Present-day China does not seem to fully endorse its past patterns and those who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it

In international politics, one has to be watchful about learning lessons from history. Else, in the words of Winston Churchill, “Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.” This applies to China more than ever as it is responding to global criticism over the pandemic with aggressive posturing; by precipitating a deeper crisis in Hong Kong and a stand-off with India at the border. The same logic applies to contemporary global politics amid the outbreak and its reshaping discourses in a post-Covid world, as many experts are putting it.

Across the globe, mistrust among allies is high, cooperation remains non-existent and many countries seem inclined to go their own nationalist way. While the nature of the pandemic is certainly global, the fight against the crisis is being fought on several loosely-tied and fragmented unilateral fronts.

I gather this argument from some classical readings into the “practices and policies” pursued by the supreme Chinese leadership in the past, led by Chairman Mao. This is well explained in The China Questions. Basically, in 1912, a young Mao was gifted a book by his teacher that became the “guiding thought” for his life and politics. From the Long March in 1934 to his guerrilla war days in Yanan, Mao kept the book by his side and frequently referred to the same during his conversations with party officials.

The book titled, Comprehensive Mirror in Aid of Governance, was published in 1084 and was edited by Sima Guang. He was a Chinese historian, intellectual and politician in the Northern Song dynasty. The book was an insightful account of Chinese history and lessons on governance from great Chinese emperors. Mao’s obsession with the book was primarily cultivated by the core challenge, which many rulers face in history: How to stay in power?

Contemporary China is very different from the ancient one. It is no more a traditional agrarian, social economy and is a well-developed modern State with “high economic prowess” backed by big urban centres, high production and manufacturing bases, rapid connectivity and a growing knowledge economy. The China Model by Daniel Bell captures this economic transformation in the last four decades. Once a “secluded empire”, China is now the world’s largest exporter and second-largest destination for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Given the context, the book that Mao cherished holds some key lessons for the present ruling establishment in China. The first lesson is that no dynasty can rule forever. The once-powerful Tang regime in China (618-987) had to come to an end after 289 years. Nevertheless, while the “right to be ruled” simply rests with Chinese citizens, history does hold some lessons for them on the subject. The erosion of the long-practiced system of “collective leadership” and “power consolidation” in present-day China, does face harder times to come.

The second lesson states that elite rebellion is the most important cause of the dynastic fall. The political elite has both the knowledge and resources to challenge the system. In the name of promoting the “rule of law”, since 2012 the Communist Party of China (CPC)  leadership has been running an “anti-graft campaign” targetting high-level party and military officials, some business and State-owned enterprises (SOEs) heads on account of corruption.

The campaign has found over 1.5 million Government officials guilty of a variety of corruption-related charges, also drawing political benefit for the presidency but dissuading a large section of political elite in China.

The third lesson holds the view that emperors who designate loyal and competent successors are likely to be successful. In Indian history, too, many conflicts arose as incumbent rulers failed to address the question of succession. In the present situation, it remains unclear who will succeed in the current presidency in China. Most certainly, the way they handle this subject shall be a “positive indicator” regarding the future political landscape of China.

The pandemic, the ongoing US-China trade war and the playing up of “hegemonic politics” around the crisis is weakening the foundations of global humanitarian relief works and the role of key international agencies. At the time, when the idea of “developmental partnership” as pushed forward by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in relation to China was gathering acceptance and the “Wuhan Spirit” was positively reshaping bilateral discourse, the present stand-off on the border and frequent cases of Chinese incursions across the Line of Actual Control are severely affecting mutual ties between both the countries.

By unapologetically absolving itself from the responsibility of the outbreak and increasing the military build-up across the Indian border and the South China Sea, China seems to be shifting to “more assertive politics.” This not only limits the Chinese “soft power” appeal and its gains from sustained economic growth but proves to be a “judgment in a hurry” by the Chinese leadership which is failing to learn lessons from its own past and is drawing global attention on bleak diplomatic moves.

From AB Vajpayee’s visit to China in 1979 to the Chennai informal summit in 2019 under Modi, the series of Chinese endeavours at the border does nothing except “raise the trust deficit” in India-China relations.

