On 12 September 2025, Dr. M.S. Prathibha, Associate Fellow at the East Asia Centre, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), presented a paper on “Great Changes Unseen in a Century: China’s Conception of the Evolving World Order” for her Fellow Seminar. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director-General, MP-IDSA chaired the meeting. Two External Discussants (Professor Rajesh Rajagopalan, Centre for International Politics, Organisation and Disarmament, School of International Studies,  Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and Professor T.G. Suresh, Associate Professor, Centre for Political Studies, School of Social Sciences, JNU) as well as two Internal Discussants (Dr. Saurabh Mishra, Research Fellow, Africa, Latin America, Caribbean and UN (ALACUN) Centre and Dr. Abhishek Kumar Darbey, Associate Fellow, East Asia Centre, MP-IDSA) commented on the paper. Scholars from MP-IDSA actively participated in the Q&A.

Opening Remarks by the Chair

In his Opening Remarks, Ambassador Chinoy began by praising the Speaker’s paper as one that was both timely and apposite, given the worldwide attention being paid to China’s rise. Amb. Chinoy related his experiences during recent trips to China, where he heard Chinese narratives of confidence in the decline of the United States of America and the commensurate pre-eminence of China, indicating that China itself believes that its time has come to play a dominant role on the world stage. He posited that China was now prepared to not only keep the US out of its perceived area of interest, but to replace it as the power underwriting the global order. This is in large part due to General Secretary Xi Jinping, whose role in the formation of this narrative has been decisive.

Amb. Chinoy went on to state his fundamental doubt of the premises of this argument. He noted that while China as a nation-state may endure into the future, it is not a historical given that the same can be said of the Communist Party of China (CPC). Further, it is not inevitable that Xi’s ambitious ‘China Dream’ would be the means by which that country attains ‘greatness’, as that inevitably requires that Beijing take some form of action on the self-ruled island of Taiwan. Though there have been some Chinese successes internationally, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, Amb. Chinoy suggested that this may have as much to do with the fact that the US is now showing itself uninterested in playing its role in the current global order, leading some to view China as a ‘noble equivalent’.

Nevertheless, the international headwinds China’s economy has faced in recent years is a key reason why it has chosen now to focus internally on developing science and technology as well as innovation as two waves of the next phase of its development. Terming it a lesson in the might of the Scientific Revolution, Amb. Chinoy called on the Speaker to elucidate further as to how these themes would come together in her presentation.

Presentation by Dr. M.S. Prathibha

Thanking the Chair for his trenchant remarks, Dr. Prathibha entered into her presentation with an outline of its structure. She then described the theoretical bases of her presentation, noting that the future of the world order is indeed uncertain and that there is growing discussion of the role played by China. Pointing out that existing scholarship on China’s role within the international order largely attempted to compare China’s past to its present (for example, by comparing Xi Jinping’s leadership to his predecessors’), which is a Eurocentric perspective, she stated that her paper would focus only on the CPC’s vision of itself at the helm of China in years to come.

Dr. Prathibha expressed the view that the CPC compares China’s rise to the rise of the West as its operating paradigm. As such, it does not wish to deconstruct the existing world order, but to replace key elements of it. Thus, a key question arises: is China a revisionist world power or an integrationist world power? She proposed that in order to answer this question, it would be important to understand some of the concepts propounded by Xi Jinping and the CPC, namely, the ‘Great Changes Unseen in a Century’ and the ‘New Era’.

Dr. Prathibha highlighted certain definitional aspects of the concept of ‘Great Changes Unseen in a Century’. She noted that a key element of the concept is the role played by the CPC in forming historical judgments about world events, which it views through its own lens. The CPC argues that the current period of time should be called a ‘New Era’, where big changes are happening that are leading China to a ‘New Historic Starting Point’.

This latter idea sees China at a crossroads, where export-driven consumption patterns are changing rapidly, driven in part by falling economic momentum globally. At the same time, China believes that the world is undergoing a historic power transition from the global West to the global East in tandem with the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Domestically, this leads to an internal transition whereby the development of a science and technology base in line with ‘higher aspirations of the Chinese people’ is proceeding hand-in-hand with an orientation away from the export-led economic model.

