Between Peace and Power: India’s Balancing Act in Its China Policy

India’s China Policy

In recent years, India’s foreign policy towards China has taken a more measured and conciliatory tone. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s public remarks emphasising dialogue and cooperation mark a shift from the tense standoff that followed the 2020 Galwan Valley clashes. On the surface, this seems like a positive step toward peace. However, behind these gestures of goodwill lies a more complex picture of rivalry, caution, and strategic calculation. This essay discusses India’s delicate balancing act between diplomacy and deterrence, and how economic priorities, geopolitical uncertainties, and historical tensions shape this relationship. The essay also argues that while conciliation may be necessary for India’s growth, it must not replace preparedness. True stability will only come from maintaining a position of strength.

Does India have more people than China?

Yes, as of 2023, India surpassed China to become the most populous country, with over 1.4 billion people. China’s population is declining due to low birth rates, while India’s continues to grow, though at a slower pace.

Is India bigger than China ?

No, China is bigger than India in terms of land area. China covers about 9.6 million square kilometers, making it the 4th largest country, while India spans around 3.28 million square kilometers, ranking 7th globally. However, India has a higher population, surpassing China in 2023, despite having a smaller geographic size.

From Conflict to Conciliation: A Diplomatic Shift

In 2020, the India-China relationship suffered a major blow when violent clashes erupted in the Galwan Valley. This marked the first deadly border skirmish between the two nations in decades, shaking diplomatic ties and stirring nationalist sentiment across India. Trust plummeted, military tensions soared, and bilateral dialogues largely stalled.

Yet, surprisingly, trade between the two nations not only continued but grew to record levels. Recently, Prime Minister Modi’s language towards China has softened, calling for dialogue and cooperation. India and China have even agreed to disengage troops from several flashpoints along the disputed border. These developments suggest a calculated attempt by India to stabilise the relationship.

But is this a real change in policy or simply a change in tone? Many observers believe it’s a bit of both. While India remains cautious, it recognises the value of reducing immediate tensions with its powerful neighbour—especially as it focuses on economic growth and domestic priorities.

Economic Development: The Driving Force Behind Conciliation

India’s foreign policy decisions are closely tied to its economic goals. With aspirations of becoming a $5 trillion economy, the Indian government is prioritising investment, infrastructure, job creation, and technological advancement. These ambitions cannot flourish amid regional instability or military conflict.

China is India’s largest trading partner. Indian industries, particularly in electronics and pharmaceuticals, are heavily reliant on Chinese imports. Although India has launched initiatives like “Atmanirbhar Bharat” (Self-Reliant India) to reduce this dependency, it cannot untangle itself from Chinese supply chains overnight.

Therefore, peace—or at least a working relationship—with China is economically sensible. By reducing the risk of another military crisis, India can better focus on pressing domestic issues like inflation, unemployment, and rural development. In this way, conciliation becomes a tool not of weakness, but of strategic pragmatism.

Strategic Autonomy: Navigating a Complex Global Landscape

India does not operate in a vacuum. Its foreign policy is influenced by global events—especially shifts in the behaviour of major powers like the United States. The return of Donald Trump to the White House has introduced fresh uncertainties. During his first term too, Trump had been unpredictable, often favouring transactional deals over long-standing alliances. This time too so far he shown a willingness to strike deals with rivals like Russia and China, sometimes at the expense of allies.

India, which has deepened ties with the United States over the last two decades, now faces an important question: Can it count on American support in a crisis, especially against China? This doubt is especially significant given that India has increasingly relied on U.S. intelligence and logistical support during border tensions.

To guard against this unpredictability, India is adopting a “multi-alignment” strategy. Instead of tying itself closely to any single country or alliance, India engages with a variety of partners—including the U.S., Japan, Australia, France, and others—on a case-by-case basis. This gives India flexibility, reduces dependence, and helps it build capabilities without compromising its strategic independence.

The Ever-Present Rivalry: Why Conciliation Isn’t Enough

Despite India’s shift in tone, the fundamental nature of its relationship with China has not changed. The rivalry is structural. Both countries are rising powers with competing interests in Asia. They dispute thousands of kilometres of border and vie for influence over regional organisations, sea routes, and smaller neighbouring countries.

China’s actions have shown that it is not afraid to use force to assert its claims. Its growing military presence along the border, partnerships with India’s traditional rival Pakistan, and assertive diplomacy all signal its intent to dominate the region. The 2020 Galwan clash was a reminder of how quickly things can escalate.

In this context, relying solely on goodwill and dialogue is risky. History has shown that peace cannot be maintained by words alone. Without the ability to deter or respond to aggression, conciliation may turn into submission.

Military Preparedness: A Critical Need

A major concern among analysts is that India’s softening approach may lead to complacency in defence. Over the past decade, India’s defence spending has declined as a percentage of both GDP and the national budget. Modernisation efforts—such as upgrading fighter jets, developing submarines, and improving border infrastructure—have moved slowly.

Building military strength is not something that can be done overnight. It requires years of planning, funding, and training. Every delay weakens India’s ability to respond if future conflicts arise.

Military power plays a key role in deterrence. It is not just about fighting wars, but preventing them. A strong military makes diplomacy more effective by giving it credibility. As the saying goes: “Speak softly, but carry a big stick.” India’s diplomatic softening should be matched with a hard edge of readiness.

Strategic Partnerships and Joint Operations

One way India is strengthening its military posture without formal alliances is through joint exercises and defence cooperation. Exercises like “Malabar”—involving the U.S., Japan, and Australia—help Indian forces practice with others and improve their capabilities. India also conducts joint operations and shares intelligence with partners in Europe and Southeast Asia.

These partnerships help India stand firm without being tied down. They send a message to China that India is not alone, while still allowing New Delhi to maintain its independent foreign policy.

Importantly, these activities also help prepare the Indian military for real-life scenarios. Practising together, sharing knowledge, and coordinating plans can significantly improve response times and operational effectiveness.

Avoiding the Trap of Over-Conciliation

There is a real danger that India’s shift in tone could be misunderstood—either at home or abroad—as a sign of weakness. Some may see it as backing down, or worse, as a willingness to accept Chinese dominance in the region.

To avoid this, Indian leaders must clearly communicate that dialogue does not mean defeat. Peace efforts must be backed by strong policy decisions, continued investments in defence, and clear red lines that cannot be crossed.

This also requires political will. Tough choices—like spending more on the military, reforming command structures, and building infrastructure in remote border areas—must be made, even if they are not popular or politically convenient. Short-term peace should not come at the cost of long-term security.

Conclusion: Stability Without Submission

Subscribe to our Youtube Channel for more Valuable Content – TheStudyias

Download the App to Subscribe to our Courses – Thestudyias

The Source’s Authority and Ownership of the Article is Claimed By THE STUDY IAS BY MANIKANT SINGH