In recent months Chinese leaders and the country’s state-controlled media have been bullying India, commenting and interfering in India’s internal affairs and issuing warnings of ‘consequences’.

The latest Chinese ‘warning’ has come in anticipation of the visit of the Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama to Arunachal Pradesh. That proposed visit is not due before March, five months away, and the Chinese have already ‘warned’ India of its ‘consequences’ which include a setback to bilateral ties. Indeed, there was an oblique reference to the likelihood of a flare up at the borders.

Only Beijing can explain why someone’s visit to a territory that is not under its control can become such a serious matter that it may end up with border skirmishes, if not war. But it is possible that Beijing has been emboldened by some previous threats and warnings that it had successfully issued to countries as powerful as the US and a lesser power like the Czech Republic.

The US President Obama, had avoided meeting the Dalai Lama during his first US visit under the Obama administration. The Czechs had cancelled honouring a citizen because the Chinese did not approve of the person! The nature of India’s relations with China is not the same that countries like the US or the Czech Republic have with the Dragon.

These are countries physically too far away from China while India is a next door neighbour and as a result has reasons to respond in a different manner. The territorial ambitions of China have a direct bearing on India. Most other neighbours of China are as much suspicious of China’s expansionist mood as India is. They do not like China giving them lectures on how to run their China policy.

China bristles with rage at the very mention of Dalai Lama who the Chinese consider to be a deadly ‘terrorist’ though they are very happy to shield the likes of Maulana Masood Azhar from international sanction of designated terrorists roaming freely in Pakistan. China’s anger becomes uncontrollable whenever any important figure from the world, not just Dalai Lama, visits Arunachal Pradesh. China was howling with indignation when the US ambassador in India, Richard Verma, visited the state. If China could help it, it would ‘ban’ visits of the Indian President and other leaders, India and foreign, from entering Itanagar or Tawang.

What apparently riles the Chinese is that Arunachal Pradesh is in their view a ‘disputed’ territory. China claims all of the state plus some other Indian territories as its own. Its claim is reportedly based on a Chinese grandiose design that seeks to revive its past glory—going back centuries.

Well, if Beijing thinks Arunachal should close its doors to all Indians and foreigners alike because it is in Chinese eyes a ‘disputed’ territory, what right it has to send its troops, engineers et al and take up infrastructural projects in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK)?

China’s premier client, Pakistan, calls the whole of Jammu and Kashmir a ‘disputed’ territory, refusing to recognise the instrument of accession (to India) signed by the then ruler of Jammu and Kashmir nearly 70 years ago. Since China blindly endorses whatever Islamabad –Rawalpindi combine says against India, it can be assumed to accept the ‘disputed’ status of the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir.

The arrogant Chinese resort to hypocrisy without batting an eyelid. Their military muscle and a money power are built largely with the help of questionable labour practices and currency manipulation. There is no reason for New Delhi to loudly and clearly tell the Chinese off, not respond with meaningless and polite diplomatic jargon, especially when the Chinese themselves are unfamiliar with that language.

The moment India says or does anything that may affect Chinese business interest they start yelling homilies at India—apart from the usual warnings and threats. Is India as fearful of the Chinese as it was in 1962? Why can’t the Chinese bluff be called off?

A few days before the Diwali, a call went off—not from the government—for boycotting Chinese goods, particularly firecrackers and idols of Indian gods and goddesses made in China. The Chinese bristled with anger. Without any loss of time, the Chinese were telling India that the boycott would harm Indian economy.

The call for boycott of Chinese crackers did achieve some success. But that is hardly of any consequence when the Chinese export to India runs into billions of dollars.

The theory of cheap Chinese labour is questionable. Till China was in the state of transition from a poor economy to one of the largest in the world its labour force might have been cheap—though how much cheaper than India’s needs to be known. But wages in China are now higher than in the Indian labour market.

It cannot be said that India has suddenly lost the skill or the expertise that it had in making many goods particularly like toys, firecrackers, idols, and many consumer items that now come from China. There was a thriving toy industry in the country and many electronic goods were being made for both domestic and foreign consumption. It needs to be emphasized that most Chinese goods may be cheap but they are of poor quality. They manage to edge out competition because the Chinese offer attractive payment terms to the importers.