A China Primer:
An Introduction To A
Culture And A Neighbour

A China Primer:
An Introduction To A Culture And A Neighbour

G. S. Iyer

A China Primer: An Introduction To A Culture And A Neighbour

First Published in India in 2016

Published by

Vij Books India Pvt Ltd

(Publishers, Distributors & Importers)

2/19, Ansari Road

Delhi – 110 002

Phones: 91-11-43596460, 91-11-47340674

Fax: 91-11-47340674

e-mail: vijbooks@rediffmail.com

web : www.vijbooks.com

Copyright © 2016, Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA)

ISBN: 978-93-85563-24-9 (Hardback)

ISBN: 978-93-84464-25-6 (ebook)

All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Application for such permission should be addressed to the publisher.

The views expressed in this book are of the author in his personal capacity and do not represent the views of the ICWA.

Contents

Introduction: Why Another Book on China?

Do we need another book on China when so much has been written about that country? Don’t we know all that we have to about its economic achievements and its future greatness, which, we are assured, is so obvious and beyond debate? That could be the first question asked about this book. Yes, there are several reasons to write another book, a book that describes China from our, a really Indian, point of view.

What is attempted here is an essay that would tell the reader about China’s history and culture; its habits of behaviour that emerge from that history and culture; how these characteristics impel the way that country works; and how it conducted itself and does so now. The attempt is to integrate the flow of China’s history with current affairs. Such an attempt is necessary because most of China scholarship in its comprehensive best is developed in Western countries. Is that good or not from our perspective? The great historian and philosopher of history Arnold J. Toynbee opens his magnum opus, A Study of History, with the statement that ‘historians generally illustrate rather than correct the ideas of the communities within which they live and work’.¹ All scholarship originates from the points of view and interests of the society that produces that scholarship and its results are invariably tinged with the assumptions and beliefs that are predominant in that society and, if that scholarship is effective and of high quality, it will promote the larger aims and agenda of that culture. It goes without saying that Western scholarship on China cannot be an exception; it is not based on universally accepted foundations, but reflects both the specific biases and the broader objectives of that society vis-a-vis China.

It also follows that, while we in India could use such scholarship as is available – and it is abundant and rich in quality – we have an obligation to develop our own point of view and draw our own conclusions. I also hope to demonstrate later that we have fallen woefully short of developing our own perspective on China, despite the high quality of research done in India on those specific areas that we have chosen to focus on. We need to be liberated from outside perspectives so that alien logic and alien agenda do not infiltrate our thinking and usurp our interests. I see the current effort as a modest contribution in that direction.

In India, we have a new generation of internationally minded youth growing up and working in environments that are inluenced by global events and trends. What happens in the world matters to them in a way that cannot be grasped by their elders because those developments affect the way they live and work in our country or wherever they may go to earn a living. It is an inescapable necessity for them to have access to and knowledge of international relations as part of their working environment also for them to make informed inputs in debates about our relations with other countries and choices that we make in the development of such relations. China has forever been a great country; it was, it is and it will be a major force that has to be understood well by the broadest public of our country. It is, therefore, natural for us to develop our own perspective on China well beyond the usual comments on China’s GNP and our border with them and have a broader debate beyond the arcane concerns of official diplomacy and the almost opaque public presentations emanating from official quarters on diplomatic exchanges with China.

India and China: Parallels and Comparisons

Recent times have seen a lot of pairing of India and China as well as clubbing of the two countries with two or three others, especially in the economic context. There was a short-lived Chindia (but not an Indna!), which sank rather rapidly without trace, but the BRICS, in some variations, lives on. All these are Western constructs and are obviously thought up with their parochial interests in mind. BRICS is an unprecedented beast because, unlike groupings of countries that are usually voluntary associations put together on their own volition on a perception of common interests and goals; it was thought up by a Western financial firm of controversial reputation and thrust into our consciousness without our consent or approval and without our being present at the creation. It is strange that the countries so designated have obligingly accepted the conjunction of interest as defined by someone else and spend time in summits. As the BRICS has assumed a life of its own, we will leave them aside and move on.

