How China’s structural flaws make it more aggressive on borders

A few days ago, The Times of India (ToI) commented on something that many analysts have recently been observing: “Chinese-manufactured weaponry – long touted as a cheaper but equally powerful alternative to Western arsenals – has imploded spectacularly in recent conflicts.”

The article explained, "From India dismantling Pakistan’s defences during Operation Sindoor, America’s surgical raid snatching Venezuela's Maduro, to US-Israeli strikes pulverising Iran's shields, Beijing's gear has proven inept. What was hyped as ‘battle-tested innovation’ now reeks of shoddy engineering, weak software, and zero real-war grit.”

The ToI conclusion was, "The repeated failures suggest that these aren't mere glitches, but a sign of systemic rot.”

Several other signs show the Middle Kingdom in a poor light: the shortage of water and other natural resources; the ageing of the population; the pushbacks from neighbouring countries, including Japan & the Philippines; the reported internal unrest on the ‘frontiers’ of the Kingdom (read, Tibet and Xinjiang); and also a serious economic meltdown, particularly after the property sector crisis which sparked a financial crisis following the 2021 default of Evergrande Group, which resulted in large-scale unemployment.

More from Opinion

This points to the difficulties faced by the leadership in Beijing today.

However, there is no doubt that China continues to dream of becoming the power number one in the world, especially in the wake of the confused foreign and economic policies of the United States; the outlandish attitude of the US president is certainly helping Beijing to dream of 'Making China Great Again'.

Another Side of the Coin

There is another side to the flaws of the Middle Kingdom, often viewed far in advance of India in terms of infrastructure development, advanced research and other innovative domains; though the Indian system is far from being perfect, it, however, remains decades ahead in terms of individual freedom and true democracy.

The Communist Party of China (CPC) constantly uses the word 'People', ie, People’s Republic, People’s Liberation Army (PLA), and Great Hall of the People, but in fact it is the Party which is supreme in every domain, particularly in selecting and removing ‘people’ from their posts or functions, thereby limiting the true creativity of the nation.

This was seen in early March when the PLA delegation shrunk to about half its normal strength of 275 delegates to the National People’s (one more) Congress (NPC).

The 15th Five-year Plan

It is in this context that the introduction of China's 15th Five-Year Plan (2026–2030) should be analysed.

The First Five-Year Plan (1953-1957) was drafted on the Soviet model; it was a survival plan to feed the Chinese people and start an industrial base.

Over the years, the plans continued to evolve, with the Second Five-Year Plan (1958-1962) geared towards central command and extensive planning. However, following Mao Zedong's wrong economic policies, it ended in the Great Leap Forward, which caused the death of 40 or 50 million Chinese. The plan entailed pouring all local available resources into large projects; it was a shift from the rapid industrialisation of the First Plan.

In an excellent paper in ChinaTalk, Kyle Chan defined each decade from the Sixth Plan (1981-85) onwards; he argues that the 1980s witnessed the advent of ‘Old and New Technology’: “a dual focus on advancing high-tech sectors such as computers and semiconductors while also improving agricultural technology, such as new seed varieties and fertiliser production.”

The 1990s were characterised by ‘High-Tech Industrialisation and Leapfrog Development’: "The full range of target sectors [were] computers, software, semiconductors, microelectronics, energy, transportation (including high-speed rail), chemicals, biotech, IT, new materials, aerospace, and manufacturing equipment.” The Ninth Plan (1996-2000) particularly included long-term goals.

Since then, China has planned for a blend of stabilisation, development and visionary objectives.

The 2000s were centred on the ‘Information Revolution’, heavily focused on 'informatisation' to drive industrialisation. For example, in 2008, China created a new super-ministry called the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology: “It is a powerful cross-cutting technology for boosting everything from manufacturing and infrastructure to services and defence—analogous to how China treats AI today,” wrote Kyle Chan.

It was an opportunity for Beijing to leverage its ‘latecomer advantage’ on the West.

The 2010s saw the emergence of ‘strategic industries'; during this period, China focused on cutting-edge technologies, including cloud computing, carbon fibre, superconducting materials, rare earths, high-end CNC machines, next-generation nuclear power, genetics, and biomanufacturing.