In this scenario, if China can exploit the opportunity accordingly, the CPC holds that China can become a ‘modern socialist power’ leading the ‘next science and technology revolution’. For this, the CPC needs to take certain major strategic decisions in the coming years, which primarily involve encouraging innovation within society so as to provide strategic support to its comprehensive national power. The deadline for these objectives is 2049, when the CPC reaches its centenary and the ‘China Dream’ is slated to be achieved. The end goal is the completion of the ‘Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation’, which China after 2049 will notionally have achieved. If this project fails, however, Chinese thinkers see their country as falling victim to strategic passivity.

Describing the characteristics of the Great Changes, Dr. Prathibha highlighted that the CPC, as the entity in control of the ship of the state, believes that it has a unique mission to seize the historical initiative and exercise strategic judgment in order to steer China through the uncertainty currently prevailing in the world order. At the same, it is burdened with the responsibility of thinking about the bottom line, that is, to prepare for every eventuality, welcome or unwelcome. She posited that China under Xi Jinping believes that wisdom itself is not enough, and taking appropriate actions at the appropriate time is equally important. As such, ‘Chinese-style modernisation’ and other revolutionary changes need to be taken if China is to avoid a second Century of Humiliation, which it believes the West desires.

Assessing these concepts in the final portion of her presentation, the Speaker highlighted the fact that China’s actions have already invited a response and challenge from the global West, which has resisted Chinese calls for more multipolarity in the global system. In the face of this resistance, China has begun stressing on the need to reform global governance, a message through which it seeks to appeal to the Global South.

However, she expressed scepticism about these moves, which she proposed reflected an instrumental support for multipolarity as opposed to an earnest seeking of multipolarity. She contended that China at present is merely following global trends out of a desire to win supporters in its domestic quest for glory. She also contended that China at present was determined to partially reject the prevailing Western model, especially as it impinged upon domestic affairs and internal economic governance.

Comments by External Discussants

Amb. Chinoy called on Professor Rajesh Rajagopalan to deliver his Remarks on the paper. Prof. Rajagopalan in his review deliberated on some structural aspects of the paper and delivered a critique. He focused on the framing of certain subjects as well as the degree of accessibility for non-specialist readers.

Prof. Rajagopalan queried whether the CPC’s analysis of historical trends could be considered reliable, as these could well be used as justification for its continued control of Chinese politics. He commented on the ‘pedestrian’ nature of the CPC’s analysis of the so-called ‘Great Changes’, as it contains nothing ground-breaking or innovative at all. He argued that in fact, the CPC’s reading of history may be to blame for the strategic ineptitude by which the administration of Xi Jinping has alienated broad swathes of the world. As such, he doubted whether the reading of history espoused by Xi could significantly alter the world order in his favour.

Another salient point raised by Prof. Rajagopalan concerned the Speaker’s analysis of China’s emphasis on unleashing innovation through party fiat. Noting that while scientific innovation has always emerged out of a conducive environment provided by the State, it is difficult to state that such innovation can be commanded from the top-down. As such, while scientific progress has societal value as hypothesised by the CPC, such value can also be used to maintain political control by the Party, especially if it emerges out of a command economy.

Amb. Chinoy, praising Prof. Rajagopalan’s astute observations, called on Professor T.G. Suresh to deliver his remarks. Prof. Suresh complimented the paper for being substantive and comprehensive, before sharing his critique of the paper. He first discussed the necessity of characterising the Chinese Government and governance as seen in modern times. He proposed that externally-applied labels such as ‘post-socialist’ or ‘neo-Marxist’ were no longer relevant to describe China’s current rulers.

Secondly, he expressed his opinion that the concept of contention between China and the West may not be tenable. He cited the degree of comfort Chinese academics and officials display in talking and working with Western counterparts as proof of this.

Thirdly, he questioned the basis of the CPC’s judgment on the factors that triggered China’s Century of Humiliation. He contended that unlike the isolationism cited by the Party as the primary cause of the decline of the Qing Empire in the mid-nineteenth century, contact with the West, particularly Imperialist Britain through the Opium Wars (1839-1842; 1856-1860), may have been the decisive factor for China’s decline. He suggested that the Party may be cherry-picking history to suit present circumstances.

Finally, he repeated Prof. Rajagopalan’s contention that a top-down command economy based on a ‘highly totalitarian state and culture’ may not be best placed to encourage the kind of innovation necessary to achieve dramatic advances in science and technology. He stated that China lacks the knowledge-based societal base that is necessary to produce the kind of innovation necessary to successfully navigate the Fourth Industrial Revolution. He also pointed out China currently does not possess the ‘vocabulary of hegemony’ that was a hallmark of both European and American narratives in the past. Thus, Prof. Suresh contended that the emphasis on science and technology and innovation may be read as a way for the Party to secure a new ‘social contract’ that can justify the continued legitimacy of its rule.

