Increasing gap in semiconductor industry

It is no secret that notwithstanding major spending, which by some claims is more than 50 billion USD, mainland China is still far from catching up with Taiwan and US duo together. The marginal technological complexity in further increasing the density of transistors on a semiconductor chip, is far from the grasp of China, which is a lone wolf in this area; while West is migrating from 7 nanometer resolution to 5 nanometer resolution. The big three – Japan, South Korea & the United States of America are far ahead quantitatively as well as qualitatively.

Semiconductors are a subset of a larger sector of science & technology collectively referred to as material science & technology. Inorganic semiconductors (especially Silicon) are the harbingers of future dominance.

FAB – IS NOT A PANACEA

Often Silicon and Silicon Fab are considered to be the panacea. This can only be the view of the uninformed or naive. Both Taiwan and South Korea have large Fabs. Yet, they are no match to the superiority of US and some selected EU nations (mainly Germany, to lesser extent France). Reason being - a Fab is like masonry, while cement and brick material research & production as well as scaffolding, cranes & lifters are still confined to manufacture in US & Europe. Undoubtedly, Fabs are a part of the supply chain, which has materials & tools as its foundation. I bet, that most in India do not even go as far as materials and tools in India, when it comes to semiconductors. They are hitched on ‘Fabs’. Not knowing that without an integrated capital machinery Fabs & materials ecosystem, strategic Fabs alone, will be nothing more than another naïve approach.

WHY INDIA ISN’T A PLAYER?

Under a poor research and development policy, inadequate, under-funded and worse – public R&D infrastructure, attracted more of the mediocre while a minority of outstanding scientists could not push the under-throttled locomotion of material science & technology. We either have none or poor quality resources in the area of material science. Traditionally, Russia and United States have been at the forefront. Taiwan and South Korea are more of the production giants, while R&D is still limited. China is catching up with US and Japan after heavy investment in material science industry; though it is to be conceded that the distance between the US and China is pretty substantial.

India has tried approaching the issue of development of semiconductor & material science Industry a few times by offering various incentives, but failed miserably. Erroneously, general view of material science is that it is all about semiconductors; and that of semiconductors is – it is all about silicon. This is very far from truth. Material science includes – (i) inorganic materials: crystal growth, special alloys, special inorganic materials, specialty gases, specialty chemicals, technical textiles etc.; (ii) Organic materials – special polymers, organic semiconductors, organic specialty textiles etc. And we perform abysmally poor in all of them. Literally all, barring none.

Einstein said repeating the same experiment expecting different results is silly. But we have been smartly (according to ourselves) packaging and repackaging the same old story and repeating it time and again. Offering Intel, AMD or real estate companies (Jaypee) to build Silicon Fabs in India. That is where our understanding & vision of semiconductors and material science ends. The result is known.

There is no doubt that material science industry at large requires State support. Nowhere has it grown with Government subsidies. The risk and reward ratio is highly skewed towards former making the sector high-risk low reward industry. Thus, having a viability gap for most, which needs to be funded by the State. Aforementioned is a necessary condition, not sufficient.

Public sector effort is a fundamentally flawed approach for lack of efficiency in decision-making in an immensely techno-commercially dynamic area, owing to public accountability. Secondly, merit & entrepreneurial zeal is sifted off in public sector enterprise, which is critical in pushing the limits of material science. I have never been able to understand why the Government does not allow the Public Sector Management, like private sector, to take home 10% of the profits. Just one single policy decision will make the prospective ventures more efficient, and attract the best talent. The earnings of Government through taxes and dividends will only go up for sure. While those who still linger on at the edge of existence, should then be sold out. Anyways, I desire not to digress from material science and semiconductors. It is high time visionaries are brought together, who have understanding of the material science industry and a sensible mechanism is created to make semiconductors and other material technologies happen in India. Else we will have no option but possess tanks but not know how to produce titanium alloys, try making fighter aircrafts without knowing how to manufacture composite bodies, keep on importing drones, fail to make reliable aircraft and helicopter engines, fail to make 50 years old basalt fibre material for composite tanks and special fire-resistant textiles, fail to make a single silicon solar cell wafer ‘fully’ in India, make a single space grade gallium arsenide solar cell in India, make an advanced heat pipe in India, even make a 60 year old Bismuth telluride Peltier element (used in car refrigerators & will be critical in next orbit of electronic cooling) in India, or even a Gallium nitride LED or a single chip that goes into the smartphones. Forget about meta-materials, diamond, advanced polymers, memory materials, smart materials, nano-materials and other advanced technologies, which will form the foundation of human life within next one decade. Can you imagine that India does not even have a Fab to manufacture red laser pointers (they are Gallium Arsenide lasers – a material for which Zhores Alferov my mentor got a Nobel Prize in year 2000 and was work done by him in 50-60s); every LED street light and LED home light in India is made from Gallium Nitride light emitting diodes, not one chip being manufactured in India, we do not manufacture a single LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) for a phone or Television, we do not manufacture a single lithium ion polymer battery in India (from material point of view). We have failed to indigenize 30-40 year old technologies like Mercury Cadmium Telluride detectors which are critical for every long range rocket or missile which guards India; not a single photo-detector for a night vision goggle.

