The Doklam Standoff(from June 18,2017 to August 28,2017)came to an abrupt end with the arrival of the Tanabata festival,but the nominal pause of the standoff does not mean the cause that triggered the standoff has vanished.In fact,the 72-day standoff had a significant impact on Sino-Indian relations with long-term negative effects,since it signifies that Sino-Indian relations have entered a new phase of increasingly obvious structural conflict.It seems that the homogeneity and complementarity of their bilateral relations have been greatly weakened.In order to maintain stable Sino-Indian relations,both sides need to make earnest efforts to eradicate negative influences and improve Sino-Indian relations.

The Doklam Standoff was a large-scale military deployment between China and India,the first since 1987.The crisis signifies the distrust between the two countries that led to an outburst as a result of the accumulating conflicts over the past two years.The Doklam Standoff also shows that Sino-Indian relations have transitioned from the former win-win cooperation to an overemphasis of each other’s security,especially India’s need for precaution against China surpassing that of cooperation with China.Because of this,at the BRICS Summit in Xiamen,Prime Minister Modi did not give a direct response when President Xi Jinping pointed out that India should view China’s development correctly and rationally.With the development of the two adjacent great powers,the structural conflict between China and India has become increasingly obvious.If Sino-Indian relations cannot stay on the track of expanding commonality,focusing on cooperation and seeking mutual development,similar crises such as the Doklam Standoff will reoccur.That is the reason why China Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that Sino-Indian relations should not be derailed,confronted or out of control.1On September 7,2017,Wang Yi,Chinese Foreign Minister and Krishna Bahadur Mahara,Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Nepal jointly met the press in Beijing after their talks.Wang Yi said both India and China should earnestly implement the consensus of their two national leaders to ensure no derailing,no confrontation,or no out of control,and guarantee the healthy and stable development of Sino-Indian relations.

A detailed analysis of India’s main motivation for the Doklam Standoff and the roots of its strategic culture will help us to better understand the fundamental reason for India’s precaution against and conflict with China,and will help us find an effective strategy to stabilize Sino-Indian relations.

India’s Various Purposes to Trigger the Doklam Standoff

To a large extent,the Doklam Standoff reflects that Indian policy-makers have an obsession with absolute security as well as suspicion and fear toward China.In the final analysis,it is a habit in a zero-sum game to seek absolute security.For this reason,China’s infrastructure construction aims to improve the living conditions of border military and civilians and to guard the borders,but India imagines it as a strategic channel for China’s military to invade South Asia or even threaten India’s territorial integrity.The logic of the Modi Administration’s self-threatening conjecture toward China’s road construction in Doklam is precisely the same as that of its public doubt or opposition to China’s Belt and Road Initiative.The Modi Administration holds the opinion that all these measures taken by China are intended to squeeze or even sabotage India’s geopolitical space,thus India does not feel comfortable until it responds with tough counter measures.As for Prime Minister Modi,who has a solid domestic political foundation,a good relationship with many political leaders in international communities and quite an adventurous spirit,direct confrontation with China has become a convenient strategy to maintain and pursue India’s absolute security.The Doklam Standoff is the latest evidence that suggests the Modi Administration maintains a tough foreign policy toward China.To be more specific,the Modi Administration triggered the Doklam Standoff to accomplish four objectives,outlined below.

Ⅰ.To deter China from implementing road construction in Doklam

In order to achieve this goal,India adopted three strategies.First,India tried to stop China’s reasonable construction of border defense infrastructure under the guise of advocating for justice for Bhutan at the so-called invitation of the Royal Bhutan Army.Since India and Bhutan still maintain an outdated relationship of protectorate state and protected state,India can have close consultations with Bhutan at any time based on the unequal Treaty of Friendship to advocate for Bhutan’s interest,and more importantly advocate for India’s interest,especially in those areas considered threatening to India’s strategic security.To a large extent,Bhutan’s value to India is to provide convenience to India in safeguarding New Delhi’s own strategic interest.This is the strategy that India adopted last summer.Second,India tried to enlarge the conflict so as to find a“reasonable”excuse for itself to interfere.This method consisted of abandoning the early agreement of the first article in the Convention between Great Britain and China Relating to Sikkim and Tibet(1890),and aimed to redefine the borderline of the Sikkim section of the China-India border among the three countries.However,in order to make India’s occupation of Sikkim comply with the 1890 treaty,India thought that it was better to make the adjustment involve only a small section of the border between Sikkim and Tibetan Doklam,that is the approximately 8-mile borderline from Mount Gipmochi to Batang La,with the purpose of converting Doklam,which is an undisputed area between China and Bhutan from the perspective of law and reality,into a disputed area among China,India and Bhutan in the future.In this way,India could interfere in China’s construction of border infrastructure without falling under the pretext of Bhutan.Third,India occupied Doklam through a small-scale military action to eradicate the possibility of China building any infrastructure in Doklam.All the three strategies mean that India will be confrontational or will even take risky military action.The great powers cannot solve these differences through military force,which would only lead to more differences or even bring about serious consequences that could influence the overall situation.

Ⅱ.To maintain and consolidate India’s absolute security,that is to eradicate potential threats in the Siliguri Corridor

The Siliguri Corridor,or Chicken’s Neck,is a small stretch of land that connects India’s northeastern states to the rest of the India with Nepal and Bangladesh lying on either side of the corridor and the narrowest part measuring only 22 kilometers.The railways and roads that connect the northeastern states and the rest of India are all jammed in this narrow region.Ethnic separatist movements have always been active in India’s northeastern states,such as the United Liberation Front of Assam,which even existed prior to the independence of India.Since its independence,India has been worried that its northeastern states will separate from India and become independent.In addition,China still claims the territory of South Tibet(India names it Arunachal Pradesh and is illegally occupied by India),which makes India worried that the disputed region will be resumed by China.Whether it is the issue of separatist movements in northeastern India,or the border dispute between China and India,or the Chicken Neck dilemma of India,all are negative consequences left to India or China by Britain’s long-term colonization.Among these problems,the Chicken Neck dilemma is just like India’s birthmark,which is an issue of geo-political structure.Unless the borderlines among these countries in this region change radically,the Chicken Neck dilemma will always be the Sword of Damocles for India,who will not feel at ease until that sword is removed.As a matter of fact,India has always been working hard to alleviate the Chicken Neck dilemma by signing the Treaty of Friendship with Nepal,Sikkim and other countries close to Himalaya respectively so as to dominate the internal and foreign policies of those countries,especially their security policies.India erased its major fear that Pakistan,India’s hereditary enemy,would cut off the Chicken Neck by supporting Bangladesh’s independence(between 1947 and 1971 it was East Pakistan)during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.To some extent,India expanded its protection of the Chicken Neck by annexing Sikkim.What is more important,over the past half century,India has been deploying military forces on the frontier of the Siliguri Corridor,increasing fortifications along India’s borders so as to have overwhelming advantages in regard to border infrastructure and fortifications over China.Some fortifications were built on the borderline and India even crossed the borderline and built fortifications on China’s territory of Doklam while China’s military patrol lane was still over 100 meters away from Sino-India border.This is one of the reasons why India has great confidence in responding to China’s road construction in Doklam with military troops.1Other reasons that made India confident in triggering the Doklam Standoff included:India overestimated that it would have lots of support from the international community(Sushma Swaraj,India Foreign Minister,said at the parliament on July 20,2017 with great confidence that all countries supported India on this issue)and over-believed that China would not rush into escalation(thinking that China’s military reform was not complete,the BRICS Summit was the largest diplomatic event and the 19th CPC National Congress would be held in autumn).

The development of modern science and technology,especially military science and technology,aggravates the Chicken Neck syndrome among India’s ruling elites and strategist circle.In their view,Mount Gipmochi is located on the borderlines of the three countries,and the direct distance between it and the north of Siliguri Corridor is only about 100 kilometers.Once China’s advanced rocket artillery is deployed here,they could easily destroy the main transportation artery in the Siliguri Corridor.Another more irritating concern is that in terms of elevation,Mount Gipmochi is the commanding high ground from which the elevation decreases southward.Based on the formula of curvature of the earth and sight distance,the observing equipment placed on Mount Gipmochi could easily monitor the Gangetic Plains with an average elevation of 100 meters 225 kilometers away,and the Siliguri Corridor is also within range of clearly being monitored,since the north-most elevation is 664 meters,while the south-most is 122 meters.Indians worry that occupying a commanding position will reveal any military deployment between northeastern India and other parts of India.This security fear based on so-called scientific reasoning has become the fundamental impetus for the Indian elites and strategist circle to overreact to China’s infrastructure construction.

However,this fear is just a presumption,and it is absurd without standing scrutiny.On the one hand,Doklam is one of the largest plains in Yadong,but it is small in size with a land area of 89 square kilometers.It is wedged between Sikkim and Bhutan,India’s protectorate,and is surrounded by the Indian mountain strike corps deployed on the frontier.Considering that China’s regional supply chain is greatly hindered by the terrains of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau,it is very difficult for China to maintain strong military deployment in such a narrow space as Doklam.Once military conflicts or war break out,any of China’s military deployment on the frontier of Doklam is vulnerable to saturated attack and instant destruction by the Indian army.In fact,it is quite difficult for China to reverse this structural terrain disadvantage by strengthening its frontier military deployment.Thus,the purpose of China’s frontier infrastructure construction in Doklam is really to secure the border and improve the living conditions of the local army and civilians.The main reason for the road construction in Doklam is that the Chinese government is fulfilling its legitimate and normal sovereign interests instead of trying to compete with India’s military in the narrow region.On the other hand,the development of science and technology,especially the continuous development and application of satellite navigation systems,UAV aerial reconnaissance technology and middle-and long-range attack weapon systems,combined with the continuous development of inland infrastructure conducive to long-range　military　deploymentresults　in　unnecessary　short-range reinforcement of military deployments at the border frontier.Considering the fact that the borderline of the Sikkim section between China and India has long been relatively clear and definite,China has no intention of engaging in large-scale border construction in this border region.This is also the subjective reason why China’s border infrastructure construction has lagged behind India in the Doklam region for a long time.

