alternatehistory.com

During the 1950's, India had very good relations with the People's Republic of China, and the Chinese leadership expressed at numerous times that they were content with the Sino-Indian border, even after the invasion of Tibet. However, by the time of the Sino-Soviet split, Mao became paranoid, and when India accepted the Dalai Lama, became convinced that India was also against China. This created a spiral that lead to the war.In 1960, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai unofficially suggested that India drop its claims to Aksai China in return for a Chinese withdrawal of claims over the North East Frontier Area. Adhering to his stated position, Indian PM Nehru believed that China did not have a legitimate claim over either of these territories, and thus was not ready to concede them. This adamance was perceived in China as Indian opposition to Chinese rule in Tibet. Nehru declined to conduct any negotiations on the boundary until Chinese troops withdrew from Aksai Chin; a position supported by the international community.India produced numerous reports on the negotiations, and translated Chinese reports into English to help inform the international debate. China believed that India was simply securing its claim lines in order to continue its "grand plans in Tibet". India's stance that China withdraw from Aksai Chin caused continual deterioration of the diplomatic situation to the point at which internal forces were pressurizing Nehru to take a military stance against China. This resulted in the "Forward Policy" where the Indian military sent military units into the disputed region. This, in turn, lead to war.

So WI: India doesn't accept the Dalai Lama, and long story short Indian and Chinese relations continue going well, with little dispute over the border. Could this lead to a greater third bloc of China and India?

This is info from Wikipedia:
"In 1950 the Chinese People's Liberation Army invaded Tibet. Four years later, in 1954, China and India negotiated the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence by which the two nations agreed to abide in settling their disputes. India presented a frontier map which was accepted by China, and the Indian government under Prime Minister Nehru promoted the slogan Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai (Indians and Chinese are brothers). According to Georgia Tech political analyst John W Garver, Nehru's policy on Tibet was to create a strong Sino-Indian partnership which would be catalyzed through agreement and compromise on Tibet. Garver believes that Nehru's previous actions had given him confidence that China would be ready to form an "Asian Axis" with India."


What would the geo-political effects be if this alliance was formed in the 60's? It still would not be as powerful as either the USSR or the USA, but it would still be a force to reckon with. Also,
I am sure it wouldn't be as a cohesive bloc as either the Warsaw Pact or NATO, but there would still be more clout for both the PRC and India, especially if more nations are drawn into their sphere of influence. What would it be called is also a good question. "Third Bloc", "Non-aligned Bloc", "Delhi Pact"? I could easily see, in the long term, Southeast Asia, North Korea, and potentially Indonesia in this Third Bloc. This could butterfly the Vietnam war, as the USA may not want to ostracize a potential ally against the USSR.For the same reason, no border dispute between the USSR and PRC.

Ah, this gives me a great idea for a WWIII with the USSR and NATO against an uber Third Bloc.
Top