Only when COVID came knocking, did the sleeping giant – Govt. of India, realized that India has little to no manufacturing of technical textiles. And the material needed for PPE kits is not available in India! I can keep on writing few more pages, but to no avail.

DISTANCE BETWEEN TWO ACCELERATING BODIES ONLY INCREASES

My worry is that the distance between India and US, Russia, China, Japan, Germany, France, South Korea and Taiwan is increasing with every passing day. Technological development and advancement in material science might come to a point where India might just never-ever be able to catch up. According to me, we are tethering unbelievably close to that point of no-catch up.

The world, we like it or not is moving toward inanimate technocracy – a society in which dispassionate AI systems will govern rule of law. And technology Companies will be as good as Governments in themselves. They are already shuttling the millennia old system where the currency was controlled by the sovereign, by issuing Bitcoins and lot of other competing crypto-currencies. Traffic systems are already unmanned and penalizing on slightest deviation from laid norms. Army-Airforce-Navy too will inanimate, progressively. In the world to come, there will be technological sovereigns and technology vassals and the judgment of sovereignty will be made not by direction or status of technological progress, but by the pace of it. India is standstill, while others are accelerating at increasing pace, leading to geometric increase of gap amongst the forerunners and static India.

I can narrate my own personal experience – I created India’s first Gallium Nitride Fab in Gandhinagar, Gujarat making a major investment, after I returned to India few years ago. We GaN Fab (Gallium Nitride is the second most important semiconductor preceded only by silicon), strategically and commercially critical for India. We created it as a vertically integrated Fab, and were the first ones to establish a commercial size material growth (Gallium Nitride Crystal Growth) facility. Having erected the facility, we were not supported by banks or other financial institutions with working capital. I knocked every possible door in India from the highest offices to those of relevant Ministries, Niti Aayog, Principal Scientific Advisor to the Govt. of India. behemoths in research and development from defense & space sectors; thinking that defense establishments are importing Gallium Nitride devices and are at constant mercy of US suppliers for critical equipment like High power devices, radio frequency devices needed for radars, synthetic aperture radars, radiation resistant ICs etc. The tragedy is that on one side Government is pleading with Western Companies to come and establish semiconductor plants in India, while a niche high technology startup, the only one in entire South Asia with peers only in US, Russia, China, Germany; which bet big investment on path-breaking material science enterprise – built without a penny of Government support or subsidy, is tethering to existence, and facing, nothing but State Apathy. The Government does not realize that its industrial and semiconductor policies with plush-officed investment promotion agencies, manned by fluently English speaking elite MBAs is useless. Serious Semiconductor Companies, many of whom are good friends (the fraternity is small) whom we approached for investment, candidly commented that if the fate met out to you, who invested put his money where one's mouth is has been a still-born, for lack of Govt. empathy and support, that too in amounts, which are paltry compared to Silicon Industry, we really so not see any sense in depending on state pleasantries. In this fact lies the kernel of failure of ‘Make in India’, ‘Assemble in India’, or ‘Service in India’ (that will be next slogan).

Apathy to our investment and project (http://www.dnsl.in) at all levels top to bottom has been shocking. Because industry-welcoming in India seems to be nothing more than a window dressing – the Government is running an advertising campaign for a service that does not exist!

I mourn not just the good money invested and idling, but the vision-stripped character of ours as a society. If all the support pleading emails, requests for appointments to make our case, written to each and every Secretaries, Cabinet Ministers, Departments in India are gathered in a book, it surely will be a 500 page ‘Book of State Apathy to strategic investments’. And that too in a sector which the Government touts at the most crucial after oil and gas.

