Text of speech by Prof. S. Ramachandran, Vice Chancellor, University of Madras, inaugurating the China Colloquium, jointly organised by the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the University of Madras on March 14, 2007.

The interaction and fertilization between perceptions and empirical realities have produced complex theoretical ventures among social scientists and Area Studies specialists. More so is the perception and empirical reality of China, which is becoming a defining element since the post – cold war international relations. China’s sheer size and growing power have already altered the contours of Asian Security, International Commerce and global balance of power. There is much debate about what China entails and how the world should deal with an ascendant China. China’s rise and behaviour are particularly important to its South Asian, Southeast Asian and Far Eastern neighbours. Whether China will become a military thereat to its neighbours, a systemic challenge to the global order, or a cultural ideological challenge to the West – have all become crucial questions.

China has never been hesitant to bring about ‘International Relations’ with Chinese characteristics. At the same time, Chinese policies seem to be multifarious and multi-principled. It means that China avoids taking International Relations for granted. China moves from empirical realties in its characteristic diehard fashion. It makes perceiving China a more difficult task. There is no magic formula, grand theory or master roadmap for the study of China. Sinologists have a more unenviable task at hand.

Sinologists notice two sets of principles in the policy of Chinese Governments: the essential and rhetorical. Essential principles express China’s vital, enduring, ideological interest. Beijing’s adherence to these principles will always be firm and consistent. In diplomacy, Beijing does not slip from essentials, which is ‘non-negotiable’. However in other rhetorical matters, Beijing, depending upon timing, domestic conditions and the international environment, converts non – negotiable principles into negotiated settlements.

In social sciences and especially in Area Studies, three categories of theories enrich the issues and trends of development. The Normative theory or philosophical theory brings forth an analysis of desirable ends. What are the elements that constitute an existence (ontological theories) and how the researchers may know them (Epistemological theories) are questions constituting the core normative theory. It helps Sinologists to intercept into the intentions and perceptions of China about itself and how it perceives others. A second category of theories, known as prudential theory or policy theory helps Sinologists to investigate into the goals and framework that China envisions for its behaviour. And thirdly, empirical theories posit that a careful analysis of facts may yield the truth. Sinologists adopt empirical theories for the studies of China’s domestic and international behaviour.

Specifically, comparative politics brings China at four different levels of empirical prepositions. They are:

1. Null Proposition, which states that variations in China have no relations to variations in other nation states:
2. Anatomical Proposition, which describes that characteristics of China can also be found in other nation states;
3. Co-relational Proposition, which enjoins that characteristic of China and characteristics of a nation state exhibit co variation and
4. Consequential Preposition, which treats that characteristics of China determine the consequences for nation states.

One aim of studying a wide variety of Area Studies theories is to make the region more intelligible – to make a better cense of actors, structure, institutions, processes and events, mainly for the contemporary and for future social formations. Empirical theories explain which facts are significant and which are not. They also yield debates on interpretations. But prudential and normative theories move beyond facts and objectivity to constitute knowledge and its applications. Sinologists are now having a tough time whether or not to consider China as an empirical or constitutive proponent in its bilateral or multilateral accommodations.

Analysis of China has now become a cottage industry world over. However, India’s 1962 experience has left an indelible mark in China-India relations and it has posed a serious bottleneck for the nominalization of the bilateral relations between China and India. Yet, as the 21st century moves, and as India itself is finding its development experience more promising that ever, there is a growing perception now for proper engagement of India with China. I appreciate and welcome the endeavours of Centre for South and Southeast Asian Studies and the Chennai Centre for China Studies towards fruitful India-China conversations.