Therefore,as a matter of fact,India’s Chicken Neck dilemma in the Siliguri Corridor has nothing to do with China’s border infrastructure construction in Doklam.It depends on the development and stability of India’s northeastern region,on the political decisions to peacefully resolve the border issue between China and India,on the friendly relationship and stability between China and India,and finally on the construction of strategic mutual trust.However,it is an undoubtedly fact that the Doklam Standoff aggravates strategic distrust between China and India.As a matter of fact,Doklam’s value to Bhutan is that it is an ideal place for its herdsmen to pasture,while its value to China is that it is a frontier region where China needs to cover and strengthen its sovereign rights and interests.In view of this,there is a huge space for win-win cooperation between China and Bhutan.Yet,if India must regard Doklam as a strategic place that threatens its territorial integrity and sovereign interests,it is quite difficult to achieve a space for cooperation among the three countries.

If the Mandala theory of diplomacy and security is deeply analyzed,we can see that it is closely related to the idea of Brahmin supremacy of the Indian ruling elites.

Likewise,the Mandala theory apparently has a profound effect on India’s policy toward China.During the Cold War,India collaborated with the Soviet Union to counter balance China.Currently,India has strategic cooperation with the United States and Japan to guard against China.All these policies reflect the primary spirit of the Mandela theory that is relying upon a distant strong country to balance a nearby danger.When it comes to the Doklam Standoff,India sent troops at the so-called invitation of the Royal Bhutan Army.This also reflects in the Mandala theory.The countries along India’s borders either become indispensable parts of India’s strategic unity or they become targets to strike or check in accordance with the Mandala theory.

Ⅲ.To maintain India’s order in SouthAsia

“大河三部曲”以成都和四川为背景写到了1984年甲午中日战争到1911年星海革命的若干重大历史事件，生动了再现我国从封建专制迈向现代文明这一历史巨变的艰难过程。而女性是最早的接受者和最突出的表现者。

Over the last few years,in the face of China’s continuously expanding influence,India’s strategist circle and policy makers have not taken into account win-win cooperation and common progress,nor have they taken into account the fact that the stability and development of South Asia is closely related to the stability and development of China,especially related to the western frontier regions of China.Instead,against the global trend,they have obstructed the interconnection plan,which followed the global trend,thinking of it as a zero-sum game.Over the last several years,in order to obstruct and interfere with their neighbors’pace in the Belt and Road Initiative in South Asia,the Modi Administration suppressed its neighbors’desire and need to autonomously develop relations with China.These measures included disturbing the leftest government in Nepal due to its cooperative policies toward China from September 2015 onward,splitting and subverting the pro-China government of Sri Lanka from December 2014 to January 2015,brutally interfering in Bhutan’s plan to promote border negotiations and build normal relations with China,and condemning the construction of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor in different public venues by execusing CPEL running through disputed Kashmir region.India far exceeded its own responsibilities and meddled in the affairs of other countries,and directly conflicted with China,with the purpose of dragging Bhutan into the conflict to try to delay or even to prevent normalized relations between China and Bhutan.It is self-evident that India caused the crisis in Doklam as a warning sign to other small countries in the region,and it tried to dominate other countries by initiating the conflict so as to prolong India’s monopolized order in South Asia.In one word,India still thinks that Bhutan’s protectorate status is an important symbol of its order in South Asia,even though the unequal relations among these counties are incompatible with the current global theme,which is peaceful development and win-win cooperation.

Since the Modi Administration came into power,some countries in South Asia were talking more friendly and cooperative policies to ward China,which were against New Delhi’s wishes.The Nepalese government signed a Memorandum of Understanding(MoU)for the Belt and Road Initiative with China.The former government of Sri Lanka even allowed one of China’s submarines to stop in its port.The Maldives signed FTA with China without the consultation with New Delhi.And even Bhutan,India’s protectorate,refused to join the South Asia Subregional Economic Cooperation(SASEC)Program initiated by India.More importantly,it makes India more worried that the construction of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is accelerating,and the Qinghai-Tibet railway will reach the border between China and Nepal.If China’s infrastructure construction network connects Doklam or even extends beyond Mount Gipmochi into the territory of Bhutan,then the regional order,which has long been maintained by India in the South Asian subcontinent,will meet China’s erosions from three directions,namely Pakistan,Nepal and Bhutan.From the perspective of the policy makers in the Modi Administration and strategist circle,all infrastructure construction in the name of interconnection is a sort of strategic project that strangles the order of India in South Asia.The renowned strategist C.Raja Mohan’s views on China’s Belt and Road Initiative reflect India’s deep strategic concerns.On the eve of the first Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation,C.Raja Mohan wrote,“It is about the prospect that the BRI will massively strengthen China’s commercial,economic,political and security influence on India’s neighbourhood and marginalize Delhi’s regional primacy.”1C.Raja Mohan,“Network Is the Key:India Must Ramp Up Its Internal Connectivity to Counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative,”accessed November 7,2017,http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/network-is-the-key-4646728/.So,in this regard it is safe to say that India’s main motivation to counter China’s infrastructure construction in Doklam is to stop China’s influence from expanding in SouthAsia.

In fact,India is quite sure that China’s border infrastructure construction in Doklam cannot pose any substantial threat to India.Even if there was some kind of potential threat,it is offset by India’s advantage of overwhelming border defense infrastructure and fortifications over China.Regarding this,the Indian government,especially the military department,is quite clear about it.Then the basic logic behind the crisis should be found otherwise.The Modi Administration is more ambitious to maintain India’s dominant position in the regional order of South Asia.To some extent,the motive behind the Doklam Standoff crisis reflects India’s worry,as the small countries in South Asia are becoming estranged from India and China’s influence in SouthAsia is increasing.

Ⅳ.To consolidate its foundation for strategic cooperation with the dominant powers of the international system such as the United States and Japan

Modi intended to show something to the United States by approving the plan to cross the border and conflict with China prior to his visit to the United States.In fact,the Doklam Standoff was widely reported by Indian media during Modi’s visit to the United States.1On June 26,2017,Indian media reported that China’s military forces crossed the Sikkim section of its borderline and invaded India’s territory,which caused an uproar in India.Thus,the standoff was disclosed by the media.However,Hindustan Times later on quoted the words of the Chief of the Army Staff of India that India’s territory was not intruded.Modi’s visit to the United States and the Doklam Standoff appeared on other various media outlets,naturally agitating the anti-China sentiments in the United States and some others countries who have strategic mistrust with China,as they tried to win favor with India.The reason India initiated the Doklam Standoff was the same as that of India publicly refusing to join the summit of the Belt and Road in last May,and that of India publicly criticizing the Belt and Road Initiative.In other words,India publicly invited international anti-China sentiments by disclosing China-India confrontations.Obviously,India intentionally tried to persuade countries that had strategic doubt and fear toward China,such as the United States and Japan,by sending invitation and making promises to convince them that India is their reliable strategic partner to check China’s rise,and in order to gain the United States’and its alliances’constant and unwavering support for India’s rise.

The　risky　action　ofModitoward　China　did　produce　new developments in the relationship between India,the United States and Japan.It was embodied in the comments of high-ranking officials of the United States and Japan after the Doklam Standoff.On October 18,2017,US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson gave a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies(CSIS)declaring that the Trump Administration was determined to dramatically deepen ways for the United States and India to further their partnership for the next century.1Rex Tillerson,“Defining Our Relationship with India for the Next Century,”accessed November 6,2017,http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001074726.It was quite a rare occasion that US Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State visited India at a very close time interval,both promising to help India to become a leading power,which was exactly the same promise former President George W.Bush made when he said that he desired to help India become a major world power in the twenty-first century.During his visit to India,Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe re-appealed to establish a democratic alliance between the US,India,Japan and Australia based on their shared values.It is also worth mentioning that for the first time in history,the concept of a free and open Indo-Pacific,advocated by Abe government,was adopted by the United States.Whether in Tillerson’s speech about defining US relations with India for the next century,or a public speech by US National Security Advisor McMaster on November 2,or Donald Trump’s first speech in Japan during his Asian visits and the subsequent keynote speech at the informal meetings of political leaders at Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation(APEC),all of them are advocating for the concept of a free and open Indo-Pacific and tried to convert the concept of the Asia-Pacific Rebalance into the Indo-Pacific security strategic framework with the obvious purpose of elevating India’s strategic status,which would make India have a more clear and important position in the US’s global strategy.As a result,the changes in the geopolitical game in this region is more or less inextricably linked to the Doklam Standoff.