India is standing on a platform, the train from which is already in motion and we are close to the last wagon. Either we jump on to the last boggy as a nation, state and society, else we will be a technological vassal.

THE WAY OUT

We are the only ones in Independent India’s history, who put their money where their mouth is & have a first-hand private sector experience of pitfalls & challenges of establishing semiconductor Fab in India.

• Economically, there is no need for Americans, Japanese, Koreans or Taiwanese to come and invest in India because labour is not a cost component of any consequence at all in Automated Semiconductor Manufacturing of current day and time. So cheap engineering labour advantage of India is diluted. Quite on the contrary India should be attracting talent globally, as we do not have the school of thought in material science.

• It is a strategic sector investment, US big-heartedness of transferring technology to East Asia made on assumption that they are not smart and inventive to surpass them has proved US wrong in case of China. US understands it created its own monster. They will not repeat the mistake for India. 

• Global EoI to establish Fab in India is good. But if one thinks strategically, why should I help my customer to become my competitor, while the customer has openly demonstrated that he has no capability to be a competitor on its own. Attitude would be very different, if I see that my customer is with his sound and creep business philosophy weaning away my customers to his small exclusive shop, while still buying bulk from me. So I cannot stop selling him bulk because he is a source of growing revenue, but I also clearly see that with time he will become my competitor. That is when I would decide to invest in my customer and be a part of him to avoid losing future profit even if the revenue subsequently is lost.

• Along with EOIs we need to do in private sector (Public accountability in tech is at cross purposes as tech today needs very fast & risk-driving both poisons to public sector) - Our first main purpose is technology. Silicon Fab is not viable, if not executed at scale. So we should first start a State-of-the-Art small unviable plant, which will not make economic sense, but the expenses will be affordable, and Govt. subsidizes all the losses. We can bring a consortium together which will be ready to invest in case Govt. bears the viability gap. Spend 3-4 years on honing our skills doing utterly cutting edge job of only piloting chip-manufacturing for the most advanced Companies in shortest duration and lowest cost to attract the best chip designers. Once we are sensibly established in this market, we make the next big push to create a global scale Fab. In 6 years we will be a force to reckon with. I would be ready to devout rest of my life to make it happen in India.

• Funding or subsidizing absolute technology is completely illogical.

Crux

1.         We will have to develop the semiconductor base in both Silicon & Compound Semiconductors by ourselves, by buying experts & small technology components abroad. There is no inductive logic for a foreign Company to construct and operate a Fab in India while it is much cheaper to expand existing which are anyways under-utilized.

2.         We will need to develop a precision engineering & specialty chemical industrial capability within India else, we will be hampered at the next stage – which no expert ever utters - we might be sanctioned (implicitly or explicitly) from buying sensitive capital equipment that enable State-of –the-Art technology development.

It is the hard way, but all other ways have yielded no result in last quarter century that India has been wanting to have a semiconfab here. And we see no logic in repeating the same approach that yielded no result in past.

Hardening LAC (Line of Actual Control)

Last two months of border (it is called Line of actual control) standoff and hand-to-hand combat has led to lots of purposeful (through application of mind) & auto-generated (emotional) reactions & theories on plausible causes for China’s actions - that of changing status quo on Sino-Indian line of actual control, especially in the Ladakh sector.

Hundreds of air-time hours & gigabytes of geo-strategists, ambassadors & analysts can be summed up into five analytical categories – (i) Tactical[1], (ii) Strategic[2], (iii) Psycho-economical[3], (iv) Reactionary[4], (v) Habitual[5].

I propose you to attend to each of the below mentioned case-categories & consider each brief analysis I have provided along for the 16 presented cases. You are welcome to provide your critique in comments section. The only assumption I have made in the process of my analysis is that Chinese leadership, strategy & policy-makers are very clever & shrewd strategists. Any other contrarian assumption should be made on one’s own peril. Therefore, all such instances, which showcase apparent folly in strategy, have been excluded as possibilities. It is also very important to chaff off causes from effects. China controls causes, effects do not yield to any control. This is apparent from China getting a bloody nose in Galwan valley on the night of 15th June 2020.