(Writer: Abhishek Pratap Singh; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

Present-day China does not seem to fully endorse its past patterns and those who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it

In international politics, one has to be watchful about learning lessons from history. Else, in the words of Winston Churchill, “Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.” This applies to China more than ever as it is responding to global criticism over the pandemic with aggressive posturing; by precipitating a deeper crisis in Hong Kong and a stand-off with India at the border. The same logic applies to contemporary global politics amid the outbreak and its reshaping discourses in a post-Covid world, as many experts are putting it.

Across the globe, mistrust among allies is high, cooperation remains non-existent and many countries seem inclined to go their own nationalist way. While the nature of the pandemic is certainly global, the fight against the crisis is being fought on several loosely-tied and fragmented unilateral fronts.

I gather this argument from some classical readings into the “practices and policies” pursued by the supreme Chinese leadership in the past, led by Chairman Mao. This is well explained in The China Questions. Basically, in 1912, a young Mao was gifted a book by his teacher that became the “guiding thought” for his life and politics. From the Long March in 1934 to his guerrilla war days in Yanan, Mao kept the book by his side and frequently referred to the same during his conversations with party officials.

The book titled, Comprehensive Mirror in Aid of Governance, was published in 1084 and was edited by Sima Guang. He was a Chinese historian, intellectual and politician in the Northern Song dynasty. The book was an insightful account of Chinese history and lessons on governance from great Chinese emperors. Mao’s obsession with the book was primarily cultivated by the core challenge, which many rulers face in history: How to stay in power?

Contemporary China is very different from the ancient one. It is no more a traditional agrarian, social economy and is a well-developed modern State with “high economic prowess” backed by big urban centres, high production and manufacturing bases, rapid connectivity and a growing knowledge economy. The China Model by Daniel Bell captures this economic transformation in the last four decades. Once a “secluded empire”, China is now the world’s largest exporter and second-largest destination for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Given the context, the book that Mao cherished holds some key lessons for the present ruling establishment in China. The first lesson is that no dynasty can rule forever. The once-powerful Tang regime in China (618-987) had to come to an end after 289 years. Nevertheless, while the “right to be ruled” simply rests with Chinese citizens, history does hold some lessons for them on the subject. The erosion of the long-practiced system of “collective leadership” and “power consolidation” in present-day China, does face harder times to come.

The second lesson states that elite rebellion is the most important cause of the dynastic fall. The political elite has both the knowledge and resources to challenge the system. In the name of promoting the “rule of law”, since 2012 the Communist Party of China (CPC)  leadership has been running an “anti-graft campaign” targetting high-level party and military officials, some business and State-owned enterprises (SOEs) heads on account of corruption.

The campaign has found over 1.5 million Government officials guilty of a variety of corruption-related charges, also drawing political benefit for the presidency but dissuading a large section of political elite in China.

The third lesson holds the view that emperors who designate loyal and competent successors are likely to be successful. In Indian history, too, many conflicts arose as incumbent rulers failed to address the question of succession. In the present situation, it remains unclear who will succeed in the current presidency in China. Most certainly, the way they handle this subject shall be a “positive indicator” regarding the future political landscape of China.

The pandemic, the ongoing US-China trade war and the playing up of “hegemonic politics” around the crisis is weakening the foundations of global humanitarian relief works and the role of key international agencies. At the time, when the idea of “developmental partnership” as pushed forward by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in relation to China was gathering acceptance and the “Wuhan Spirit” was positively reshaping bilateral discourse, the present stand-off on the border and frequent cases of Chinese incursions across the Line of Actual Control are severely affecting mutual ties between both the countries.

By unapologetically absolving itself from the responsibility of the outbreak and increasing the military build-up across the Indian border and the South China Sea, China seems to be shifting to “more assertive politics.” This not only limits the Chinese “soft power” appeal and its gains from sustained economic growth but proves to be a “judgment in a hurry” by the Chinese leadership which is failing to learn lessons from its own past and is drawing global attention on bleak diplomatic moves.

From AB Vajpayee’s visit to China in 1979 to the Chennai informal summit in 2019 under Modi, the series of Chinese endeavours at the border does nothing except “raise the trust deficit” in India-China relations.

(Writer: Abhishek Pratap Singh; Courtesy: The Pioneer)