Although India still embraces the concept of diplomacy and security to pursue strategic autonomy,it is willing to support the United States and Japan in their strategy to check China,if India’s administration firmly believes that it is beneficial to boost India’s rising by deepening its strategic cooperation with the United States and Japan.As for the Modi Administration,which has an urgent ambition to become a great power,it kills two birds with one stone to serve as an important partner with the United States and Japan in their strategy to check China.It is obvious that the Belt and Road Initiative has affected India and brought great geopolitical pressure.As for the Modi Administration,in the system dominated by the United States and its alliances,India’s status and role are undoubted.Since the 21st century,several US administrations have reiterated that they support India playing the role of net security provider in the Indian Ocean.1The concept of net security provider was first proposed by Robert Gates,the former US Secretary of Defense in Shangri-La Dialogue 2009.He argued that“we look to India to be a partner and net provider of security in the Indian Ocean and beyond.”“India as a Net Security Provider,”accessed November 8,2017,http://www.ias4sure.com/wikiias/gs2/india-as-a-net-security-provider/.Abe’s Administration in Japan even looked to India to be a core member of a quadrilateral security alliance(or Security Diamond).In contrast,India worries that it cannot play a vital role in the new international and regional order initiated by China and will become a second-class country,just as Prime Minister Nehru had similar worry.Rex Tillerson stated,“We’ll never have the same relationship with China,a non-democratic society,that we can have with a major democracy,”2Rex W.Tillerson,“Defining Our Relationship with India for the Next Century,”accessed November 8,2017,https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2017/10/274913.htm.which made Indians feel quite pleased.

Although the Modi Administration tends to not lose its long-term adherence to their strategic autonomy in spite of influences from the United States and Japan,once India falls into the trap of institutional cooperation devised by the United States and Japan,it has no command over itself into the future.Considering the structural conflict between China and the United States and between China and Japan,the strategic cooperation between the United States,Japan and India will aggravate the structural conflict between China and India.This structural contradiction and the resulting geopolitical game are likely to become increasingly acute in the South Asian subcontinent and Indian Ocean region where interests of China and India overlap,and is likely to trigger strategic conflict between China and India.

The Strategic Cultural Roots of the Doklam Standoff Caused by India

Besides the above-mentioned objectives in the Doklam Standoff crisis caused by India,there are much deeper influences within India’s strategic culture,which are the root causes of the Doklam Standoff crisis triggered by the Modi Administration.Generally speaking,the strategic cultures of the buffer zone theory adopted by Britain’s colonial expansion in the South Asian subcontinent,the Mandala theory in traditional Indian culture,the idea of Brahmin supremacy,and the Monroe Doctrine of the United States have all shaped India’s security strategies and diplomatic activities in the South Asian subcontinent and even in Indian Ocean region.Indian government elites have long been fascinated by the influence of such kinds of strategic cultures.To a large extent,the emergence of the Doklam Standoff conforms to its behavioral patterns and mindset.

Ⅰ.The security concept of a buffer zone

The security concept of a buffer zone in India’strategic culture can find its root in the concept and practice of the buffer zone theory adopted by Britain during its colonization in the SouthAsia subcontinent.

Geo-strategicaltheories,especially　Mackinder’sWorld-Island Theory and Heartland Theory,dominated the Western powers’strategic direction,especially the direction of Britain and Russia,thus leading to fierce conflict between the Russian Empire and the British Empire in their colonial expansion in Central Asia and Western Asia in the 19th century.In order to avoid never-ending conflicts,the two colonial empires put forward the concept of a buffer zone and put it into practice in the confluence of their sphere of influence in Pamir Plateau and Qinghai-Tibet Plateau.Among them,the idea of viewing Tibet as a buffer zone for avoiding geopolitical conflict between Britain and Russia was gradually put into practice by George Nathaniel Curzon,the Viceroy of India appointed by Britain(1899-1905).Britain’s second invasion of Tibet began in December 1903 and lasted until September 1904.The British Empire signed the Anglo-Russian Convention with the Russian Empire on August 31,1907 without China’s participation,claiming that the two countries only admitted Tibet was under the suzerainty of China and regarded Tibet as the actual buffer zone between them.1The Anglo-Russian Convention declared that Britain and Russia admitted that China only had suzerainty in Tibet and thought that China only had nominal and symbolic governing over Tibet,and Tibet in fact was a dependent state with autonomy.It set a very bad example of tampering with China’s sovereignty over Tibet by changing it into suzerainty.The two empires looked to Tibet to be the actual buffer zone between them.The concept and practice were inherited by India after its independence and became a fundamental motive for India to interfere with Tibetan affairs directly or indirectly.British colonists also clearly defined Tibet as a buffer zone.This was done to make Tibet remain isolated,and until recently it had no intention of getting rid of that isolation.Although they made Tibet beyond their border,they did not need to worry about that state of isolation.2George Nathaniel Curzon,Viceroy of India,wrote to Hamilton,Secretary of State for India on June 11,1901,saying that Britain must deal with Tibet separately...and convert it into a kind of buffer state between Russia and India.Research committee on literature and history of Tibet autonomous region CPPCC Xizang difang lishi ziliao xuanji[Tibet local historical data collection](Beijing:Shenghuo dushu xinzhi sanlian shudian[SDX Joint Publishing Company],1963),220-221.The concept of a buffer zone put forward by Britain and the practice of this concept during its colonization has a far-reaching influence on India’s national security strategy,which is embodied in India’s obsession with the idea of taking Tibet as the buffer zone between China and India and treating the Himalayas as the natural barrier between the two countries.

Obsessed with the idea of taking Tibet as a buffer zone between China and India,India listed the construction of the buffer zone as its core quest in diplomatic and security policies in the first few years following its independence,even before the British had fully withdrawn from the subcontinent.In December 1946,the Indian provisional government invited representatives of the Tibetan government to take part in the Pan-Asia conference.It was India’s first attempt to put the concept of a buffer zone into practice.1In December 1946,the India provisional government invited representatives of the Tibet government to take part in the Pan-Asia conference.Although it was met with strong objection from government of the Republic of China,India did not withdraw the invitation.It even displayed a snow lion flag as the so-called Tibetan national flag along with other participating countries’national flags and seated Tibetan delegation with Chinese delegation at the same platform.The giant map of Asia displayed at the conference did not include Tibet in China’s territory.China’s representatives expressed strong protest,but India just corrected the mistake on the map and still allowed Tibetan representatives to address the conference as an independent state.As the People’s Republic of China was founded,Jawaharlal Nehru and his successors more or less maintained this fascination that Tibet would be a buffer zone between China and India.2In 1949,Jawaharlal Nehru described India’s recognition and pursuit of Tibet’s political status in a letter saying that India had recognized Tibet’s autonomy under certain vague suzerainty of China.According to the law,India could not deny this kind of suzerainty.India preferred the autonomy of Tibet and hoped Tibet would have some connection with India.It tried to achieve this goal.Mullick,director of Central Intelligence Bureau(CIB),once said in his autobiography that he deeply believed that Jawaharlal Nehru himself also wished that India would one day help Tibet to acquire a kind of semi-independent status even though Tibet could not become a completely independent state.In 1954,China and India signed the Agreement Between the Republic of India and the People’s Republic of China on Trade and Intercourse between India and the Tibet Region of China.Jawaharlal Nehru’s administration officially admitted that Tibet was a region of China.Jawaharlal Nehru said when responding in parliament that what India gave up was actually something they could not obtain,and in fact,that was what they had lost.Cf.John Kenneth Knaus,Orphan of the Cold War:America and the Tibetan Struggle for Survival,Public Affairs,1999,Sun Jinzhong,“Shilun Yindu diqu waijiao zhengcede lilun yu shijian[On the Theory and Practice of India’s Regional Foreign Policy]”,Nanya yanjiu[South Asia Studies],No.1(1999).In 1950,India strongly objected to China sending troops to Tibet.In 1956,India treated the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama differently during their visits to India and even incited the former to seek Tibet’s independence and tolerated the Tibetan independence movement in Kalimpong.During the riot in Lhasa in March 1959,India worked as a megaphone for the Tibetan separatist forces,accepted Dalai clique and other Tibetans in exile,offered assistance to help establish the Tibetan exile administration,and even supported the armed remnants when they assaulted the Tibetan region.India also founded the Special Frontier Force(SFF)in 1963.Many measures taken by Jawaharlal Nehru’s administration,such as those mentioned above,were natural reflexes under the influence of the concept of a buffer zone.The governments following Jawaharlal Nehru all had a fascination that Tibet was India’s buffer zone between China.Ka Gupta,a well-known Indian scholar who studies Sino-Indian relations,especially the border issue,admitted that there was a belief in India that it should seek to re-establish Tibet as a buffer state between India and China,which is still quite prevailing.1Ka Gupta,trans.,Wang Hongwei,The Hidden History of the Sino-India Frontier(Beijing:China Tibetology Publishing House,1990),82.

网络初中数学原创精品资源基地的建立，旨在构建符合素质教育要求、变革教与学行为方式、融合数学文化的课程体系，提升学生学习快乐感和教师的职业幸福感.同时体现先行先为与分析共享结合，围绕解决做什么、怎么做的问题，先行试验、总结提升，通过各种形式建立便于向其他中小学和社区开放的资源共享平台.