Other equally important detail which should not escape attention is that single point agendas are undertaken in personal animosities, nations (like China) undertake high risk actions, only if the strategy foresees multiple-facets, is multi-pronged & very often incorporates opposing, but beneficial anticipated effects for the impacting party (China), such manner that the effected party (India) losses something (tangible or intangible), irrespective of whether it chooses to act one way or other (in this case - ignore the incursions or act against them). It takes an immensely clever opponent to outflank an acting party (China). It will be immensely interesting to wait & watch this game of chess. Does India still have the spirit of Kautilya alive in its political gene?

The categories and cases analyzed:

1) Tactical:

(1a) China is counter-challenging building of road along the LAC in Ladakh, by India.

My view … it’s a possible cause. Especially keeping in mind that Karakoram Highway is within the reach from the point of current conflict, of all modern Indian Guns. And it would be any sensible military strategist’s first action in a 2-front theatre – choke the juggler vein between the two. Flow of weapons, men and materials from China to Pakistan (Pakistan will never withstand a prolonged theatre) could be halted completed by firing a few bombs from India’s territory and sabotaging Karakoram highway at multiple junctions.

(1b) China has internal strife & Sino-Indian border issue (China claims India is inscribing into their territory on Sino-Indian maps) is a good diversion for the public which is still reeling under the heavy hand of Chinese state through the Corona Pandemic;

My view … Cannot be omitted as a possibility, because there are numerous facts on ground that support this hypothesis, but its proportional contribution in a multi-pronged strategy would rather be low. Think – Why a nation (China) or a leader (Xi Jinping) fighting on six fronts - South China Sea, Australian & Sino-Canadian hostility [post retention of Huawei CFO], Taiwanese hostility, Hong Kong rebellion, US Trade war, Pandemic stress; would open another front with India? One has to be a delusional Fuhrer to do it. Xi seems more sensible, but then who knows what happens behind the great wall!

2) Strategic:

(2a) China wants to dominate India.

My view … it is apparent. I am rather surprised at the naiveté of prime time anchors, who claim to have discovered China’s desire to dominate India. Start by asking, “Would India not desire to dominate China, given a chance”? Who does not want to dominate others in geopolitical arena? In a survival-of-the-fittest game, those capable of adroitly dominating, but not doing it are not worthy of power. Every nation of global standing desires to influence decision-making in other nations for its benefit (domination). Some do it economically, others politically or militarily and still others by just being like a common pain to all, after an unhygienic meal. I dissuaded myself from giving examples, as my readers can imagine these themselves.

(2b) China wants to gnaw as much territory as possible.

My view … ask yourself one question – why now? Why would it do so, when it knows that the nationalist Government in Delhi, will be sweated into a corner? Pushing a positively inclined (towards China) Government into a cliffhanger does not seem to be a great strategy. So we keep this case for later discussion as this is the basis of my personal analysis.

(2c) Deter India from cosying up to US or the Quad (US, China, Japan, Australia).

My view … even a small time corporate strategist understands that shoving or scare-mongering a fence-sitter will only push him to jump over to other side. Makes no strategic sense. I do not expect the Chinese to be imbecile strategists.

(2d) Strategic diplomatic coercion (proposed by Shekhar Gupta of 'The Print' dated 27th June 2020 in ‘Cut the Clutter’ & ‘National Interest’).

My view … trying to occupy territory & running into episodes costing itself more, if not as much as India, would be underestimating Chinese capability to think through possible outcomes. I wonder, after getting a punch back in its face and being booed by every major power (including ‘The Quad’) and pushing all its neighbours, besides the Quad into a huddle would really be a bad strategy. I do not see any Chinese diplomatic coercion possible. Quite on the contrary, the world’s view about China, if at all indicates of lack of diplomatic finesse among Chinese. They have reduced, if not lost, patient ears in Delhi amongst the business or political community. Secondly, let’s get down to nuts and bolts – China can never have a sustained victory of any kind against India – thanks to Himalayas. Missile hits will be reciprocal & could lead to dismantling of communist rule. This is so apparent in China’s strict adherence to no use of fire arms. In fact a reciprocal no-fire-arms policy has been to India’s detriment, because India is very good at mountain warfare & cross-border hits – something it has been professionally doing and damaging Pakistan for about a decade now. Secondly, India is too big, with an internalized economy (exports are paltry vis-à-vis GDP) to be coerced into anything. On the contrary, China only stands to lose, if trade is impacted India will only reduce its trade imbalance grossly skewed in China’s favour. Irrespective of concern showcased, a pragmatic Russia is happy selling arms to both the opposing parties – China & India. It’s benefit in a conflict is self-explanatory. Weapons are insurance policies – the more is the fear the better are their sales. So it will maintain its politico-military support to both India and China. Thereby, being a relevant balancing power in an eastwardly tilted world. Diplomatic coercion happens when multiple players pressurize a nation to gulp down its throat a strike on its sovereignty or politico-military esteem. Pakistan’s situation post Kargil’99 is a good example. In this case, India is evidently receiving sympathy, while a hissing China is booed.

