'However, we must implement a tit-for-tat approach -- reciprocating their conduct with precision.'
'If they demonstrate respect, we respond accordingly. If they adopt hostile positions, we mirror that hostility with equal intensity.'
In the first part of this two-part interview, Major General G D Bakshi (retd) provides Prasanna D Zore/Rediff with a strategic assessment of how the Galwan clash in Ladakh, where twenty Indian soldiers made the supreme sacrifice, fundamentally altered China's calculus regarding India.
The veteran military strategist argues that China's aggressive posture in 2020 proved counterproductive, forcing Beijing to divert crucial resources from its Taiwan campaign to maintain expensive high-altitude deployments against India.
General Bakshi contends that China learned costly lessons from Galwan, discovering that "it is not 1962 anymore" when India demonstrated resolve by matching Chinese deployments "man-for-man, gun-for-gun, tank-for-tank".
"We now inhabit a multipolar world order characterised by rapid alignments and realignments designed to maximise national interests. If China extends genuine offers -- such as supplying rare earth materials or tunnel boring equipment for our Himalayan infrastructure -- and we can simultaneously work to dilute their relationship with Pakistan, such overtures merit serious consideration."
After the Galwan clash where twenty Indian soldiers made the supreme sacrifice, do you believe India should pursue reconciliation with China or maintain a hardline stance to safeguard sovereignty?
In international relations, there are no permanent friends and no permanent enemies -- only permanent national interests.
The entire geostrategic rationale for India-US rapprochement was predicated upon our common perceived threat from China. This understanding led to the formation of the Quad alongside the United States, Australia and Japan, representing thirty years of dedicated efforts to repair and restore Indo-US relations.
However, the stark reality is that the United States has turned implacably hostile toward India. They have imposed fifty percent tariffs on our nation while simultaneously conducting what can only be described as a diplomatic courtship with Pakistan -- a country with whom we recently engaged in active conflict during Operation Sindoor.
The Americans extracted one billion dollars from us, then refused to supply jet engines for two years, ultimately delivering merely two units when we had paid for one hundred.
Most egregiously, they orchestrated the coup (against the Sheikh Haseena government) in Bangladesh through CIA collaboration with Pakistan's ISI and Jamaat-e-Islami.
Despite their grandiose rhetoric about the 'defining partnership of the 21st century,' they systematically undermine India's interests at every opportunity.
How do you assess China's role during Operation Sindoor compared to America's actions?
During Operation Sindoor, China supplied jets and weapons to Pakistan and provided intelligence regarding India's air assets, though they refrained from direct military intervention. Significantly, China is increasingly recognising that Pakistan is exploiting their relationship as well.
We must acknowledge that we now inhabit a multipolar world order characterised by rapid alignments and realignments designed to maximise national interests.
If China extends genuine offers -- such as supplying rare earth materials or tunnel boring equipment for our Himalayan infrastructure -- and we can simultaneously work to dilute their relationship with Pakistan, such overtures merit serious consideration.
The fundamental question remains: What purpose does continued deference to the United States serve when they persistently undermine our interests? It is the Americans themselves who are compelling India toward the Russia-India-China triangle through their hostile policies.
Henry Kissinger articulated a fundamental principle that should remain a settled maxim of American foreign policy: never engage more than one major Asian power simultaneously. The three major Asian powers he referenced were Russia (parts of the former USSR then was part of Asia), India, and China.
However, President Trump's obsession with trade negotiations and tariff disputes has completely abandoned this geostrategic logic. This represents a catastrophic miscalculation that undermines decades of carefully constructed diplomatic architecture.
Has China altered its long-term strategic calculus after Galwan, or is it still pursuing the same expansionist agenda it has historically followed?
Let me be unequivocally clear: We cannot trust China. However, we must implement a tit-for-tat approach -- reciprocating their conduct with precision.
If they demonstrate respect, we respond accordingly. If they adopt hostile positions, we mirror that hostility with equal intensity.
Many observers correctly note that while America pursues certain policies toward India, China simultaneously engages in parallel behaviour. Currently, both nations face common challenges from what is becoming the principal (economic and military) hegemon -- the United States. This creates unprecedented strategic complexities requiring nuanced navigation.
Should India be concerned about China's proximity to Pakistan despite potential areas of cooperation?
Absolutely, we should maintain vigilance regarding China's relationship with Pakistan. We must endeavour to dilute that proxy relationship and persuade China to cease weapons supplies to Pakistan.
Hasn't historically, China supported Pakistan in the UN Security Council when we sought to designate Pakistani terrorists as international terrorists.
The solution lies in maintaining our mirror-image approach. We will calibrate our responses based precisely on their actions toward us. We should implement exactly what they (China) are doing to us -- if they demonstrate friendship, we reciprocate; if they choose hostility, we respond proportionally.
Does this principle of 'no permanent enemies, no permanent friends' apply to Pakistan as well?
Pakistan's case differs fundamentally. We must evaluate relationships based on concrete actions, not rhetoric. Pakistan consistently undertakes every possible measure to harm Indian interests across multiple domains. Based on their persistently hostile actions, they have established themselves as an enemy State.
China, conversely, is modifying its strategic approach. If this transformation continues, possibilities exist for improved relations. We will trust but verify -- maintaining cautious engagement while remaining prepared for any eventuality.
Many argue that India is attempting a 'reset' with China while strengthening ties with the US and Quad. How do you respond?
This characterisation is fundamentally flawed. Under President Biden's administration, the United States has systematically harmed our interests. They extracted that billion dollars while withholding jet engines, as I mentioned previously.
We anticipated change under Trump's second presidency, given his previously cordial relationship with Prime Minister Modi and India during his first term. However, it appears the Deep State has prevailed in Trump 2.0, maintaining pressure for continued confrontation with Russia.
Our initial strategic calculation was straightforward: if Trump normalised relations with Russia, we could maintain our friendship with Russia; if he remained anti-China, we could align accordingly. Instead, we have witnessed precisely the opposite approach (of the US president) over recent months.
We cannot persist in delusional thinking about being 'the greatest of friends' or this being the 'defining partnership of the 21st century' when our supposed partners consistently undermine our interests while offering sweet rhetoric.
Given recent US tariff threats and trade pressure, do you see India tilting back towards China for economic pragmatism, or will security concerns continue to outweigh trade incentives?
Security concerns will always remain paramount, but we must calibrate our responses based on the other party's actions. This is not a bipolar or unipolar world -- it is definitively multipolar.
Consider the historical precedent of the Second World War: Initially, Russia and Germany signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact (a 1939 treaty to avoid conflict and secretly divide Eastern Europe). But in 1941 Hitler broke it with Operation Barbarossa, redirecting forces from Western Europe to assault Russia, reaching Moscow's gates -- catching Stalin off guard despite intelligence warnings. These strategic reversals are inherent characteristics of multipolar world orders.
We must adapt to this reality. I will not accept hostile treatment passively or adopt a submissive posture. If someone strikes us, we will respond in precisely the same language.