[whooshee]

Actually Modi is visiting China in recent days. China and India will continue to compete and cooperate. Tibet has been a part of China for many centuries, and the serfs over there has been given freedom by CCP. Maybe some of those old serf-owners didn't like that. In foreseeable future, both China and India will look to increase its influence and there will be more conflicts, see Maldives, but also deals to make, like phone-makers from China continue to invest in India.

[shripadk]

Tibet was not part of China for many centuries. It was an independent country before it was Annexed by China in 1951. There has never been any freedom given by China to Tibet. Contrast it with India's liberation of Bangladesh from attrocities of Pakistan. India did not annex Bangladesh when it had all the strength and opportunity to do so.

Chinese influence in India is actually diminishing on the ground. People in India are more aware now than ever before. People here prefer to buy products either made in India or some other country and not from China. Things are changing rapidly on the ground which will take a few years for it to be visible to China. India cannot have the huge trade deficit it has with China right now. To top it, China's persistent support to Pakistan backed terrorism is going down in bad taste with Indian citizens.

Modi is not having an official summit with Xi. This is an unofficial summit over Doklam and other pressing issues. I don't see any positive outcome from this as both parties involved will not be willing to shift from their positions.

Xi wants to consolidate power. Not just within but also by annexing other territories, oceans and islands. This also includes involvement in the power tussle currently underway in Maldives. This is a big gamble because it may end up pushing those countries that weren't allies of China but still had trade to reconsider China as a decent trade partner. Look at the US tariffs imposed on China. Other countries will take the cue once they realise China isn't as powerful as it portrays. It all boils down to if China can be a responsible superpower. Currently, it has everything going for it except that one point. Future will tell if Xi's gamble of alienating trade partners who weren't allies a good move or a bad one.

[whooshee]

> There has never been any freedom given by China to Tibet.

It seems you completely ignored my remarks. 95% of Tibetans were serfs before reintegrate to China. After 1951, they became free people have the basic human rights. As in history, Both Yuan dynasty and Qing Dynasty have Tibet.

> Look at the US tariffs imposed on China.

US and China are in trade wars. Trump is playing the 'art of deal' game(not only to China but also Japan and other countries) and he is sending treasury secretary to China to negotiate. This has nothing to do with India/China conflicts or Maldive incidents.

China is still a developing country and it didn't show off to be a superpower. The major agenda is still developing its economy and addressing poverty.

Regardless all the challenges, 21st century can hold two most populous countries in the world.

[shripadk]

The serf argument is a Chinese justification for invasion of Tibet. This has nothing to do with "human rights". It was a simple and plain invasion of another country which violated International Laws. You cannot shove that under the carpet with any sort of justifications: even if it is a dislike for social structure. If China really cared about the people of Tibet, it would have done what India did after East Pakistan liberation. It created Bangladesh and allowed the local people to rule themselves unhindered. India did not colonize Bangladesh. In fact, this "reintegration" argument is bogey. India could have used the same "reintegration" argument to justify colonizing Bangladesh as it once belonged to Hindustan in the ancient times. It did not. There is absolutely no justification for invasion and occupation of a territory.

> China is still a developing country and it didn't show off to be a superpower. The major agenda is still developing its economy and addressing poverty.

Are you seriously telling me that the militarisation in disputed South China Sea is not showing off? How about building the CPEC across disputed territory? How about China trying to build roads in the Doklam region? Are all these part of it developing its economy and addressing poverty? Seems more like unwarranted expansion to me.