In December 1988,normal Sino-Indian relations resumed,but the following Indian governments were still obsessed with the concept of a buffer zone and adopted two different policies.India did not publicly support the Tibetan independence movement,nor did it stop offering the living space,political stage and support for Tibetan separatist forces.It is worth mentioning that the different attitudes of India’s governments toward Tibet’s political status reflects its fascination with the concept of a buffer zone.Prior to the Tibetan Uprising in March 1959,the Indian government once publicly admitted that the Tibet region is a part of China,but after that,India repeatedly declared that Tibet was an autonomous region of China,which was reflected in the results of two former Prime Ministers of India Rajiv Gandhi and Narasimha Rao’s visits to China.It was not until in June 2003 that the Indian government signed the Declaration on Principles for Relations and Comprehensive Cooperation Between the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of India with China during Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s visit to China,recognizing that the Tibet Autonomous Region is a territorial part of the People’s Republic of China.It was the first time that India officially declared its stance on Tibet in government documents.Although the difference was just found in several words,it made some progress and was a great accomplishment.It described the relationship between China and Tibet,with a focus on the concept of an autonomous region.It had obvious traces of colonialism dating back to the period of the British-Indian Empire to admit that Tibet is an autonomous region of China,which meant that India only admitted China’s suzerainty over Tibet.However,it emphasized Tibetans’legal status in terms of territorial sovereignty to admit that the Tibetan Autonomous Region is a part of China,which recognized China’s sovereignty over the Tibet Autonomous Region and accepted China’s geographic demarcation of the Tibet Autonomous Region,which was quite different from the concept of Tibet proposed by the Dalai Lama.In spite of this,while drafting the declaration,India had strong opposition to China’s proposal that the Tibet Autonomous Region is an indispensable territory of the People’s Republic China and claimed that it would refuse to sign the declaration if the word“indispensable”was added to the declaration.1Tang Lu,“Jiemi erling yisan nian zhongyin liangguo Xizang Wenti tanpan neimu[The Inside Story of Sino-Indian Talks on the Issue of Tibet]”,Guoji xianqu daobao[International Herald Tribune],June 30,2003. Thus,it is obvious that India has a persistent fascination to make Tibet as a buffer zone.

In the past several years,with the continuous development of domestic Hindu Nationalism and populism in India,the idea of making Tibet a buffer zone between China and India has risen again.The Modi Administration has countered China more frequently and more powerfully over the issue of Tibet than all the former Indian governments since 1988.India invited Lobsang Sangay,a high-ranking official of self-exiled Tibetan community,to participate in the inauguration ceremony of Mr.Modi as the prime minister.The incumbent president officially met the Dalai Lama and they attended public activities together.The Modi Administration then launched Tibetan Resettlement Project.It also allowed Lobsang Sangay to raise the Snow Lion Flag along India’s side of Pangong Lake and let the Home Minister accompany the Dalai Lama during his visit to South Tibet.After many years of silence,the Tibet issue frequently impacted the stability of Sino-Indian relations.It is not just the Modi Administration that unscrupulously countered China with the issue of Tibet,some high-ranking officials and government elites also daydream that Tibet will be a buffer zone for India.On July 19,2017,Mulayam Singh Yadav,a political leader and the former Minister of Defense,proposed to parliament that the Indian government should change its policy to Tibet.Mulayam Singh Yadav said that it was a mistake that India accepted Tibet as a part of China and now it was the right time to support Tibet in becoming an independent country since it was a traditional buffer zone between the two great powers.1“India Should Support Tibet’s Historical Status as an Independent Country:Former Defence Minister,”accessed November 7,2017,http://tibet.net/2017/07/india-should-support-tibets-historical-status-as-an-independent-country-former-defence-minister/.Worse still,during the Dalai Lama’s visit to Tawang,in the face of China’s condemnation,Pema Khandu,the so-called Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh,made an unusual claim that an independent Tibet,rather than China,was the real neighbor to the north of India.He claimed,“China has no business telling them what to do and what not to do.It was not their next-door neighbour.”2“Arunachal Borders Tibet,not China:CM Pema on Beijing’s Protest over Dalai Lama,”accessed November 7,2017,http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/arunachal-borders-tibet-not-china-cm-pema-on-beijing-s-noise-over-dalai-lama-visit/story-cDE3x2Nl4 5uRz14YmMVQwO.html.

The Doklam Standoff was just an extreme reflection of the Modi Administration’s fascination with this kind of buffer zone.Behind the risk taken by the Modi Administration,it is quite obvious that the idea of maintaining an intact Doklam as a small buffer zone has a major influence on India.Obviously Doklam free of any physical facilities is more conductive to helping India reduce the Chicken’s Neck headache than the Doklam clustered by various infrastructure constructions.In addition,to some extent,the Modi Administration’s attempt at stopping China’s road construction in Doklam was also aimed at preventing China　and　Bhutan　from　having　close　interaction　and　building normalized relations.India was worried that once Doklam was under the effective control of China,Bhutan would give up its claim of sovereignty over Doklam and likely accept China’s swap settlement of the border disputes by replacing the middle sector with the western sector.1China was willing to exchange an area of 495 square kilometers to the north of Bhutan’s border with an area of 269 square kilometers to the northwest of Bhutan.However,Doklam is not located in this disputed area.The former king of Bhutan intended to accept this proposal to exchange land,but went back on his word.In 2000,Bhutan officially proposed the demarcation of Doklam and demanded that China should be generous and kind to give up its claim of sovereignty over the disputed regions,including Doklam.China rejected Bhutan’s new proposal thus border negotiations came to a standstill.According to the people of insight in Bhutan,the change in Bhutan’s stance was the result of pressure from India,especially it being forced by India to include Doklam in the negotiation.Manoj Joshi,“On India-China Himalayan Face-off,China May Just Have a Case,”accessed November 7,2017,http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/on-india-china-himalayan-face-off-china-may-just-have-a-case-4735853/.In this situation,it would be more difficult for India to stop the process of normalizing relations between Bhutan and China.Besides,considering China’s efficiency in infrastructure construction pace in the hinterland of Tibet and the stimulus New Delhi received from China’s project in reclamation project in the South China Sea,India was worried that Bhutan as a buffer zone status would be undermined or deprived by the physical territorial connection between China and Bhutan.To some extent,all the previous Indian governments were glad to see that Bhutan was in pursuit of an ecology of happiness,which was also an embodiment of the concept of a buffer zone in India’s foreign policy toward Bhutan.India was glad to see that Bhutan was in isolated state,and intended to make Bhutan as a small buffer zone between China and India.

In addition to being obsessed with making Tibet a buffer zone between China and India,India is also obsessed with making the Himalayas a natural barrier between China and India.After realizing that it was hard to stop the pace of China’s peaceful liberation of Tibet,Jawaharlal Nehru’s administration stepped up its efforts of tightening the Himalayan hedge wall and signed the Treaty of Friendship with Sikkim,Bhutan,Nepal,Afghanistan and Myanmar successively so as to strengthen the security index of north India with the Himalayas as a main barrier.Meanwhile,Jawaharlal Nehru’s administration continuously implemented Forward Policy to nibble away at China’s territory,and unilaterally insisted that the borderline should be divided based on the culminating watershed.Finally,Forward Policy led to the Sino-Indian War in 1962.Although China’s military won an overwhelming victory,it retreated to the eastern portion of the Line of Actual Control proclaimed by China in early September 1959.To some extent,the reason why the first generation of new China leaders did so was to take into account India’s intention of making the Himalayan watershed a natural barrier between China and India.In the 1950s,when China and India were still in the“honeymoon”period,considering Jawaharlal Nehru administration’s fascination with a buffer zone,China even delayed sending an ambassador to Nepal.

When the Sino-Indian Border Conflict broke out in 1962,in order to maintain the functional natural barrier of the Himalayas,Indian frontier forces continuously occupied the border terrains with high elevation in order to have military and psychological supremacy over China by taking an advantageous position.This was also the case with Doklam.The reason why India strongly supported Bhutan’s proposal of a Batamura-Ssangjul line as the watershed between China and India was because the watershed is higher than Mount Gipmochi,which could help India fully control the Mount Gipmochi regions by forming a terrain advantage over China.1The Convention Between Great Britain and China Relating to Sikkim and Tibet signed in 1890 clearly stipulated that Mount Gipmochi was at the junction of China,India and Bhutan,but later British colonists and Indians did not think this demarcation was reasonable enough so it needed to be rectified.It was unrealistic to re-discuss the treaty,so they resorted to the shameful practice of changing the demarcation by drawing a false map.This became an important basis for the disputed Doklam claimed by India and Bhutan inspired by India.But a treaty has legal effect,and international law forbids breaking treaties.Zhang Yongpan，“Zhongyin ji disanfang shiliao zhengming:yin feifa yuejie jiaobian buzhi yiwen[Historical Data from China,India and Other Third-Party Countries Prove that India’s Chicanery of Intrusion is Worth Nothing]”,Huanqiu shibao[Global Times],August 3,2017;Fu Tailin,“Donglang gaoyuande weiji[the Crisis in Doklam Plateau]”,Lianhe Zaobao,July 29,2017.Over a half century of construction,India has already formed military superiority over China along the borderlines.Obviously,India’s military superiority over China along the borderline also boosted the Modi Administration’s boldness and adventurous mentality in the Doklam Standoff.