(2e) China & Pakistan have teamed up to push India militarily.

My view … it is possible. Especially keeping in mind a combination of this case with a previous one described in (1a). It could be a request from Pakistan Military asking China to engage India within its means to reduce the military pressure India has upped on LOC. Though there have been some engagements elsewhere, nevertheless, choice of Ladakh, as the theatre for action cannot be ignored.

(2f) Strategic tickling - pinch India & see its reaction to make a weighed policy for future.

My view … it is possible. Cost in lives lost might not be a major concern for an authoritative state like China. Xi is not required to win a general election!

3) Psycho-economical:

(3a) China wants to show India down. And thereafter somehow stagnate it.

My view … I wonder, do we really need China to stagnate? Think about it. We are good at doing this without their help. In fact the impact of Chinese incursions would only gel India together to beat the heat. Left alone, we were rather heading for a stagflation. A take-it-easy, happy-go-lucky nation (India) busy on their Chinese smartphones & Televisions have suddenly got a fire (Boycott Chinese) to douse jointly. Every second Indian is running around with his own bucket of actions. I have firmly believed that the only nation with potential to be great superpower other than US is India. Our individualism, self-motivation and capability to embrace ambiguity being raison d’etre. We just need to cross the threshold, beyond which they start yielding exponential returns. We are close, but not yet there.

(3b) China wanted to deter India from inviting companies wanting to disembark their shores.

My view … it is very much possible. I would say it is most sensible reason for a country whose power and status of an eminent super power is dependent on economics and exports. ‘Factory of the world’ tag is the most coveted tag China has which has allowed it immense influence in all nations including Europe and US. This, therefore is China’s Achilles heel – the vulnerability that they cannot afford to be bulldozed. By stirring the Sino-Indian conflict soup, they are successfully drawing all Indian attention away from attracting factories and investments from China to India, while concurrently drawing western operators & investors away from India – as a place in chaos and edging a serious conflict with China. Distances matter. China’s economic power houses are very far away & unconcerned with Sino-Indian Ladakh theatre. They also knew that talkative & argumentative Indians (including me) will reiterate Sino-Indian conflict so much to make it a job in itself. I need confession the only difference between well-meaning Indians and meaningless Indians is – that the former (like me), write analytical papers thinking, “What if the strategists in Delhi, missed something, let me write my analysis to provide them cue on all possibilities”; while the latter think, “let me educate others on strategic thinking”. Either way, we speak, argue & write till we are self-hypnotized or the topic crumbles dead from monotony.

4) Reactionary:

(4a) China is doing this because Indian Home Minister announced India shall take Aksai Chin back from China.

My view … bleakly possible. Chinese are not expected to ground their strategy on Indian political rhetoric, which they understand well. Nonetheless, it is possible that China decided to give a low cost signal to India to refrain from adventure.

(4b) China is itself feeling insecure both internally (Pandemic, Hong Kong & Taiwan) and externally (US, strong willed India) and hence bullying its way (proposed by Chinese Experts in Washington).

My view … it is impossible. Such behavioral insecurities are valid for individuals, not nations.

(4c) Occupying some Indian territory could be a Dokhlam revenge

My view … very much possible. China had to recede losing face globally. Because while China fully manages information diffusion within China, it has no control on the opinion making outside of China. India pushing China back – to protect its protectorate (Bhutan), needed an appropriate revenge – that of disputed territory being nibbled by China along LAC in strategic area of Ladakh. This is what any sensible superpower claimant would do. Does not surprise me at all. India should have expected this and not be carried away with Wuhan tea drinking or Mamallapuram bonhomie. I bet Indian military strategists of any sensible caliber would already be thinking (quite alike) – now that China occupied some disputed no-man’s land, India will act alike in another sector to ultimately square off to pre-conflict positions. Indeed, if Indian does not do that, it would not have anything to negotiate on.

