‘No Reconciliation With China In My Lifetime’

The recent improvement in India-China ties should not be mistaken for a political reset, according to Dr Sriparna Pathak, Professor of China Studies and founding Director of the Centre for Northeast Asian Studies at O.P. Jindal Global University.

Speaking to The Gist, Pathak, fluent in Mandarin and one of India’s foremost experts on China and Indian foreign policy, said the current thaw is “overwhelmingly transactional”, driven by supply chains, trade, investment and economic pragmatism rather than a fundamental change in the relationship.

“There’s no genuine political reset being underway,” she said, adding that political and military distrust between the two countries remains “deeply structural”. In her assessment, both sides are managing friction rather than resolving it.

Pathak pointed to India’s continuing dependence on Chinese imports in areas including electronics, machinery, chemicals and solar equipment. The large bilateral trade deficit, she said, remains a major factor in India’s economic calculations.

She also discussed India’s decision to allow four China-linked power equipment companies to participate in government tenders for a defined period. Pathak described the move as a temporary commercial accommodation rather than a strategic endorsement.

“Absolute decoupling in power equipment is not yet feasible without higher costs and project delays,” she said, arguing that India is instead pursuing risk management through cybersecurity requirements, testing, indigenous alternatives and supplier diversification.

The border remains central to her assessment. Pathak said recent military talks have produced measures for friction management and incremental disengagement, but do not amount to a political breakthrough. The larger boundary dispute, she argued, remains unresolved.

She was also sceptical about the prospects for India and China working together on wider global crises. While both countries have interests in maintaining energy security, Pathak said their broader objectives differ sharply. China, she argued, seeks to displace the United States as the leading actor in the international system, whereas India does not seek hegemony.

The unpredictability of US policy under Donald Trump has nevertheless created pressure for countries including India to hedge their positions, she said. But Pathak argued that India’s engagement with China should not come at the expense of its relationships with the United States, Japan, Australia or Europe.

Pathak also rejected calls for reviving an India-Russia-China, or RIC, grouping. India already has bilateral relations with both Russia and China and participates in larger groupings such as BRICS and the SCO, she said. A formal RIC framework, in her view, could undermine India’s relationships with Western partners and Japan while primarily benefiting China.

On Russia-China ties, Pathak described the current relationship as tactical, arguing that their common opposition to the West is the principal factor binding them together. Historical differences, she said, suggest that the relationship could change if that common adversary ceases to be viewed in the same way.

But her most categorical assessment concerned the long-term prospects for India-China reconciliation.

Advertisement

“I don’t see it happening, not in my lifetime,” Pathak said. She argued that despite repeated Indian attempts at engagement, China continues to seek what she described as a subordinate relationship with India.

Her conclusion was stark: rather than a “happily ever after”, she expects a relationship that remains “painful and toxic” for the foreseeable future.

Watch the full interview for a candid, no-holds-barred chat not just on India and China, but also how Russia and the United States fit into that relationship and more.