India is much more confident now in

India is much more confident now in the field of national security than it was four decades ago and does not see any major military threat from China. It is also doubtful if China had ever seriously harboured any idea of total war against India. The overall strength of Chinese troops in Tibet and South Xingjian has not shown any significant increases. The deployment is essentially defensive, but the existence of nearby reserves and the infrastructural developments make it easy to change this to an offensive- defensive posture, if the political leadership desired it to be so. However, any engagement would be objective- oriented and of short duration, but the present globalised political and economic considerations would probably rule it out.
India continues to figure in the threat perceptions of the Chinese. The PLA is regularly updating and monitoring the arms and equipment status pertaining to defence forces of six entities - the US, the UK, Japan, India, Russia and “China’s Taiwan Region”. Further, a training establishment of the PLA is reported to maintain realistic and accurate models of important sectors of the Sino-Indian border. China has continually been expanding its presence and influence in ASEAN, India’s close neighbourhood and also West Asia. The pace has been accelerated with increased availability of additional resources due to the booming Chinese economy. What China is attempting, and partly succeeding in, is to get hegemony over its own backyard, and then make the leap to being a power to challenge the United States. This is similar to the route the US had taken earlier in the Americas.
Economic engagement between China and India presents a vivid example of how increasing mutual stakes and common understanding flowing from purely economic interactions can contribute to improvement of overall inter-State relations. High-level, high-profile visits often raise high expectations, which are generally delivered. Indian domestic and international experience has shown that ‘spontaneous’ agreements reached at the highest levels, often based on ‘gut-feeling’, are difficult to implement on the ground, and lead to frustrations and charges of dishonouring of commitments.