“请大家回到座位，继续我们的演出，”声音再次响起，“现在，舞台上的椅子只剩下十把，没有抢到座位的人，将接受我们的惩罚。”

The Indian version of the Monroe Doctrine became even more pronounced after Jawaharlal Nehru’s daughter Indira Gandhi came to power.In 1983,Prime Minister Indira Gandhi put forward the Indira Doctrine,essentially the Indian version of Monroe Doctrine.Indira Gandhi once said that India would not interfere in the internal affairs of any country in the region unless it was required to do so,nor would it tolerate such interference from foreign powers.If external assistance was needed to cope with an internal crisis,assistance should first be sought within the region.2R.V.R.Chandrasekhar Rao,“V.R.Chandrasekhar Raoolicy Stud,”The Round Table,Issue 293(1985):63;Lin Zhonglin,“Yindude menluo zhuyi pingxi[An analysis of the Monroe Doctrine of India]”,Yafei zongheng[Asia and Africa Review],No.4(2013):16.As far as the Indian ruling elites are concerned,the complex geopolitical and social culture in South Asia forces India to assume the role of security manager in South Asia.3P.Venkateshwar Rao,“Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka:India’s Role and Perception,”Asian Survey,No.4(1988):419.Under the influence of this logic,when India’s neighboring countries in South Asia dealt with non-South Asian countries,especially with its northern neighbor China,without consulting India,it would inevitably arouse India’s displeasure and could even result in revenge.Taking China’s relationship with Bhutan as an example,in June 2012,Jigme Thinley,Prime Minister of Bhutan,and leader of the Druk Phuensum Tshogpa political party unexpectedly held their first meeting with Wen Jiabao,China’s Premier,in Rio de Janeiro.Both sides expressed that they wish to establish diplomatic relations and demarcate the border between the two countries at an early date.This meeting sparked panic in the Indian elites,who claimed that it gave a wake-up call to India,because any resolution between China and South Asia would be of great security significance to India,and India would be faced with a new strategic situation in regard to neighboring issues.1Indrani Bagchi,“China’s Coziness with Bhutan Rings Security Alarm for India,”Time of India,June 23,2016.Of course,India would not let Bhutan easily derail.In the 2013 Bhutan election,India prevented the prosperous and increasingly pro-China Druk Phuensum Tshogpa party from being re-elected by creating a panic among Bhutanese voters.The People’s Democratic Party,the pro-India People’s Party,successfully counterattacked in the second round of elections.2In the first round of Bhutan elections held on May 31,2013,the Druk Phuensum Tshogpa party won 45%of the votes and People’s Democratic Party won 33%of the votes.However,on the second round of voting held on July 13,the People’s Democratic Party won 32 seats out of 47 seats in the National Assembly and the Druk Phuensum Tshogpa party won the last 15.With regard to the People’s Democratic Party’s successful counterattack,the media in various countries including India’s thought that India had intervened.India had all the means to intervene in Bhutan’s internal and external affairs by controlling the economic artery of Bhutan and by providing security.In early July,just prior to the second round of elections,the Indian government decided to decrease its subsidies on gas and kerosene for Bhutan.As a result,the prices of gas and kerosene in Bhutan doubled and people were full of complaints.Concerned about their daily life,voters eventually and pragmatically voted for the People’s Democratic Party,which pursed a friendly policy towards India continuously during the elections.The Bhutan government’s inclination to get close to China was cut off.

Ⅱ.Mandala diplomacy

原始POI数据类型之间一般会存在重复交叉现象，比如商务住宅以住宅用地为主，但在这一大类中，包含了产业园区、商务写字楼等其他类别。其中产业园以工业用地类型为主，商务写字楼和商务用地有关，住宅中宿舍则主要和教育科研用地有关。因此，需要对POI数据进行重分类。

India’s security strategy has a long history of realism.The Mandala theory,with the essence of befriending a distant state while attacking a neighbor,has a far-reaching impact.As early as the late fourth century,Kautilya,the first prime minister of Mauryan Empire,proposed the famous Mandala concept,which still has influence today.

Mandala,a Buddhist term,originally referred to a meeting place for the sacred saints and a sacred space for the virtues.Later it evolved into a spiritual and ritual symbol in Hinduism and Buddhism,representing the universe.The practice of the Mandala theory in international relations and national foreign policy stemmed from Kautilya’s elaborations to the Arthashastra.According to Kautilya’s concept,a country and its neighbors are just like the series of circles in a Mandala.Similar to all the layers of circles,a country’s most immediate neighbor is always regarded as an enemy,while its neighbor’s closest circle,the enemy’s neighbor,is treated as a friend.In a system following the Mandala theory,all countries are faced with a similar security dilemma that poses immediate risks,with each country clinging to Law of the Jungle.A country’s nearest neighbor is most likely to constitute a real or potential threat.Another country adjacent to its nearest neighbor may become an ally.Countries close to the ally may be unfriendly ones or the allies of strategic opponents,and then the next exterior circle is a friendly country or an ally of a friendly country,thus it eventually forms a geo-strategic circle of strategic allies and rivals.The Mandala theory regards geographical location as a basis for judging enemies　and　friends,which　obviously　has　the　characteristics　of geographical determinism and realism.Therefore,the core elements of the Mandala theory in diplomacy is the concept of befriending a distant state while attacking a neighbor.Kautilya also put forward a series of countermeasures to cope with the above challenges:peaceful coexistence(practiced in the case of poor state power),war(active attack when strength prevails),neutrality(during the process of self-improvement or when protecting itself from an enemy’s attack),pressing　(through high-pressure policies or conquering without arms),alliances(seeking protection from other nations),and dual policies(befriending one country and fighting another).The Mandala theory brought the following concepts to India’s foreign strategic policies:Indian centralism,the concept of befriending a distant state while attacking a neighbor,and the idea of benefiting oneself at the expense of its neighbors.

The Mandala theory has obvious influence on the major power diplomacy and regional diplomacy of India following its independence,which is mainly reflected in the two aspects:the non-alignment policy against the U.S.’s and the Soviet Union’s spheres of influence,and directly interfering with the internal affairs of other countries in South Asia.One of India’s diplomatic guidelines after independence was to either rival against or conquer its neighbors or to befriend a distant state while attacking a neighbor.India pursued a policy of overpowering military action against Pakistan,　in　particular　by　dismembering　Pakistan　through　the Indo-Pakistan War of 1971.India sent so-called peacekeeping troops to Sri Lanka from 1987 to 1991 and dispatched troops to the Maldives in 1988 to implement Operation Cactus.It also landlocked the inland country of Nepal.During the Cold War,it collaborated with Soviet Union to counter balance China,and nowadays it moves closer to the strategies of the United States and Japan for getting more bargins with China.All these series of foreign policies have elements of the Mandala theory.According to incomplete statistics,India fought five wars with its neighbors after independence and interfered in 49 military conflicts from 1949 to 2001,of which 20 occurred after 1980.1Sui Xinmin,“Yindu zhanlue wenhua he guoji xingwei moshi[India’s Strategic Culture and International Behavior:Case Analysis Based on Argument]”,Guoji wenti yanjiu[International Studies],No.1(2014):54-70.

As for the Modi Administration,it is the priority of India’s diplomatic and security policies to protect South Asia from exterior influence.On the one hand,the Modi Administration attaches great importance to peripheral diplomacy,　especially　in　regard　to　South　Asian　diplomacy.Unprecedentedly,Modi invited all the state leaders in South Asia to attend his inauguration ceremony.Within two years,Modi had completed a visit to all the countries in South Asia.In the past three years,Modi’s diplomatic activities in South Asia have been unprecedentedly frequent and with great force.The first country that he visited after inauguration was Bhutan.He visited Nepal twice and it was the first time that an Indian Prime Minister had visited Nepal in 17 years.He visited Sri Lanka twice and it was the first time in 28 years that an Indian Prime Minister paid a return visit to Sri Lanka.During his visit to Bangladesh,he resolved the issue of enclave that had been troubling India-Bangladesh relations for over 40 years.On his way back to India from his visit to Afghanistan,quite unexpectedly,he landed in Lahore and attended the birthday party of Nawaz　Sharif,incumbentPrime　Minister　of　Pakistan,and　his granddaughter’s wedding.Through these visits,the Modi Administration tried to include peripheral countries into India’s integral system and become an integral part of it.

On the other hand,India adopts a policy of high pressure,containment,and isolation to its neighbors that are against India’s will.This is clearly manifested in India’s policy toward Pakistan.Since April 2016,bloody riots have been ongoing in India-administered Kashmir,and Pakistan has publicly criticized India for its kashmir policy.In addition,in January and September 2016,Indian army outposts suffered cross-border attacks.As a result,Modi resumed the policy of befriending a distant state while attacking a neighbor to counter Pakistan,rather than maintaining its friendly policy towards Pakistan like in the early days of the Modi Administration.In regard to economy,the Modi Administration carried forward various subregional economic cooperation projects and programmes in south Asia,which excluded Pakistan.In the eastern part of South Asia,India spared no efforts to promote the Bangladesh,Bhutan,India,Nepal(BBIN)Initiative1In June 2014,during his visit to Bangladesh,for the first time Modi proposed a BBIN that would connect India,Bangladesh,Bhutan and Nepal,permitting the member states to drive their vehicles in each other’s territory for transportation of cargo and passengers.In September 2016,the Indian government approved a total of 1.08 billion U.S.dollars to construct and upgrade a total of 558 kilometers of highway connecting Bangladesh,Bhutan and Nepal.It is scheduled to be completed by 2018.By then,it is expected that the highway will increase trade in SouthAsia by 60%,and the trade between SouthAsia and the rest of the world by 30%.However,India was surprised when Bhutan refused to take part in the road construction program on the grounds of environment protection.Cf.Rupesh Dutta:“Centre Approves$1 Billion for Bangladesh-Bhutan-India-Nepal Road Connectivity Project,”The News Minute,September 18,2016. and The Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation(BIMSTEC).1The Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation(BIMSTEC)includes Bangladesh,India,Myanmar,Sri Lanka and Thiland.Modi attached great importance to this regional cooperation.In October 2016,during the BRICS Summit in Goa,India,utilizing its advantage as host country,for the first time India organized a dialogue summit between member states of BRICS and BIMSTEC with the purpose of upgrading the cooperation mechanisms of the subregional economic cooperation dominated by India.In the west of South Asia,India greatly promoted the three-nation transport and transit corridor pact and the International North-South Transport Corridor(INSTC)2INSTC was launched in September 2000.The original objective was to connect India,Iran and Russia with a multi-level transportation network of ship,rail and road routes from India to Europe.Later,Turkey and other Central Asian republics also joined.In April 2011,member states officially launched the treaty of multi-level transportation.In August 2014,INSTC member states conducted a multi-level transport rehearsal.Since September 2015,Oman,Iran and countries in Central Asia have successively approved of a transportation and customs agreement.to form a trade network that connects South Asia with Central Asia and middle East mainly.3“Remarks by Prime Minister at Chabahar Connectivity Event,”accessed November 7,2017,http://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-tatements.htm?dtl/26838/Remarks+by+Prime+Minister+at+Chabahar+Connectivity+event+May+23+2016.In addition,the Modi Administration refused to participate in the 19th South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation(SAARC)Summit,which had been scheduled to be held in Islamabad on November 9 to 11,2016 together with Afghanistan,Bangladesh and Bhutan,because the Modi Administration insisted that Pakistan’s cross-border terrorist attacks made the SAARC Summit come to a standstill.Since SAARC was the only regional cooperation mechanism attended by all the member states in South Asia,the disfunction of SAARC served the isolation of Pakistan.In diplomacy,on regional and international multilateral occasions,the Modi Administration has tried to demonize Pakistan as a country supporting terrorism and occasionally has criticized or even humiliated Islamabad.New Delhi’s policy also aims to stigmatize China-Pakistan relations and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.In regard to security,the Modi Administration takes multiple measures to create controllable conflicts and crises in Pakistan,which are reflected in the following events.In August 2016,Modi said on Independence Day that India would intervene in the Human Rights issue in Balochistan and the northern part of Pakistan.In September 2016,after the Uri’s outposts in the India-administered Kashmir suffered cross border attacks,the Indian military claimed that it performed a surgical strike to Pakistan(the Pakistani military denied the claim).Modi’s tough policy toward Pakistan is actually the specific practice of the Mandala theory benefiting oneself at others’expenses and befriending a distant state while attacking a neighbor.