Let us rather look at some relevant and germane facts. 1) India and China are the two largest reservoirs of humanity in the entire world and have been so for all the time that civilisations had been created and nurtured in the world; 2) these two countries have longer histories, and more or less unbroken histories too, as unique cultures with distinctive characteristics; 3) for most of the history of civilisations, governments in these two countries, or at least in their largest portions, have ruled over larger number of people than any other ruling entity anywhere else at any time. In short, in the larger schemes of things, China and India have to measure themselves against the other and none else. There is a fourth, a more dynamic problematic fact, that the two countries began close involvement with each other on a constant basis for the first time in history only in the middle of the twentieth century.

When were We Neighbours?

This has become a far more relevant fact as the two countries embarked on their journeys as modern states at approximately the same time; India when Nehru declared on the eve of our independence that “at the stroke of midnight hour .… India will awake to life and freedom” and China a little more than two years later, when Mao Zedong stood on the ramparts of the Tiananmen in Beijing on October 1, 1949 to proclaim that “the Chinese people have now stood up”. Nehru’s eloquent and moving description of the moment as “something that comes, but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance” could equally well apply to liberated China. After much chequered endeavours and many a setbacks, both the countries had begun riding the track of rapid economic development as the fastest growing national economies. By development, one does not think solely of percentage of annual growth of GNP, but is also concerned with success in making the benefits of health, education and welfare reach the broadest mass of population, and their enjoyment of freedom based on the principles of equality, liberty and justice.

At the same time, for most of recorded history, we were strangers to each other. Much has been said about our two thousand years old friendship that is a lot of mushy nonsense. China was far away for most of our history. How many references to China do we find in our ancient literature? Kalidasa refers to ‘chinamshuka, silk obviously, of the flag in the king’s chariot and there is a reference in the Mahabharata to a ‘cheena’ tribe as participants in the battle. That may just be about it. The story of Ganga descending from the skies to redeem Bhagiratha’s ancestors tells us the intriguing tale of the heavenly river landing on Shiva’s head, an obvious reference to Mount Kailash, and lowing as seven rivers, three westward, three eastward and one, our Ganga, lowing south as the seventh branch of the sacred heavenly river. What are the three east-flowing streams? Did one or more of them flow through China? We do not know, though Ganga itself entered Chinese vocabulary in due course in the beautiful transliteration of ‘heng he’ or ‘eternal river’. Leaving aside Chinese artifacts, which reached our peninsular region at a later time, and trade through the sea route, there does not seem to be much trade and, even more important, any significant exchange of ideas. Buddhism is a glorious exception, which we will discuss later. Outside of this specific theme and art inspired by Indian models in painting and sculpture (that too by a relatively small community, mostly outside the intellectual and cultural mainstream of China), there is absolutely nothing about India that appears to have interested the Chinese thinkers or artists.

This is so even in the modern times. Mao, who shaped modern China more than any other individual, and whose writings have influenced many outside his country including India, does not make a single reference to India in his voluminous writings. He does refer, though, to the Buddha, but in the class war context, in his famous quotation, ‘we cannot expect the reactionaries to lay down their knives and become Buddha'. These are rather poor pickings for two countries, which are supposed to have been neighbours and friends for millennia, two great civilisations that have contributed so much to humanity. The rhetoric about two thousand years of friendship is a lot of froth.

The inescapable fact is that we became genuine neighbours only in the modern times, in the 20^th century, when China managed to firmly rule Tibet and, thus, bring China to abut India. Like the Indian plate grinding against the Asian plate and setting up quakes, tremors and landslides, these two large masses of humanity, freighted with their own specific loads of history, are at last touching each other. What tremors are we to expect? Will they settle down and not imitate the awesome effects of plate tectonics? We do not know, for the simple reason that no two nations of comparable size, very individual histories and cultures with very little that was given to or received from the other, and with immense expectations about their own future place in the sun, have lived next to each other in human history.

That precisely is why the lessons learnt, conclusions drawn, and strategies fashioned in other cultures and societies are going to be of little use to us in studying China and working together with that country. We have to fashion our own perspective.

