Watching the Olympic Flame make its way through London today, I couldn’t help but wonder what on earth the point was.  If China hoped to win favour by parading a candle through a foreign city, they would have been bitterly disappointed by the scenes from the UK.  You could barely see the torch at all as a swarm of police officers surrounded the inner circle of Chinese officials, with some B-list celebrity or athlete buried somewhere in the mix.  The event was so hideously over-policed, it is little wonder that the images displayed on Chinese state TV were of Steve Redgrave inside the secure confines of Wembley Stadium.

The torch relay is an unnecessary part of the Olympic process.  The nation identifies with the “Olympic spirit” (such as it is) at the games themselves, and the opening ceremony is something of a spectacle of internationalism.  The torch relay is nothing but a propaganda event, and the London leg failed to help either China or its games.

With the world’s media focused on the relay, though, London was given the opportunity to show a fantastic part of its culture to the rest of the globe.  Key flash points were thousand-strong with protesters campaigning against China’s occupation of Tibet and their rock-bottom human rights tradition.  Watching the protests (not the frankly uninspiring jogging police officers) made me rather proud to live in London, showing the world that we are less interested in some feeble flame and more concerned with human rights, democracy, and occupation.  I think the slant of media reports has been absolutely spot-on today: this was a day of protest against China’s record - note, not against the games - rather than a cheery love-in with the Chinese propaganda machine.

A brief glance at the news - which I’ve more or less missed for the past week - tells me that China has again sought India’s support for its stance on Tibet.

More interestingly, it tells me that India continue to do so. The official in question reiterated that India feels Tibet is part of China, and that it did not allow anti-Chinese demonstrations on Indian soil. This has been the Indian government’s policy throughout this particular flare-up.

Historically, the opposite has been the case. India and China had a stormy, occasionally violent relationship until very recently. Relations were often cold to the point of frozen. Moreover, there is a large (at least 150,000), very vocal community of Tibetan exiles in India. In the past, they have been allowed to make as much noise as they like - occasionally with the government’s sympathy.

This thus interests me on (at least) two grounds: (please note that, despite being in a quote-box, the following is me rather than a quotation; I’m having trouble getting indentation to work properly today)

It marks continued attempts to thaw relations between the two burgeoning superpowers. Recently, both governments have made attempts to normalise and improve the two countries’ relationship. Joint military exercises have been held, a stark contrast with the occasional border wars of the past. That India is willing to reverse - or at least soften - yet another long-held position for the sake of this thaw highlights how increasingly possible it is that the two countries might become close.Such a movement has very important implications for the world, and certainly complex. I’d thought to say something like, “Good relations between the countries would create an even more solid trade base in what is steadily becoming the world’s workshop, while the human cost of bad relations and a mini-cold war would be disastrous,” but I realise that that’s incredibly simplistic. I’ll write a longer post on it at a later date.

India here resists the international trend. There hasn’t been huge pressure on the Indian government specifically over this, but to support China would be to run against the international wind of condemnation. An indication perhaps that, as India’s industrial might grows, it’s increasingly willing to stand on its own? Actually, increasingly here is the wrong word by a long way. Given, if nothing else, India’ prominent role in the non-aligned momement during the Cold War, “continually,” would probably have been more appropriate.Perhaps it would have been better instead to talk of Western powers’ increasing unwillingness to pressure India too overtly. With increasing segments of primary (and often tertiary) industry located there, it could get distinctly problematic for European and American business should India turn upset (stupid as such implied moves would be on India’s part). Europe and the US may thus treat India more and more carefully in the future…

But I’m already verging into speculation - and there is, of course, far more actually happening now here to be looked at, I suspect. However, I have an interview tomorrow and want some sleep before it, so will stop there. Good night…