The acquisition of long-term security is based on the relatively reasonable principles of reciprocal security.Any side that is seeking absolute security will make related parties feel absolute insecurity,thus they will take corresponding military measures to offset this influence.As a result,all related parties are dragged into a negative cycle of wasting valuable　resourcesforpursuing　absolute　security　atthe　costof development.The more a country seeks absolute security,the less it can achieve absolute security.If China wants to increase its military precaution in Western Theater Command against India in the future,it is just a by-product of the crisis,because China will not continue to allow its neighbors to use military blackmail so easily.

The Doklam Standoff lasting over two months forces us to think about the following question:what is the future of Sino-Indian relations?How will Sino-Indian relations develop?The efforts of the two countries in building up a closer developmental partnership have not been fully fulfilled,and competition in the geopolitical order has only just begun.In any case,this is not good news for the rising and national rejuvenation of the two countries.To a large extent,this not only decides whether the two countries can develop smoothly,but also affects the stability of regional and global development.

老师在初中阶段的语文教学中，需要注意的是对学生的正面评价一定要充分，同时还需要对学生给予相应的鼓励，通过运用这样的教学手段来增强学生对语文学习的自信心。老师需要注意的是对表扬激励的频率进行合理控制。另外，老师也要根据不同学生的不同情况，针对班级中学习能力在不同层级的学生，设定不同层级的表扬激励门槛，力争在教学的过程中让更多不同层级的学生受到表扬和鼓励[3]。

临床疗效依据相关文献标准评估临床[8]。以耳部无不适症状，听力及鼓膜均恢复到正常水平为治愈；以耳部偶感轻微不适，全部症状及鼓膜活动均显著改善，捏鼻鼓气耳内可见胀痛感，听力未能完全恢复为有效；未达上述标准为无效；总有效率=（治愈+有效）/总例数×100%。

Brahmin supremacy is a Brahminian hierarchical worldview centered on Indian Fatalism that originated from India’s unique caste system.According to the teachings of Hinduism,traditional Indian society was divided with basic characteristic of high and low castes.Hindu followers are categorized into Brahmins(priestly people),the Kshatriyas(also called Rajanyas,who were rulers,administrators and warriors),the Vaishyas(artisans,merchants,tradesmen and farmers),Shudras(labouring classes)and untouchables.All Hindu followers should abide by their birth right.High castes,such as Brahmins,located above the caste pyramid,enjoy natural advantages in terms of education and employment opportunities.The caste system is the ideological foundation of Hinduism.Caste determines the pattern of people’s religious and secular life,defines the psychological features of the society,and develops a religious hierarchical pyramid of social segregation and hierarchy.1Shang Huipeng,Zhongxing yu yindujiao shehui[Cast and Hindu Society](Beijing:Peking University Press,2001),2.This system has a far-reaching influence on the elites in Indian society.Men are born in various grades and ranks.Job reservations are based on heredity.High-ranking castes have definite supremacy over lower castes.Lower ranking castes submit to high ranking castes.This kind of ideology is deeply rooted in the India elites.For the Indian elites,even if they receive modern education and are deeply influenced by the Western cultures,this caste-based thinking and its inherent class privileges continue to affect their political decisions and ideology.The caste background is still a deciding factor.

Indian Fatalism is not only the starting point for India’s understanding of the world,but it also has a profound impact on the security and diplomatic thinking of all the political leaders in the years after India’s independence.From the perspective of India’s elites,India should be in the highest level of the world hierarchy,2GeorgeTanham,“India’s Strategic Culture,”Washington Quarterly,Winter 1992,130.just like Brahmin are at the top of India’s hierarchy.Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru made it clear that India,with its current status,could not play a second-class role in the world.It either made a great voice or disappeared.3Jawaharlal Nehru,The Discovery of India(WorldAffairs Press,1956),57.In Nehru’s opinion,India’s international status could only be compared with major powers such as the United States,the Soviet Union and China,rather than a South Asian country like Pakistan.4Moreover,India’s status as a first-class country on the world stage should be innate,rather than acquired or given as a gift by other countries.Other countries just need to recognize this point.When the George W.Bush Administration promised to help India become a major world power in the twenty-first century in March 20055Masahisa Fujita ed.,Economic Integration in Asia and India(London:Palgrave MacMillan,2008),84.,it is easy to understand why the mainstream media and elites in India mocked this promise because they already thought that India was a first-class power.

Indian Fatalism is the logical starting point for analyzing India’s security and diplomatic thoughts.Although the Indian governments and political elites put forward various ideas and propositions following its independence,their ultimate objective is to achieve first-class status in the world depicted by Indian Fatalism.Meanwhile,based on the important concept that men are divided into various grades and ranks in accordance with caste system,the ruling elites tend to hold the opinion that countries are also divided into various grades and ranks.It is the practice of this idea that causes India to pursue the Indian Supremacy Theory.India’s ruling elites regard India as the status of Brahmin that enjoys an aristocratic status of a high-ranking caste,while other countries are the ones with lower ranks.Therefore,India’s neighboring countries in South Asia should obey India’s decisions or at least they should respect them.Upon its independence,India boasted that it was the natural heir to the colonial legacy of the British Empire(apparently a fulfillment of the Brahmin supremacy theory)and compared itself to be the British Empire of the past.After its independence,when the Tibetan local government demanded that India abolish its unfair treaties and many other abusive privileges with Tibet,India brutally refused.In the Treaty of Friendship signed with neighboring countries such as Nepal,Sikkim and Bhutan,India stipulated that these countries have to obey the interests of India in internal and foreign affairs by respecting“India First”doctrine.In other words,according to India,these countries are bound to plan their national development based on India’s strategic goals.

Currently,the United States and Japan cater to India’s plan to build New India even at the cost of undermining existing international rules and regimes.Modi’s quest to be a great power is becoming increasingly desperate,which is obviously reflected in his mission to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group(NSG).On the one hand,the Modi Administration is not willing to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty(CTBT)or the Non-Proliferation Treaty(NPT)in case these treaties will stumble India’s nuclear plans.On the other hand,India wants to enjoy the same rights and privileges as a signatory of the two treaties,especially the rights and privileges of civil nuclear energy development.The demand to ask international communities to break the laws and give India these privileges is a result of the Brahmin supremacy theory.India believes it has superiority,special status and rights over others to make exceptions.In the past several years,the United States and other Western powers frequently broke the rules to cater to India’s quest to be a great power in order to check China’s strategic rise.As a result,the Indian government frequently treated China irrationally in its quest to become a great power.Once China was hesitant or adhering to principles,the Modi Administration would resent,as a result Sino-Indian relations have been profoundly disturbed.When the Modi Administration regarded it as a new label of India’s great power to join the NSG without signing CTBT or/and NPT.China insisted that new rules should be formulated before the current regime be abandoned.Therefore,India was dissatisfied with China and regarded it as an obstacle to its rising.As a result,strategic distrust was breeding and spreading.Since Modi took office,the impact of India’s irrational quest to be a great power has even outweighed the differences and disputes between China and India.

This Brahmin supremacy theory is the underlying cause for the Indian government to initiate the Doklam Standoff.In fact,Modi’s administration placed India’s claim for absolute security above Bhutan’s independent internal and external sovereignty,and over China’s legitimate and rational demand to develop its frontier infrastructures and improve the living and production conditions of the local military and civilians.