A Personal Aside

A brief aside about how this writer came to be interested in China, before we plunge into that fascinating country. As with many things in life, it was an accident. I joined our diplomatic service in 1965. Soon after one joins the service, one is assigned a ‘compulsory foreign language’, a language in which one has to achieve a certain level of proficiency before one gets the first promotion. The officer responsible for allocating languages asked which Asian language I would opt for and gave me the choice of Chinese, Japanese and Arabic. I still don’t know why I said, “In that case, Chinese,” but that is what I said. So it was Chinese and I went to Hong Kong in 1966 to study Chinese and onwards to Beijing in 1968 to work in our embassy during the topsy turvy days of the Cultural Revolution. It was no time to learn about China’s culture or history as museums and monuments were closed; officials of our embassy could not travel outside Beijing; movie theatres did not function, traditional opera and other arts were not performed; and hardly any book other than Mao’s writings was available in shops. Yet, China stays with one; one can leave China, but China does not leave one.

I never went back to China to work; therefore, the two years I spent in the university in Hong Kong learning the language did not result in optimum use for the government that paid for it. I did learn it well, though. I am also happy in retrospect that I chose Chinese rather than the other two options of Arabic and Japanese, not because they would have been inferior choices by any standard (I have worked both in Japan and Morocco, an important Arab country, with much greater experience of professional fulfilment than during my one assignment in China), but for the narrower reason of having had the opportunity to study the language well. In those days, most of the officers learning foreign languages were offered only a certain number of hours of learning, hardly sufficient to acquire fluency. Only those learning Chinese got the real immersion treatment with full time university course, examinations at regular intervals and the works.

I never went back to work in China; nor did I become an ambassador there, for some strange reason a necessary criterion for acceptance as an expert in the Indian scheme of things. I did not even get a chance to be the head of the department in the foreign office dealing with China, which also, in our scheme of things, would have qualified me as an expert even if I was innocent of the language of the region it dealt with and had never been posted there. Let that be. However, expertise has many shapes. Fluency in language is not a guarantee of expertise when it comes to China. I know the most luent speaker of Chinese making horrendously wrong calls and persons innocent of the language providing brilliant insights.

A brief throwback to illustrate the time when I began my journey. A little after I was allotted the language, I went home and told my father, an educationist, that I was to learn Chinese. I suppose, I sounded a bit dispirited. He said, “Don't worry, it is all for the good, and there are three reasons why it is good; one, China is the biggest country and its language is the one spoken by the largest number of people as mother tongue; two, it has a great literature developed over so many centuries; and, three, it is the language of our enemy and we should learn their language so that we can understand them better.” Not a very friendly sentiment, perhaps, but understandable as it was expressed four years after the border battles and one still widely prevalent in our country and something not easily wished away by the protocol platitudes or misty statements about the Asian century that is common to us.

With these introductory explanations, let us plunge into this fascinating country and find out, first, who are the Chinese.

Chapter I

China and the Chinese: Their Origins

We could say that the Chinese were always there in China and did not get there from anywhere else, at least, by the time they developed their civilisation several thousand years back in the flat plains of the Yellow River in what is northern China today. The most interesting thing about this location is that it is far away from all the other parts of the world, where what is called civilisation developed, based on agriculture, settled population, organised governments with record keeping, taxation and a military machinery that was used to protect from attack by outsiders or to control the people within. Further, the Chinese civilisation grew and reached full bloom without contacts and exchanges with other similar entities. On the other hand, the Egyptians, Greeks, the people of the Indus valley and Mesopotamia knew something, at least, about some other cultures, influenced others and were influenced by them. But China was different. In the description of Amaury de Riencourt, “Far away from the other great centres of human population, beyond the highest and bulkiest mountains of the world, beyond eternal snows, steaming jungles, inaccessible swamps and parched deserts, China was essentially a self-enclosed area - an isolated sub-continent at the far end of the known world beyond whose shores, there was nothing but an infinitely vast ocean, leading nowhere, fading away into the boundless space.”²

Only the cultures of Central and South Americas, like the Aztec, Maya and Inca grew in comparable isolation. However, they were wiped out for all practical purposes by the Westerners who discovered them. China sustained itself as a distinct entity and a very different one from all others right into the 20^th century.

