The day I met three gentlemen sharing views on three countries (India, US and China)....

These countries don't need attention, do they? Yet, even if they don't seek it, they somehow end up at the center of everything (Caution: Don’t judge India’s popularity based on the New York Times! 😂).

Today, I interacted with three individuals: an Indian Foreign Service officer (mid-senior level), an Indian professor of political science specializing in China studies, and an Indian citizen who regularly watches the news and reads the Times of India. Of the three, two are experts with a professional and bookish approach. Interestingly, the common man's opinion stood out as quite different.

The Indian Foreign Service officer, who deals with China, shared that the Chinese are harsh negotiators. Their ideology behind negotiations is unclear, and they often seem uncertain about what they want to negotiate. However, he acknowledged that unlike other countries, the Chinese possess a certain wisdom, rarely cross their limits (though not borders 😅), are culturally connected, and are very business oriented. The Indian professor mentioned that the Chinese dislike the hypocrisy of the West and operate on a philosophy that you are either pro-West or anti-West. He said they are unsure which category India falls into.

The common man, on the other hand, expressed his dislike for China as a country. When I asked why, he said he admires China’s development but hates its support for Pakistan and its terrorists. He also dislikes how China has tortured the Dalai Lama and considers him a terrorist. He made a particularly interesting point, different from the other two: China aims to create a balance of power in a US-dominated world, but it is using India as a medium, even though India has no direct role in this balance of power. I found this perspective fascinating. I will explore it further in my upcoming blog, where I explain how this situation resembles a common scenario: two senior employees fighting for the same superior position, leaving a new joinee frustrated from both ends! 😁😁

Note: I’ve used the term "balance of power," not the man's phrase. 😀

So, whose argument do you like more? The IFS officer's, the academician's, or the common man's?