The 2020s saw the advent of ‘key core’ technologies and artificial intelligence (AI), partly triggered by the US administration’s actions against China’s technology industry, in particular Huawei and ZTE. China jumped into “increasingly ambitious cutting-edge technologies, such as quantum, fusion, brain-computer interface, drones and flying cars, and AI.”

Beijing also tried to tackle the ‘technological chokepoints’ such as semiconductors, foundational software, and aviation, with the focus on technological self-reliance. AI and especially ‘embodied AI’ became the core focus. These policies seem to have paid rich dividends.

Riding Ahead

The new plan will be different in the sense that China will not try to ‘catch up’ with the US but has decided to ride ahead.

For this, the next generation of IT, embodied AI, quantum technology, biomanufacturing, nuclear fusion, 6G communications, advances in the aviation and space domain or brain-computer interfaces will be experimented with and developed, as well as many new technologies that one can’t think of today.

Stabilising the Restive Frontiers

In parallel, and perhaps more importantly for India, a new push will take place in key infrastructure developments on China’s frontier’s regions (namely Xinjiang and Tibet).

The plan includes highway expansion: upgrading the three major highways running into Tibet to strengthen the ‘strategic backbone corridors’.

But also, the expansion of the railway network: it will be expanded to over 5,000 km by 2035, aiming to link Tibet with neighbouring provinces (Xinjiang, Sichuan, and Yunnan) with all the strategic implications that one can imagine for India.

Further, the plan involves developing 20 general border airports, including the upgrade of the Nyingchi airport on the Indian border in the north-east.

And worse for India, the ‘hydropower development’, in other words, large-scale projects, including hydropower development on the lower reaches of the Yarlung Tsangpo river (later Siang and Brahmaputra), are now prioritised.

The announced objectives are for the ‘stability of the frontiers’, a ‘unified domestic network’, ‘energy security’ and ultimately ‘regional integration’; the latter must be seen with the sinicisation of Buddhism in Tibet and Islam in Xinjiang, which will complete the circle of assimilation.

Beijing’s Views

In a presentation of the plan, Xinhua noted: "Running through this plan is another important thread. China's vast frontier regions have assumed a more prominent role in the national masterplan to build a unified domestic market, strengthen energy security and expand opening up. This emphasises that the Chinese modernisation endeavour is aimed at securing prosperity for all."

In core sections of the draft plan about transport, energy, digital infrastructure and regional integration, the frontier regions (Tibet and Xinjiang in particular) “are being closely woven into China's modernisation tapestry”.

According to Zhang Bin, deputy director of the Institute of World Economics and Politics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the plan highlights, among other things, “the strategic importance of Xinjiang. With its location, resources and industrial base, it can serve as a key hub in China's broader opening up."

Xinhua explains that the 15th Plan emphasises “continued expansion of westbound freight train services and accelerated development of port infrastructure … thus further boosting westward trade flows.”

For Beijing, Xinjiang had a nearly 20 per cent year-on-year increase in the total value of its foreign trade in 2025, ranking first in terms of growth rate among all Chinese provincial-level regions, hitting more than 75 billion U.S. dollars. However, Uyghur culture is lost in the process.

This ‘expansion’ practically means a complete assimilation of the local populations, whether it is in Xinjiang, Tibet or Inner Mongolia.

Ethnic Unity?

Further, at the time the Five-Year Plan was presented to the NPC, a law about ‘Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress’ was passed.

For the Washington-based International Campaign for Tibet (ITC): “The legislation advances a PRC strategy of demographic homogenisation for Tibetans and other non-Chinese peoples behind anodyne language.”

For example, the law says that “it helps better support people of all ethnic groups across the country in advancing national development and rejuvenation through Chinese-style modernisation."

ITC observes: “Several provisions in the law serve to legitimise CCP policies forcing Tibetans and others to assimilate into the CCP-defined ‘Chinese’ nation. … The law provides a legal tool for the CCP to establish and enforce a unified national identity and singular idea of China, shaped by CCP and authoritarian ideology.”

With its over-ambitious plans and despite its inherent flaws, China is bound to become more aggressive on the borders; Delhi should take note of these developments.

(The writer is Distinguished Fellow, Centre of Excellence for Himalayan Studies, Shiv Nadar Institution of Eminence (Delhi). Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.)