Thread by @naukarshah

On April 18th, we told China that we see their investment as hostile. That their money is not welcome.

Signalling a decoupling & possibly firing the first salvo without preparation.

This was some days before the unilateral aggression by China on LAC. 1/n economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/p…

The way we framed rules was very 'Modi'ish. That neighbours would need to take an approval route for investing in India. Without taking the name of China.

With that what we also conveyed that we put China and Pakistan in a similar category. As a hostile or an enemy nation. 2/n

For China, a limited skirmish with India would have always been on the table as an extension of their diplomacy. Considering the infrastructural advantage, historical disputes and distance from mainland, this was a region they could always pick to fight. 3/n

Reasons that prevented it from doing so could possibly include,
1. That IA would ensure losses to them as well.
2. Lose of access to India as a market.
3. Pushing India further to a possible US alliance. 4/n

But we removed the last 2 factors from the table ourselves.

We were already moving towards an alliance with US, as a part of the QUAD or otherwise. Of course, we had our reasons to do so with the kind of aggressive diplomacy China was having in our neighbourhood. 5/n

Then we also signalled that we are not averse to a possible decoupling of markets.

That what China sees as their domestic competence, we see as state-led economic aggression.

That we don't mind US money taking over our companies, but we won't allow Chinese investment. 6/n

Couple of other factors that must have played a part would be

1. Infrastructural gaps in the border was getting addressed in an aggressive manner.

Thus the time window for a limited aggression with certainty of a favourable outcome was getting shorter and shorter.

2. Need for China to signal to South China Sea nations that China is not averse to a fight. And that if it comes to that, those countries would be on their own.

To convey to them that US is just all talks & show of power in the South China Sea. But is not up to a fight. 8/n

And they have conveyed pretty much that.
1. To India and SCS nations that we are on our own. So, all decisions to be taken on the basis of our own capabilities.

2. To our neighbours in South Asia that they do a rethink on whom to explicitly ally with. 9/n

Despite recent mutual agreement in Moscow on a possible disengagement, we won't be in a stable equilibrium.

Their troops are still inside and their businesses still blocked. 10/n

While what we have blocked are just a few apps and investment from China, we still have tremendous amount of dependency on China when it comes to a whole host of products. 11/n

Thought process must have been that we'll have some leverage if we have something to give back when there is a disengagement or a possible de-escalation.

But not sure if this 'Cricket ban with Pak' sort of strategy will yield much here. That works from a position of strength.

For now, we need to deal with this territorial aggression with all the might that we possess. We can't tolerate an enemy soldier within our territory. Not in 2020. Not without a fight.

https://twitter.com/naukarshah/status/1273472720097800192?s=20

In the long run, we need to learn to deal competence with competence & aggression with aggression.

Not to confuse between the two or think of one as an answer to the other.

We needn't be despondent though. We are a very young nation with tremendous potential. Apna time aayega!