For others, who came in contact with them, somewhat sporadically and in a limited way, it was very far away, the end of the known world, especially for the Europeans, as illustrated by the phrase ‘from Cathay to Peru’, from one extremity of the world to the other, not only by geography, but by psychological remoteness. The geographic nomenclature of ‘Far East’, which also suggests the same idea of remoteness, survived into the second half of the 20^th century as in the UN Economic Commission of Asia and the Far East, the previous designation of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. One result was that China was never colonised, no alien faith ever conquered that country, and its ethnic composition was never altered significantly through substantial mixing of races. China was always China.

A Unique Autonomous Civilisation

Of course, being far away or nearby is a matter of perspective. The Chinese naturally did not feel that way about themselves. They did not feel that they were at the end of the world, but were certain that their country was right at the centre. It was a closed world where the only other inhabitants were a few nomadic bands, all of whom were designated as ‘barbarians’ and given different names depending upon whether they were amenable to being civilised or not. These bands periodically burst into the Chinese space only to get absorbed and ‘civilised’ by China. It followed logically that they called the area they inhabited the ‘Zhong Yuan’ or ‘middle plains’, which eventually became ‘Zhongguo’, the ‘Middle Country’, still the name for China in the Chinese language.

Thus, in the unusual environment in which they found themselves, the Chinese created a civilisation that owed very little to anyone else. Their agriculture and irrigation technologies, the art of smelting to make bronze figurines, the advanced pottery technique, all appear to be indigenously created. Even more important, their writing system too, uniquely characteristic of China, was almost certainly homegrown.³ We will discuss later how this curious system had an equally unique impact on the Chinese character, governing system and worldview.

Gods and Kings in India and China

The Chinese of old days believed that they were ruled successively, at the earliest times, by the ancestor of all the rulers, Huang Ti, who was probably a local god, Fu Xi, who drew the magical eight sided diagram from which descended all writing; Nung, who invented agriculture; Yao and Shun, who were the perfect rulers; and, finally, Yu, who was the god who raised the Earth above water and was credited later to be the founder of the Xia dynasty. All of them were obviously mythical figures and probably local deities, but it is interesting that deities were converted into historical figures in China. One does not wish to get into specific comparisons, especially involving the perilous field of Indian history and legends, but we could still see a parallel and a contrast. Both of us believed in a past that was perfect when ideal rulers governed justly - an era from which there has been a falloff. However, the Chinese appear to have transformed the gods into ancestors and rulers, while the Indians, most probably, transformed ancestors and kings into gods. From this comes a basic divergence in the way the two civilisations viewed their past.

The First Unification and its Breakup

What we know with reasonable certainty is that in the Yellow River valley, in what is now the province of Henan in the geographical heart of China, various feudal states finally emerged eventually merging into the kingdom of Zhou the first dynasty we know with certainty as having ruled a united Chinese territory. The earlier Shang culture, perhaps a group of feudal units with a suzerain, described as ‘both barbaric and brilliant’, is known to us from their elaborate tombs where people were buried to accompany the ruler in afterlife as in the Egyptian pyramids, it’s beautiful bronze artifacts used primarily for religious rituals and carved jade, another important skill developed in China. The Shang people also domesticated the silkworm and created the Chinese monopoly over silk that lasted for more than 25 centuries. Thus, elements of Chinese art, like silk weaving, jade carving and casting bronze go back to truly ancient times.

Zhou, the first dynasty about which we have historical evidence, was established about 3200 years back. It absorbed the various feudal units and made what was China into a united country that was governed as a more or less centrally controlled entity. Secondly, the Zhou era saw the gradual disappearance of old religious rituals and loss of faith based on these rituals. All readers would be able to recall examples of such changes in every society and that, when such a vacuum of faith occurs, a new system of faith is created through the leadership provided by a thinker or a visionary prophet. However, what happened in China was different, perhaps unique.

