Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
For decades, the theory of International relations like realism, liberalism and constructivism has been largely written in the West (Acharya & Buzan, 2007). Then, these theories, used to explain power, war, cooperation and international politics.
China is now challenging this intellectual dominance. With the rise of the economy, military power and diplomatic influence, Chinese scholars are asking a bigger question: Do Western theories adequately explain China’s understanding of world politics?
Four approaches are particularly important: Qin Yaqing’s relational theory, Zhao Tingyang’s Tianxia theory, Yan Xuetong’s moral realism and the emerging symbiotic theory (Ren, 2024). These are not one unified “Chinese theory”. But together they show that China’s challenge to the existing order is also an intellectual one. This is where India should pay attention to it.
Qin Yaqing: relationships matter
Qin Yaging’s relational theory challenges the idea that states can be understood as separate actors pursuing fixed interests. For Qin, relationships shape interests and behaviour. History, trust, identity and repeated interaction matter (Qin, 2016). This offers a different way of looking at India-China relations. The relationship cannot be just reduced to military capabilities or economic competition. The border dispute, trade, regional rivalry and cooperation in institutions such as BRICS all shape how both countries behave.
But relationships can also be unequal. A powerful state can define the terms of a relationship with a weaker one. So the question for India is not simply whether relationships matter, but who sets the terms of those relationships (Guzzini, 2024).
Zhao Tingyang: think beyond the state
Zhao’s Tianxia theory is a more ambitious attempt. Tianxia means “all under heaven” (Zhao, 2019). Modern international politics is organized around sovereign states, each primarily concerned with its own interests. Zhao argues that this state-centred system struggles to deal with problems that affect humanity as a whole. Tianxia begins with the world rather than the state. The idea is attractive in an age of climate change, pandemics, and global economic interdependence. But it also raises a difficult question: Can a China centred historical concept become genuinely universal? If Tianxia ultimately means replacing American primacy with Chinese primacy, then China has not created a new order. It has merely changed who sits at the top. India, which has historically resisted domination by any single power, should take this question seriously.
Yan Xuetong: power is not enough
Yan’s moral realism stays closer to traditional realism. Power matters. States compete. Military and economic capabilities remain essential. But Yan argues that material power alone does not make a great power, a successful leader. Leadership also requires political credibility and the ability to attract other states (Yan, 2011). This matters for China. China can become richer and militarily stronger. But if its neighbours fear Chinese domination, they may balance Beijing rather than follow it. The same logic applies to India. India can not match China in every measure of power to increase its influence. It needs capable partnerships and a foreign policy that other countries see as credible and independent. This gives strategic autonomy a deeper meaning: India should have the freedom not only to choose its partners, but also to shape the rules of the system.
Symbiotic theory: competition without permanent conflict
The emerging symbiotic theory focuses on another feature of contemporary international politics: states can compete and cooperate at the same time (Ren, 2024). India and China are good examples. They compete over security and regional influence and have a serious border dispute.
Yet they also trade and participate in BRICS and the SCO. Symbiotic theory argues that interdependence can make coexistence possible even when interests class. But interdependence is not a guarantee of peace. States can trade and still become strategic rivals. The challenge is to manage competition without allowing it to become destructive.
Why India should care
This debate matters because the international system is becoming more multipolar. But multipolarity is not simply about having several powerful countries. It is also about who defines the ideas and rules of international politics. China is already working on this question. India had strategic autonomy. It supports multipolarity, reform of global institutions and a stronger voice for the Global South. But there is a gap between India’s foreign policy practice and its intellectual contribution.
China had produced concepts such as relationality, Tianxia, moral leadership and symbiosis to explain what an alternative international order could look like. India needs to engage with these ideas not to imitate them, but to challenge them and develop its own answers.
Conclusion: India Needs its Own Intellectual Space
India has a long intellectual tradition, from Kautilya to its experience of non-alignment, postcolonial diplomacy and strategic autonomy. Yet these ideas have not developed into an internationally influential school of International Relations. India should neither copy China nor dismiss Chinese theories as propaganda. It should study them, challenge their assumptions and develop its own intellectual framework. The objective should not to create an “Indian theory” simply for national prestige. India needs ideas that can explain a world in which no single power dominates and states must compete, cooperate and coexist. This is why the emerging contest between China and the West is not only about ships, missiles, and trade routes or semiconductors. It is also about who gets to define power, order and legitimacy. China has entered that contest. If India wants genuine strategic autonomy, it needs intellectual autonomy too. India should help shape the world, not merely adapt to it.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.