it’s not his army, but the central army garrisoned at a
location. There is no Jaipur Army, there is no Orchcha army, it’s always Mughal
Army. It’s that Mughal army which fights for everyone.
It
is interesting to note that India is still following this model of governance –
only that, there are no hereditary governors.
The
most important point of this model is, both the countries ruled the world as
economic superpowers when they were in their traditional model of governance.
China is not following it’s model while India is, to some extent. What is the
problem with China? It’s wasting it’s energy trying to control entities which
it need not to. And going by the fact that China is a sea oriented economy and
with wealth concentration solely on the coast and the gap increasing by the
day, if spending too much money on military posturing, which will increase with
India’s belligerence is going to widen the gap, eventually ripping the country
apart. What’s the problem with India? By frequent change in policy decisions,
there is no stability in approach. I don’t say democracy is wrong. But,
decoupling economic policy making and populism will reduce the fickleness in
finalizing the minutiae of the long term policy decision.
What
is the natural state of things?
1.
The realization that there is no need of any market
outside India-China-Iran historic belt – they themselves hold two thirds of the
world population.
2.
The acceptance of the fact that the independence of
entities like Tibet or Chinese Turkestan is inconsequential
3.
Open borders and an East Asian Free Trade Zone.
One
of the greatest challenges for this to happen, which will happen for sure, is
the nuisance of Pakistan. Where does Pakistan stand in this? Pakistan cannot
survive on it’s own and needs life support. First it was America, now, it’s
China. But, is it such a serious problem is what we need to look into.
No comments:
Post a Comment