“非遗”的传承、保护和发展需要项目传承人付出大量心血，需要保护单位承担相应的职责，也需要全社会的大力支持。从“非遗”传承、保护和发展需要耗费的资源来看，地方政府作为主体责任人承担着义不容辞的责任和义务，需要从公共文化建设和发展层面给予保障和支持。

Ⅳ.The Monroe Doctrine in SouthAsia

In addition to India’s historical traditional culture,the Indian version of the Monroe Doctrine in South Asia is closely related to its geographical and geopolitical advantages.India is located in the center of the South Asian subcontinent.The Himalayas are to the north of India,and the east and west sides are the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea respectively.These create a naturally closed geographic space exclusively for India.The special natural environment has long been regarded as a natural umbrella for this country and it also gives Indians a sense of security.Moreover,since its independence,India is located in the center of the South Asian subcontinent,and the rest of the South Asian countries are located around it.Except Afghanistan and Pakistan,India’s neighboring countries in South Asia are not interconnected to each other,which objectively prevents the smaller countries in SouthAsia from forming physical allies against India.

2.2.2 无菌操作 手术中严格遵守无菌技术操作规程，协助医师用庆大霉素注射溶液纱布填塞囊袋，所有钢丝、导线、电极均用生理盐水庆大霉素注射溶液擦拭;手术结束时向囊袋中注入20 mL庆大霉素溶液进行冲洗 ［15］;以防囊袋感染。

As far as India is concerned,it is the natural leader of the South Asian subcontinent and the Indian Ocean region;this region should certainly be in India’s sphere of influence.Within this region,India has a special responsibility and obligation to safeguard order.Other countries in South Asia should not challenge India,nor should they challenge India’s dominance.Meanwhile,India is opposed to any interference from exterior forces in the affairs of the region,which should be handled by India exclusively.As Jawaharlal Nehru pointed out long before India’s independence,the Monroe Doctrine proposed by President Monroe ensured that the Americas were free from external aggression for nearly a hundred years,and now it was time to apply that same concept to Asian countries.1Tarik Jan ed.,Pakistan’s Security and the Nuclear Option(Islamabad:Institute of Policy Studies,1995),153.After independence,Jawaharlal Nehru began to implement the Monroe Doctrine policy in South Asia and took it for granted that South Asian affairs could only be handled by India.

(2) 某项目部分出现在其他两种度量方法中，在本文度量方法排名前列.以ProgrammingAssignment2为例，在开发参与度量结果上排名第一，但却在用户兴趣度量上未进入前十名，经过对该项目的分析发现，该项目为一个编程任务项目，有较为固定的一群算法爱好者不断提交代码，其用户量没有过多的增长，但项目一直较为活跃.本文方法由于综合了多种度量维度，并且开发要素是软件项目中最为重要的度量元，此项目成为排名靠前的优质项目.

The United States and Japan increasingly regard China’s rise as a top strategic challenge.With the purpose of influencing India and checking China,they not only tolerate India’s version of the Monroe Doctrine in South Asian,but they even support and encourage India to police the region and be a net security provider in the South Asia subcontinent and along the India Ocean region so as to fulfill US objectives and maintain the international order dominated by the United States.During the Obama Administration,the United States regarded India as the net security provider in the Indian Ocean region,or even regarded it as a lynchpin for the Asia Rebalance.1“India‘Lynchpin’for US Strategy in Asia:Panetta,”accessed November 8,2017,https://tribune.com.pk/story/390176/india-lynchpin-for-us-strategy-in-asia-panetta/.Currently,the Trump Administration vigorously promotes the concept of a free and open Indo-Pacific with the purpose of making India fulfill its strategic pillar.India’s role described by the United States has convinced the Indian ruling elites that the United States accepts India’s version of the Monroe Doctrine in SouthAsia.

2016年以来，全球集成电路向我国转移的趋势明显，我国集成电路产业成为全球规模最大、增速最快的市场，逐渐引领着全球消费市场。英特尔(Intel)、三星(Samsung)、格罗方德(GlobalFoundries)、IBM、日月光(ASE)、意法半导体(ST)、飞思卡尔半导体(Freescale)等全球各大集成电路企业均已陆续向我国转移产能，在我国建设工厂或代工厂。受益于消费电子、汽车电子和工业控制市场需求的拉动，我国集成电路市场及同比增速将持续领跑全球。

However,India’s strategist circle is increasingly worried that with more and more neighboring countries actively joining China’s Belt and Road Initiative in recent years,the order of India’s Monroe Doctrine will face greater challenges from China.Although China borders five of the eight South Asian nations and the stability and development of South Asia is closely linked to the stability and development of China’s Xinjiang and Tibetan areas.For several years,many countries in South Asia have repeatedly appealed in vain due to India’s refusal for accepting China as a full member of the SAARC at the SAARC Summit.Chinese Tibetan culture spans the mountains of the Himalayas to the north and south,however,India regards China’s friendly cooperation with South Asian countries as a threat.It has tried to stop China from expanding its influence in South Asia.For many years,India has been preventing China from becoming an official member of the SAARC,and has been publicly rejecting and resisting the Belt and Road Initiative in South Asia.All of its efforts are to safeguard India’s Monroe Doctrine in SouthAsia.

On the specific issue of the Doklam Standoff,India is prone to consider that Doklam’s border construction in Tibet is the first step for China to link Bhutan with Tibet in the future,because in terms of the terrain　and　convenience　ofproduction　and　life,the　infrastructure construction is bound to provide more convenience for Bhutan herdsman to graze in Doklam.Gradually,the interaction may make the Bhutan government and its people appeal for interconnection with Tibet.Once this happens,in addition to the construction of the Sino-Nepalese Railway,which crosses the Himalayas and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor,the ruling elites in India are worried that India’s Monroe Doctrine in South Asia will fall apart under China’s impact.

1.新生到校报名后，即开始接受入学第一课——入学教育。包括在全校、学院开展的各种层次的、丰富多彩的活动，如军训、专题讲座、主题班会等。可以邀请优秀毕业生（小学的骨干教师）回校畅谈感受，上一堂公开课等，可以邀请实践基地的校领导做专题讲座，还可以选派本院教师介绍本专业培养目标、课程设置和学习方法，等等。学生通过入学教育，间接体验，对教师教育的培养有了初步了解，对本专业的学习有了远景目标。

The Impact of the Doklam Standoff on the Future Sino-Indian Relations

Ⅲ.Brahmin supremacy theory

Fundamentally,the Doklam Standoff was the result of strategic mistrust and mutual misperception toward each other between China and India,and a pronounced reflection of geostrategic competition between the two rising powers in the adjoining regions.The more rapidly the two countries rise,the greater their overlapping interests and the greater chance for their interests to collide.In fact,since the gap of comprehensive national strength between China and India is increasing and will not be reversed in the predictable future,the two countries have different responses to geopolitical pressure.In contrast,India is increasingly uncomfortable with the pace and scope of China’s influence in South Asia and the Indian Ocean region.Under the influence of seeking absolute security and its strategic culture,India’s uneasiness is more and more obviously manifested in its hostility toward China in regard to India’s concept of national security,threats,development,the construction of its foreign strategy and security cooperation.This hostility brings about various and more obvious structural conflicts during their rising process,tensing instead of easing the relations between the two countries.

对照组口服单硝酸异山梨酯片（鲁南贝特制药有限公司生产，国药准字H10940039）（扬子江药业集团上海海尼药业有限公司生产，国药准字H10970331）治疗，20 mg/次，3次/d。观察组在对照组治疗基础上，加用麝香保心丸（上海和黄药业有限公司生产，国药准字Z31020068）治疗，口服，2片/次，3次/d；两组均持续用药6周。分别于治疗前、后，对患者临床症状、静息心电图进行细致观察。观察患者血液流变学变化，用3-9DXW血流变分析仪开展血液流变分析。

Ⅰ.The strategic goals and demands of the two countries repulse each other

It is self-evident that China and India have strong common aspirations in pursuit of great rejuvenation of their ancient nations and strategic goals of becoming global powers and rich countries.The two countries should mutually cooperate and work together going forward.However,the geopolitical fact that the two countries are adjacent to each other makes each side’s dream of becoming a great power will inevitably include the expansion into neighboring areas and even seeks to build a more favorable new order for themselves.Unless the two countries reach a strategic consensus on a shared order in the common bordering areas,the closer the two powers are to reaching the goal of becoming great powers,the sharper the geopolitical conflicts between the two countries will be.As far as the Indian strategist circle is concerned,China’s Belt and Road Initiative is a geopolitical strategy with the aim of building a continental-maritime geo-strategic realm(Shyam Saran,the former Foreign Secretary of India,once said.)1Shyam Saran,“What China’s One Belt and One Road Strategy Means for India,Asia and the World,”accessed November 6,2017,https://thewire.in/12532/what-chinas-one-belt-and-one-road-strategy-means-for-india-asia-and-the-world/.,and aims to construct a new order dominated by China and strengthen its influence in India’s neighborhood(India’s well-known strategist C.Raja Mohan once said).2C.Raja Mohan,“Network Is the Key:India must Ramp up its Internal Connectivity to Counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative.”It could even be considered as the upgraded version of China’s String of Pearls strategy.3Brahma Chellaney,a researcher at Centre for Policy Research,claimed that the Belt and Road Initiative was just another name for China’s String of Pearls strategy to block India.Cf.Brahma Chellaney,“China’s Indian Ocean Strategy,”accessed November 6,2017,https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/06/23/commentary/world-commentary/chinas-indian-ocean-strategy/#.WgTIUlMdj3Q.As far as China’s strategist circle is concerned,India has actively participated in various bilateral and multilateral security dialogues and defense cooperation with the United States and Japan.It has complied with the United States,its allies and some Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN)countries’demands on the South China Sea issue.It has also made frequent statements on the so-called freedom of navigation,rule-based order and responsible economic activities.All of these activities are deliberately done to contain the pace of China’s rise.