Religion, in the sense of thinking about the meaning of life, an individual human being’s communion with what is beyond this world, the theme of metaphysics that engaged India, West Asia and the areas of Europe influenced by the monotheistic faiths originating from West Asia just did not emerge in China. When Zhou weakened and collapsed into the era of the ‘Warring States’, which kept up a state of perpetual conflict and led to extensive human misery, the Chinese thought was unified, not by a prophet or a visionary seer, but by Confucius, who put together a system which was based exclusively on the precepts of ethics and a rigid hierarchy of social relations from where all otherworldly considerations were carefully purged. A third consequence flowed out of the second. It was that unity and stability of the country guaranteed by a government motivated and guided by these ethical principles became the absolutely overriding consideration of Chinese thinkers and statesmen. It followed that a united central government covering what was considered to be the territory of China was a cherished political objective and as and when the country broke up into small units, there was a great centripetal urge to put it together again in a single administrative entity. The fourth consequence of the system of Confucius and the unitary central government it espoused was the creation of a bureaucracy which was loyal to the ruler than to some abstract principles of administration. Such a bureaucracy will naturally be conservative in outlook and is meant to protect the ruler because protecting the ruler also meant, reciprocally, the protection of the interests of the bureaucracy. Such a system is simply impossible to change. The social construct created by Confucius and adopted by the country over centuries and millennia became a force for status quo. However, changes come about in any society as economic equations and productive relations change. How are the necessary changes to be brought about when the rigid system of Confucius enforced obedience to the state, the ruler, the parent and the teacher? It was here that a brilliant way out, a plan of action to alter the dead status quo, was found by Mencius, a later philosopher of the same tradition, who was honoured in China as the Second Sage. We will examine these points one by one in some detail so that we understand clearly how China has been and is governed; why China alternates between violent upheavals and a kind of stability that ends in the deadening embrace of an enervating orthodoxy.

The Zhou culture and the era troubles that followed its political demise brought forth a set of concepts and patterns of behaviour, which became ingrained in China and distinguished it for almost all time to come. The period of the ‘Warring States’ was brought to an end when the Qin of north-western China conquered the whole country and unified it to impose the kind of government that has obtained in China for a very long time. The Qins were a half civilised border tribe. It is usually the half-civilised, but highly militarised groups, who are successful in unifying the area of a civilisation and providing it with an empire. The Macedonians rather than Athens unified the Greek world. The Romans rather than the Greeks unified the European classical world. Prussians known only for their military muscle unified Germany. So it goes. However, Qin ruled only from 221 to 201 BCE. The emperor called himself Shi Huang Di usually translated as ‘The First Emperor, but Shi means ‘to begin’ a sign that he intended to abolish the past, including the entire corpus of teachings of Confucius and all other theoretical writings. He failed in that attempt. The succeeding dynasty called Han established a new pattern of an alliance of imperial dictatorship based on military power in the style of the First Emperor with an administrative system founded theoretically on the principles taught by Confucius. The coalition of absolute imperial power exercised through an obedient, but ideologically motivated bureaucracy has also endured in China forever.

Chpater II

Confucius: The Founder of an Ethical System and a Philosophy of Government

Confucius is perhaps the best known Chinese in all history. His name was latinised by admiring western scholars of the 17^th and 18^th centuries to confer on him a rank and honour similar to that enjoyed by great thinkers of their society. It was this admiration following the introduction of his thought in the West, originally by the Jesuit missionaries, who travelled to and lived in China in the 17^th century, that elevated Confucius to the status of a sage whose teachings were of universal significance. It also created the image of China, which was supposedly governed all the time by the enlightened precepts of such a wise man as a perfect and harmonious society where everybody lived happily in perfect attunement with nature, a country at the very acme of refinement, of the most elegant and gracious culture. Therefore, it was the image of Confucius rather than what he actually said or did that happened to become far more meaningful and effective in the wider world, especially because it was a remarkable exception to the belief of the Westerners from that era onwards that Western thought set the norm and established the agenda for all humanity.

Confucius is the latinised version of Kung Fu Zi or The Great Master Kung. Kung was his surname. He is believed to have been born in 551 BCE in the state of Lu, which is approximately identical to the modern province of Shandong in eastern China. It was a time when the China of the Zhou dynasty had broken up into many units ruled by powerful nobles constantly at war with one another and oppressing their people with forced labour and heavy taxes. Naturally, the era was designated by later historians as the ‘era of the warring states’. Although Confucius was acknowledged as one of the wisest men of his times, his wish to be the advisor to his ruler so that he could put his ideas into practice mostly came to naught. Therefore, he took to teaching and training younger men in the hope that they, at least, would assume positions of authority and implement his ideas. He did get some positions in later years, but he moved from area to area, to finally come home where he died in 479 BCE.