5) Habitual:

(5a) China is in the habit of nibbling away adjoining lands and other such resources that are not cared for or whiling away

My view … it is possible. This is a national behavior. It might seem far-fetched but cultural memes are far deeply embedded into collective national psyche.

(5b) China has been habituated to India's wonted reticence (understating itself diplomatically), its pacifism (disinclination to fight), its ambiguity (in thinking) & its wavering attitude in action. Actions (August) of Modi Government have jolted it into action. They underestimated India.

My view … very much possible. They suddenly realized that India is trying to cut threads in which it was strategically entangled. The umbilical cord with Pakistan, which was choking an agitated & energetic young India to asphyxiation, was surgically chopped off on 5th August 2019. This stunned Chinese. And they decided to take strategic steps to defend Karakoram and Aksai Chin.

Aforementioned are fifteen (15) different cases made till date. Besides the analysis provided above. I add my own case – Techno-strategic, which has not been discussed till date.

6) Techno-strategic:

My view …  Realizing that while Himalayas will not let China have a sustained victory on anyone across (Nepal, Bhutan or all the more huge India), technology development is happening at such a rapid speed that very soon non-human means of establishing and guarding the borders will get developed. US, Russia and China itself, need it more than India or anyone else (owing to large Borders). With such technology components already available, though not installed. Example – Boeing’s Project–28 (of electronic fence between US & Mexico for certain sectors). Our own proposal (from my Company) to Ministry of Defense to build an electronic fence on the border, enabling detection, signaling (including high decibel signal) besides control room alerts and satellite imagery can be coupled with automated detection and weapon firing – all autonomous, could hopefully be considered. We do it or not, it is happening. Such technologies will automatically harden the borders on 24x7 basis.

Therefore, whatsoever is occupied by whosoever, will be their factual & geographical territory. These are going to the last few years for China to gnaw into territory especially at strategic junctions before the LAC hardens. India’s rising economic and global stature would also enable India to better protect its boundaries. Thus they decided to gnaw whatsoever they can before a hardened LAC becomes a reality. Which both the nations will accept if not today, another half a decade later. On an optimistic note – China might even want to hereafter resolve the border dispute more actively.

Aforementioned is the only sensible explanation to the question I posed in (2b)

CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS

Cumulatively, re-ordering the detected positive cases & stitching them into a chronometric storyline, China seemed desirous of causing the below mentioned. What actually is occurring is mentioned in next section.

Ownership[6]: Dokhlam revenge needed to be taken & strategic pinching of India was needed to be done by Chinese to check the reaction and formulate a weighed future long term policy. There would be a zone chosen for real action & other zones as decoys. The real action zone seems to be in Ladakh, while Sikkim, Tawang & Indo-Nepal-China tri-zone were tactical distraction. Indo-Nepal-China tri-zone issue though done by Nepal is manifestly at China’s behest, as I have no belief in miracles and geopolitical co-incidents. Simultaneously, China is in the habit of gnawing away territories that are ill-protected or resources that are whiling away.

Knowing that high altitude areas are not patrolled in winters, they acted on early onset of spring (March-April) and occupied the areas that where otherwise no-man’s land in Pangong Tso & Galwan Valley which was patrolled and frequented by both the parties regularly. While occupying these areas, China, habituated to India's wavering attitude towards action in last 60 years, underestimated India.

Quantitative[7] change desired by China: Nibble away territory in the sensitive and strategic sector of Ladakh. Deter India from inviting investments and western companies that might desire to move out of China impacting there export, economy & standing as the ‘factory-of-the-world’.

Qualitative[8] change aimed by China: China does see a rival in India and wants to dominate in a Sino-Indian relationship. So it is counter-challenging the road India build.

Geo-ambient[9] change aimed by China: China certainly felt that a Sino-Indian conflict would divert its public opinion from internal strife and other fronts (pandemic & economic) where it is faltering & gel a divided nation. Teaming up with Pakistan made sense and hence the zone chosen was one that is strategically important to Chinese as well as Pakistanis owing to its closeness to India-China-Pak border & Karakoram highway. An incursion & occupation of no-man’s land (or disputed land) would also send a clear message deterring India from rearing any Aksai Chin ambitions. Equally important was the desire to occupy maximum in the most strategic locations before the LAC is hardened by technology and economy of a rising India.