Ⅱ.Complementary strategic needs between the two countries tends to be weaker

On the one hand,the Belt and Road Initiative advocated by China is breaking down the limitations of the so-called spheres of influence in the traditional sense.As a result,the Indian strategist circle pursuing the Monroe Doctrine in South Asia and the zero-sum game believe that the conflict between the two countries will increase.On the other hand,the widening gap of comprehensive strength between China and India not only reduces the complementarity between the two countries,but also increases mutual suspicion and conflicts between them.From the perspective of the Indian strategist circle,as China moves toward becoming a developed economy,the momentum of cooperation originally based on the shared identity of developing countries has obviously weakened or even alienated.

In addition,the increasingly serious imbalance of trade and economy between the two countries also hinders economic complementarity between the two countries.Since the beginning of this century,the main products imported from India into China have been raw materials and primary products,especially iron ore,cotton and copper.India’s dominant industries,such as the pharmaceutical industry,customized services and automobile parts manufacturing,have had weaker exports to China,while China’s exports to India,mainly machinery and transportation equipment,power equipment,electronic products and spare parts,have the advantage.With the strengthening of China’s supply-side reform and adjustments to production capacity in recent years,raw materials imported from India to China have been declining significantly year by year.However,the Modi Administration has to continue to expand its import of large equipment,such as machinery,electrical equipment,and mechanical tools,in order to enhance its manufacturing capacity and the pace of infrastructure construction.As a result,this makes the economy and trade between the two countries further unbalanced.For example,in 2016,the bilateral trade volume between China and India was 71.18 billion U.S.dollars,but the trade deficit with China reached 47.68 billion U.S.dollars,accounting for 66.98%of total bilateral trade(see Table 1).

Table 1.Changes in bilateral trade between China and India(Unit:hundred million U.S.dollars)

(Data source:the writer made the table based on annual statistics from China’s Ministry of Commerce,China Statistical Yearbook and China Commerce Yearbook.)

Volume of import and export Volume of export Volume of import India’s deficit with China Year Percentage in bilateral trade(%)2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 711.8 716.5 705.79 654.3 664.75 739.09 617.40 433.81 518.44 386.47 248.61 187.03 136.4 75.95 594.3 582.6 542.20 484.32 476.77 505.36 409.14 296.67 315.89 240.16 145.82 89.35 59.27 33.44 117.5 134.0 163.59 169.70 187.97 233.72 208.46 137.14 202.59 146.31 102.78 97.68 76.77 42.52 Volume 476.8 448.6 378.62 314.62 288.80 271.64 200.68 169.52 113.26 93.85 43.04-8.33-17.5-9.08 66.98 62.6 53.64 48 43.34 36.75 32.5 39 35.56 24 17

One of the direct results of this trade imbalance is that the Indian government has continuously stepped up protectionist measures against Chinese products.Since its establishment in 1992 to the first half of 2016,India’s Directorate of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties(DGAD)under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry initiated 320 anti-dumping cases,among which 177 were anti-dumping cases against China,accounting for 54.6%of the total,with an average of 10 cases annually.In 2016,India became the country that launched the most special trade investigations against China,reaching as many as 21.From January 9 to July 4,2017,India launched 12 investigations on Chinese products,second only to the United States.In the midst of the Doklam Standoff,the Indian government imposed anti-dumping duties on a total of 93 products imported from China starting August 9,2017,including chemicals,petrochemical products,steel and other metal products,fiber and yarn products,mechanical parts,rubber and plastic products,electrically-operated and electronic products,and consumer　goods.Meanwhile,DGAD　launched　40　anti-dumping investigations on Chinese goods.1Check if your product is on the list.India announced it would impose anti-dumping duties on 93 Chinese products,accessed November 7,2017,http://www.sohu.com/a/16 4815519_611309.In addition,under the influence of the conflict between China and India in the past two years,especially during the Doklam Standoff,campaigns to boycott Chinese goods in India broke out from time to time.The crux of the problem lies in the fact that the main role of economic and trade exchanges in the relations between the two countries is insignificant,however the expanding trade imbalance growing year by year has often become a disruptive factor in Sino-Indian relations.

Ⅲ.Both countries have an urgent quest to be great powers

In a speech on India’s Independence Day on August 15,2015,Prime Minister Modi made a public commitment to make India a developed nation by 2022.2Abdul Kalam,former Indian President,even publicly declared that India would have the necessary qualities for being a developed country by 2020.Cf.“National Awakening,”Address by the Indian President to the Nation on the Eve of the 60th Independence Day,New Delhi,August 14,2006.Similarly,Chinese leaders have repeatedly stated that they will build a moderately prosperous society by 2020.As far as the two nations’leaders are concerned,time is tight and tasks are heavy,and their expectations for mutual support are also increasingly urgent.India hopes that China is supportive in making India a permanent member of the UN Security Council(UNSC)and a member of the NSG,which are both important symbols of being great powers in the world.Likewise,China views the Belt and Road Initiative as an important platform for its rise to become a great power and hopes it can be connected to India’s development strategies.However,an indisputable fact is that the two countries not only lack mutual support in their demands of each other,but they　even　havemutualresentment.An　importantreason　forthis embarrassing situation is that India hopes to get China’s political support in its quest to become a great power,but it often regards China as a potential enemy in regard to its security,as a result,India’s strategic deployment against China is increasing.This contradiction is obviously a major disturbance to Sino-Indian relations.It is conceivable that with India’s rise accelerating,its quest to be great power may overshadow its security and territorial concerns as the main focus for its policy toward China,so any cold shoulder behavior from China aimed at India’s quest will trigger India’s displeasure and misunderstanding about China.The Doklam Standoff crisis has fully demonstrated that India’s demand for security precautions against China under Modi’s Administration has surpassed its demand for mutual development cooperation with China.After the crisis was resolved,the frequency of security interaction among India,the United States and Japan accelerated and intensified,which indicated an unstable tendency for future relations between China and India.

铜仁市大部年降水量为1 100～1 400毫米，位于梵净山东南侧的凯马、落满一带降水为1 100～1 400毫米，松桃县、江口县、万山区一带为1 150～1 300毫米，印江县和石阡县一带为全区最少区域，降水量1 100～1 150毫米，其中4～9月降水量占75%以上，秋收作物主要生育期雨量相当充沛。

Ⅳ.Divergence manageability tends to become weaker

Although there are many dialogues between China and India,especially on border issues,there exist multi-level dialogue mechanisms between the two countries.But even when the promise of no threat to each other was reiterated,the Doklam Standoff occurred in broad daylight.This shows that divergence-management mechanisms between the two countries do not seem to play a role.An important lesson from this crisis is that it is of crucial importance for the two countries’political leaders to maintain stable relations and smooth communication.Both sides should make every effortto　ensurethatcommunicationsbetween　thetwo　countries’high-ranking officials continue to be of the utmost importance to guarantee the stability of Sino-Indian relations.

All in all,the above four trends have greatly reduced homogeneity and commonality between China and India in the international system and increased their competitiveness and repulsion,resulting in a lack of momentum in Sino-Indian strategic cooperation.It is normal and not necessarily terrible if some problems exist between two adjacent countries.It is terrible,however,if these differences cannot be properly handled and if no attempts are made to prevent them from happening again.Speaking at the inauguration of the second Raisina Dialogue,Prime Minister Modi said it is not unnatural for two large neighbouring powers to have some differences,but both sides should show sensitivity and respect for each other’s core concerns and interests.1“Differences are Natural but Must Respect Each Other’s Concerns:Modi on China,”accessed November 8,2017,http://www.asianage.com/india/all-india/170117/world-needs-india-to-rise-as-much-as-india-needs-the-world-modi.html.The words had not fallen on deaf ears,and prior to the road construction in Doklam,China had informed India so as to show sensitivity and respect for each other’s core concerns and interests,but unfortunately the Doklam Standoff still occurred.The crisis had an extremely harmful effect,which could reduce the over 10 years of stable bilateral relations to nothing.This is the reason why Foreign Minister Wang Yi stressed that the two sides must ensure that bilateral relations are not derailed,confronted or out of control,which accurately showed that China’s political leaders were concerned about the future development of Sino-Indian relations and worried about frequent recurrences of incidents like the Doklam Standoff.As a result,this would continuously disrupt the stability of the relations between the two countries and ultimately impact their great rejuvenation.

During the BRICS Summit,in a meeting with Prime Minister Modi,President Xi Jinping stressed that the dragon(China)and the elephant(India)should dance together,and Modi responded that the two countries could make great strides and progress in Sino-Indian relations.However,if China and India really want to achieve this goal,the two sides,especially India,need to renovate their thinking and manage their relations with care and without letting Sino-Indian relations drift freely.General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out in the 19th National Congress that the world today is undergoing major developments,transformations and adjustments and international power is more balanced.This change in the international environment provides a unique strategical opportunity for the rise of China and India.The two countries should unite and cooperate with each other to seize and make the most of this opportunity to seek mutual development.As two developing countries that are rising at about the same time,China and India should learn from each other.Only when the two sides consistently adhere to the two basic principles that the two countries take each other as development opportunities instead of the threats to each other,abandon the mindset of zero-sum game,and make efforts to establish mutual respect and win-win cooperation in their shared interests can similar crises between China and India be avoided in the future.