India-Taiwan relations lack both ambition and creativity and suffer from not a little pusillanimity.
Successful people-to-people movement requires good physical and communication infrastructure and modernized identification procedures at borders or within countries
New Delhi’s China policy, and indeed its foreign policy, should be based on interactions with and support from a citizenry well-informed and knowledgeable about China.
Arunachal Pradesh’s disputed status, unique socio-cultural makeup and difficult geographic location have elicited multifaceted responses from Indian policymakers. How has this Indian ‘development agenda’ affected and molded the political economy of Arunachal Pradesh and what does it say about the role and place of Arunachal in the Indian political system and imagination?
The development of the North East hinges on a range of factors. One of the aspects that could play an important role in the matter is the improvement of infrastructure along the India-China boundary in the sector. While both India and China have legitimate security interests to consider along their common, disputed frontiers, renewed focus on developing border relations between the two Asian giants, especially in the light of recent infrastructure developments in the North East, could have a salutary effect.
July 2006 saw China make two major statements of intent in its huge western region. The first of these was the opening of the 1,142km section from Golmud to Lhasa completing the Qinghai-Tibet railway (QTR). The other, was the reopening of the 4,545m high Nathu La trading route on the Tibet-Sikkim border that had been closed following the 1962 border conflict between India and China.
The European Union and the People’s Republic of China can be compared by viewing them primarily as conglomerates of smaller constituents, each with their own political and economic significance in relations with their respective political centres.