What China ended up achieving by now?

It occupies some high-altitude no-man’s land that is tactically important in mountainous battles and overseas the newly built Indian Border Road, which can be destroyed by China easily at multiple locations. But the Karakoram highway is still in easy Indian reach. Therefore, as of now, they seem to have created a counter strength but realize that their own weakness is not eliminated. Additionally, they would be naïve not to anticipate Indian counter occupation in Sikkim areas, which are more important for India, owing to chicken’s neck to subsequently trade off in a settlement & genuine disengagement & return to pre-April status. There is another aspect, we Indians will never know – May be this area has been occupied by Chinese to square off another area India might have occupied quietly. I am conducive to such a possibility, because I do think that Indians have not or could not similarly, occupy no-man’s land in other territories. Thinking this impossible would be understating our own capabilities.

Unanticipated outcomes for China: It has opened an otherwise quite front with India. It has forced India to considering Quad more seriously. RIC will only remain a grievance redressal platform for India & China, as Russia is the only nation that Indians and Chinese might allow to silently mediate.

China would have thought that India would run to US & UN with a complaint letter and that’s it. Most of these platforms are ineffective, Chinese knew. What they surely did not anticipate is India’s resolve to approach none & figure out a resolution, on their own. India’s courteous refusal of US’s mediation offer and proactive self-initiated action has brought China at par with Pakistan in terms of dealing with it. Indian Prime Minister on being offered mediation between India & Pakistan by US President, had sagaciously responded, “we do not want to burden US with petty issues of our own”. So it probably is a shocker to China. As India now stands at par with China & has clearly stated its capability to seek no allies for counter-punching a bully in its face. This has also raised India’s stature globally - a counter impact undesired by Chinese. It has one more worry & seventh front opened with Sino-Indian conflict. Politically, militarily and diplomatically, China’s objectives of dominating India, have all been defeated. Economically, it has woken India up to the depth to which they occupy Indian markets. Counter measures will happen – effecting their market shares subsequently – not only in India but even abroad.

China has got a red nose for the second time, first time was in Dokhlam. It lost probable 40-45 soldiers in the hand-to-hand combat in Galwan. This is a sensible estimate, as eye witness accounts state that one young Indian Gurtej Singh had cancelled 9 Chinese soldiers, before falling martyr. I have no reasons to believe that all others taken together would have not deleted 30 more. While 20 of our own were martyred.

While the Chinese might be overly insecure vis-à-vis factories and investments shifting to India. I would not even bother about it. The reason being that I firmly believe that China’s market and infrastructure was sizably better and not many will actually shift to India. So their fears might have been grossly exaggerated.

The other consequence will be inevitable gelling up of the other sino-pained neighbours of China. An encirclement of China is more probable now than it ever was before May 2020. Furthermore, China has driven into a corner - a positively inclined & neutral Government in Delhi. They have lost a friend in Delhi – Mr. Narendra Modi.

China might be in for more surprises. (a) India might enliven Tibet issue again; (b) reduce trade balance substantially; (c) and given an opportunity, we are capable of developing unmanned self-guarding electronic borders (guarded from up to 5 km away (inside Indi’s territory) from the electronic fence and thus cannot be sabotaged by enemy behind the lines. And we can do it faster than Chinese can. Thereby,

Hardening LAC.

Word Count        : ~3600

Endnotes:

[1] In context of this article it means localized in geography and time.

[2] That which has clearly stated quantitative (measurable) objectives with their risks, purpose, place, cost and time of accomplishing.

[3] Psychological has been clubbed with economical because the ultimate objective of psychological causes is to influence the dominated party for extraction of resources from them more than the dominating party’s fair share in a transaction amongst the two.

[4] Reaction guided by emotional connect or abhorrence.

[5] A habit. Like territorial kleptomania – a memetic habit of gnawing others’ land or resources whiling away

[6] Relating to effect on the impacting party, impacted party and the witnesses

[7] Relating to numerical or calibrated & comparative assessment

[8] Relating to properties that are non-numerical – includes strategic changes

[9] Relating to locational aspects and environs (milieu) of the entity (party) impacting or impacted