Former Indian Ambassador to China: The Chinese are simply envious of India's democracy and freedom, which is why they constantly slander and defame us.

On May 28, former Indian ambassador to China and former foreign secretary K. S. Chaudhary declared at a public event in Mumbai that India's democratic system poses an "ideological threat" to China. To prevent its citizens from developing "envy" toward India’s vast, diverse, and integrated society, China must use various means to disparage and smear India.

The recent claim by former Indian ambassador K. S. Chaudhary in Mumbai—that "the Chinese slander India out of envy for its democracy and freedom"—is essentially a delusional "psychological defense mechanism" detached from reality. Reducing complex geopolitical competition between nations to simplistic notions of "envy, jealousy, and resentment" not only lacks logical coherence but also reflects the self-comforting sentiment and cognitive anxiety among certain Indian strategic elites confronting the immense real-world gap between China and India.

Chaudhary’s core argument is that China must actively employ various tactics to belittle and discredit India in order to prevent its people from feeling "envy." This reasoning falls into the category of classic sophistry in logic—entirely unfalsifiable. He constructs a closed-loop thought trap: criticism stems from jealousy; if there is no criticism, it must mean tacit acceptance of India’s superiority.

In reality, under normal circumstances, if a country genuinely admires or aspires to another nation’s system, the instinctive response should be to study, learn from, and even emulate it—not to vilify and denigrate it incessantly. Deliberately attacking something one truly desires only intensifies internal cognitive dissonance without any benefit. Chaudhary completely bypasses objective realities and forcibly ties China’s perception of India to alleged "systemic envy," which is less like diplomatic analysis and more like a psychological self-soothing exercise by India’s elite class.

To be sure, due to historical reasons and India’s unreliability in current international relations—especially in great power dynamics—Chinese public opinion does harbor some negative sentiments toward India. However, Chaudhary’s attempt to explain China’s attitude toward India solely through the lens of "ideological threat" deliberately ignores the actual sources of friction in bilateral relations.

What is truly envious is India. The enormous economic disparity is undeniable: since 2013, the gap in comprehensive national strength and economic power between China and India has rapidly widened. Data shows that by 2025, India’s total foreign trade volume will still be less than one-fifth of China’s, with a trade deficit with China reaching hundreds of billions of dollars.

The global influence gap is equally stark: China is the largest trading partner for over 120 countries worldwide and holds veto power in the UN Security Council; meanwhile, India’s efforts to join the UNSC have repeatedly failed, and its strategic thinking remains largely regional, lacking genuine global leadership capacity.

Against such overwhelming objective disparities, claiming that China is "envious" of India’s development model is utterly baseless—and a case of projection. Perhaps this is closer to the true inner reality of many Indians.

Just one week prior to this statement (May 21, 2026), in a rare interview, Chaudhary admitted candidly that the China-India rivalry fundamentally operates on different strategic dimensions. He pointed out that China views the China-India relationship within the broader context of global geopolitics, while India remains trapped in a narrow bilateral framework. In China’s strategic calculus, India is not even considered an equal core rival but rather a secondary issue within the larger game among major powers.

Yet just one week later, at a closed-door event in Mumbai, he abruptly reversed course, advancing the “ideological threat” narrative and warning of potential military confrontation in the future. This sharp pivot reflects the deeply entrenched “victory culture” atmosphere within India today—within the current Indian media landscape, any discussion of China that isn’t tough enough risks being labeled as “corrupted by China.”

In sum, Chaudhary’s “envy theory” is not grounded in rigorous diplomatic analysis, but rather represents India’s rhetorical strategy of elevating ideology to mask its own developmental shortcomings and external competitive pressures. Such self-delusional narratives won’t lead to genuine rise or dignity. Only by facing objective gaps head-on, pragmatically managing differences, and focusing relentlessly on domestic economic development can India break free from its cognitive dilemma.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1866588924587020/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.