POZNAN University hosted the 9th edition of “Beyond Europe” international conference on the theme: “Indo-Pacific Dynamics In the new geopolitical landscape”. This scribe participated, speaking on the theme: ‘China and India in the Indo-Pacific: Complex Interdependence?’ This article is based on the presentation. The Indo-Pacific is no longer just a geographical expanse—it is the crucible where Asia’s destiny is being forged. This ocean is not merely a trade route—it is the stage where the future of Asia will be decided.
A.T. Mahan once warned: “Whoever controls the Indian Ocean will dominate Asia. The destiny of the world will be decided on its waters.” Indian diplomat K.M. Panikkar echoed decades later: “The Indian Ocean must remain truly Indian.” Their words resonate today as China and India contest influence across this vital maritime theatre—bound by geography—sometimes cooperating, often colliding. On land, the Himalayas remain tense, yet the rivalry at sea is sharper, more consequential.
China’s Maritime Silk Route stretches from Gwadar in Pakistan to Hambantota in Sri Lanka, to Djibouti in Africa. To Beijing, it is prosperity and connectivity. India counters by strengthening ties with Southeast Asia and investing in naval modernization. The contest is about influence and control of sea lanes that carry the lifeblood of global trade. As one strategist warns: “China builds strings of pearls; India must ensure they do not become chains.” Naval power is the sharp edge of this rivalry. China’s latest sate-of-the-art aircraft carrier, Fujian, alongside Liaoning and Shandong, signals Beijing’s intent to become a true blue-water navy. India counters with the INS Vikrant and the INS Vikramaditya, declaring that: India will not be sidelined in the Indo-Pacific.
This race is not about steel alone—it is about visions of order. China seeks global reach; India seeks regional power projection. Naval power is also psychological. When a carrier sails into a port, it is not just a vessel—it is a message: we are here and we matter. India’s role is further shaped by partnerships like the QUAD—with the US, Japan and Australia—India aiming to check China in the Indo-Pacific.
Washington—which has long dominated the Atlantic and Pacific—now seeks to ensure the Indo-Pacific does not become a Chinese lake. For the US, India is not just a partner—it is a pillar. By encouraging India’s naval modernization, deepening defence cooperation and expanding intelligence sharing, Washington is shaping India into a bulwark against China. This is a complex relationship. India values US support but fears being drawn too deeply into America’s strategic designs. The US wants to ride the Indian elephant to check the Chinese dragon. But the elephant has its own mind, its own path and its own destiny.
Despite rivalry, China and India are economically intertwined. Walk through a market in Delhi and you will see smartphones, solar panels, medicines—all stamped Made in China. Bilateral trade exceeds $100 billion annually. India depends on Chinese imports in critical sectors like electronics and pharmaceuticals. Yet mistrust runs deep. This is the essence of complex interdependence: cooperation is necessary, but competition is inevitable. China articulates its ambitions as part of a shared destiny. President Xi Jinping declared at the 2013 APEC Summit: “We must firmly move toward the goal of constructing a community of common destiny in the Asia-Pacific.”
India and the US, however, interpret China’s Maritime Silk Route as encirclement. Ports like Gwadar, Hambantota and Djibouti are not just commercial—they are strategic. India’s counter-strategy includes developing Chabahar port in Iran, investing in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and building stronger ties with Vietnam and Indonesia.
Why does this matter? Because the Indo-Pacific is not just about China and India—it is about the future of global order. Over 60% of global trade passes through these waters. Energy flows from the Middle East to East Asia. Technology supply chains stretch from Silicon Valley to Singapore. The Indo-Pacific is the artery of globalization. If China and India clash, the shockwaves will be felt from Washington to Brussels, from Tokyo to Canberra. If they cooperate, the Indo-Pacific could become a zone of prosperity for all. This is why the world watches the region so closely. It is not just a regional story—it is a global one.
Rivalry need not mean conflict. The Indo-Pacific can be a zone of peace. To achieve this, several steps are vital: Confidence-building measures through naval dialogues, crisis hotlines and joint exercises. Multilateral forums strengthening ASEAN-led platforms to ease tensions. Economic cooperation expanding trade in non-sensitive sectors such as green energy and infrastructure. Shared concerns addressed by collaborating on piracy, disaster relief and humanitarian aid. Transparency through openness in naval modernization to reduce suspicion.
Peace requires imagination and courage. The Cold War showed that even bitter rivals can avoid direct conflict if they build mechanisms of restraint. The Indo-Pacific needs similar imagination today. The Indo-Pacific is the crucible of the new global order. China and India embody both rivalry and interdependence. Their naval build-ups, strategic alignments and perceptions of each other’s ambitions will shape the destiny of this region.
As Mahan foresaw, the Indian Ocean is decisive. As Panikkar urged, it must remain truly Indian. And as Xi Jinping envisioned, the Asia-Pacific must strive toward a community of common destiny. The challenge before us is clear: to turn complex interdependence into constructive coexistence. Only then can the Indo-Pacific become not a theatre of conflict, but a zone of peace.
—The writer, Retired Group Captain of PAF, is author of several books on China.