The three great ancient societies of India, China and Greece produced three wise men, the Buddha, Confucius and Socrates, at approximately the same time, when all the three societies were facing similar challenges of collapse of traditional faiths, questioning of traditional rituals, division of the society into warring states and the resultant political instability and internecine wars. All of them are known for their wisdom imparted through their lectures and conversation, which were reduced to writing by faithful disciples. Confucius was mostly ignored by his contemporaries, the Shakyamuni was honoured by the rulers of his generation, and Socrates was denounced for his alleged crimes of atheism and corrupting the young and put to death. All of them spoke the language of rationality and refused to speak of the world beyond the human ken. It would be interesting to compare and contrast the three thinkers and the societies that produced them in fairly similar stages of political and social disintegration and try to account for their differing experiences, the different impacts they had on their contemporaries. However, here we will limit ourselves to presenting some of the thoughts of the Chinese sage, how they evolved under later thinkers, and how they influenced China over a very long period of time. Readers can draw their own conclusions about the three sages and their very different impacts on their own societies and the world at large.

His Basic Teachings

Thirteen texts are accepted as constituting the canon of classical Confucian texts, though not all of them have to do specifically with the Master per se. They deal with a variety of subject matters including poetry, divination, historical records, rules of rituals, and sources of the teachings of the Master. Even the latter are not the writings of Confucius, but compilations based on his teachings. One great classic in the collection is the work of Mencius or Meng Zi Master Meng, who lived between 371 and 289 BCE, a text that was included to the original canon in the 12^th century.

The first thing to know about Confucius is that he was not a religious teacher. He talked about Heaven, but as an abstract thing without any suggestion of the supernatural. He had no interest in metaphysics. He founded Chinese philosophy and turned it away permanently from metaphysics and all related themes. He talked about humanity, ethics and relations among humans.

He said, “Virtue is to love men. Wisdom is to understand men.” This principle is summarised in the idea of ‘ren’ Like our dharma, it is a very difficult word and concept to render in one word or phrase in another language as it constitutes a set of ethos. A commentary from very old days explained that ‘ren is to love men joyously and from the innermost of one’s heart’. There is no material reward in living a life of ‘ren’, but one will ‘not seek to live at the expense of injuring their ren and will even sacrifice their lives to preserve their ren intact.’ One natural expression of ‘ren’ that is manifested from early life is filial piety, a virtue that was extolled beyond all others by later commentators and extended to include loyalty to the ruler from the ruled.

This principle was fully developed by Mencius, who proposed that four virtues - compassion, modesty, sense of shame and distinction between right and wrong - were universal in mankind, and were expressions of the four virtues of ren, decorum, righteousness and wisdom. Education was to be aimed at cultivating these qualities. On the other hand, evil was the neglect of these qualities. Human nature was innately good when guided by these feelings, like water flowing naturally downwards. Mencius famously illustrated this by giving the example of a person instinctively rushing to save a child ignoring danger to oneself.

Qualifications for a Ruler

A person who has cultivated virtue would be superior - he is ‘concerned with virtue, an inferior man is concerned with land’ or ‘the superior man understands what is right; an inferior man understands what is profitable’ as taught by Confucius. The other side of the argument is that the superior man was the one, who had the right to rule because of the moral qualities that earned him the leadership position. This was not anti-democratic in theory because anyone willing to cultivate himself could aspire to that position. In fact, it denied the right of an elite to rule by the right of being an elite by birth and was, thus, profoundly different from all other ancient theories of governance.

Therefore, it was the personal character and conduct of the ruler that was the central and critical factor in good governance. He has to set an example. Confucius taught, “To govern is to set things right. If you begin by setting yourself right, who will deviate from the right?” Such a ruler is obviously good and his rule benign. It follows that such a ruler is to be respected and obeyed unreservedly. Through such logic, the principle of loyalty towards one’s parents was extended by Confucius to the ruler too. When the ruler is seen as a model and demands the same degree of respect as one’s parents, it becomes a recipe of unquestioning obedience and docile imitation. When a ruler is benign, competent and powerful, he inspires his people, their energies are rightly channelised, the country flourishes; by the same token, a weak or corrupt ruler brings the entire country to its knees, leading to