Amb. Chinoy thanked both External Discussants for their insightful comments and offered his own thoughts on the paper. Noting that China’s heavy reliance on science and technology could be traced back to the 1950s, he recounted instances where India too played a prominent role as a supplier of advance scientific know-how to the Chinese. He informed the audience that the Sino-Soviet split of the late 1960s could partially be attributed to the Soviet Union’s denial of technology in the wake of Joseph Stalin’s demise in 1953, which resulted in China and the US coming closer together. Terming current US policies towards China as an echo of the Soviet denial regime, he noted that there is a continuum in Chinese worldviews.

Offering his thoughts on various sections of Dr. Prathibha’s paper, Amb. Chinoy pointed out the importance of distinguishing between decisions made by Xi himself and those made by the Party as an organisation in order to fix ‘responsibility’ for decisions. Addressing the point made by the two External Discussants on the relationship between political regimes and technology development, Amb. Chinoy stated that technology, not being as fungible as trade, intrinsically admitted of a greater role for the sovereign to intervene. He pointed out the experience of several Western powers such as Britain, France and Germany as illustrative in this regard.

On China’s interest in the world order, he conveyed his impression that China is not interested in ‘reforming’ the current world order, but to be at the head of it, while creating parallel structures. He offered the examples of the New Development Bank and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) as analogues of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Finally, he stated that the extent of Western sanctions on China is a moot question, as it is clear that the global West will generally follow the lead of the US despite the European Union’s purported claims of being separate from Washington. He then invited the Internal Discussants to deliver their comments on the paper.

Comments by Internal Discussants

Dr. Abhishek Darbey urged the Speaker to consider the Four Global Initiatives launched by Xi as linked to the Great Changes and its end-goal, the Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation. He also invited the Speaker to consider the clarification of the Great Changes as offered by Yuen Fung, a commentator with a military background, who has referred to the concept as ‘a strong political expression of the Chinese people to achieve the Chinese Dream’.

Dr. Saurabh Mishra, praised the innovative perspective taken by the Speaker’s paper, but offered technical critique on certain aspects, such as the use of certain terms in the title as well as the focus placed on statements made by the CPC hierarchy rather than China’s real-world behaviour.

Amb. Chinoy also offered further thoughts on the Speaker’s paper. He highlighted that the Great Changes concept actually refers to two centuries. The first is the Century of Humiliation from the mid-nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century, when China was the victim of predatory Western powers. The Party saw itself in this scheme as the political expression of Mao’s phrase, ‘The Chinese people have stood up’. The end of the Maoist period with Deng Xiaoping’s Reform and Opening Up era from the late 1970s to 2008 would thus conclude, according to the Party, with the Century of Unprecedented Changes where China would become a strong socialist power on the world stage.

Amb. Chinoy also commented on the similarities between Chinese thinking on interstate relations and the US’ thinking, especially under President Trump. He noted that both China and the US seem now to be running mirror versions of each other’s foreign policy, where both instinctively do not seek multipolarity in their relations, preferring to deal with a lone strongman or a small oligarchic elite instead. With these thoughts he invited the Speaker to respond to the Discussants’ Remarks.

Dr. Prathibha responded to some of the comments offered. Firstly, she answered Prof. Suresh’s statement regarding the CPC’s analysis of the failure of the Qing Empire vis-à-vis imperialist Western powers. She stated that the Party’s interpretation held China’s premodern rulers, the Qing Empire, responsible for the Century of Humiliation (instead of the West) because they believe that the Qing failed to adequately create economies of scale despite having a technological edge over Western countries, instead choosing to retain that technological know-how with the elites. She conveyed that the Party’s understanding of its historical background revolves firmly around the premise that the need for the state to achieve military superiority drives its accommodation of and encouragement to industrial innovation and growth, not property or common law as theorised by Western academics.

Next, the Speaker replied to the ‘social contract’ lens offered by Prof. Suresh. She averred that the Party actually has very little room for serious policy mistakes as these could negatively impact regime legitimacy, so they are very conscious of ensuring that the correct narrative and policy is followed consistently. The Great Changes concept can also be seen in this light as an attempt to rhetorically justify the continuance of CPC control over China’s governmental machinery.

Q&A

Amb. Chinoy invited comments and questions from the floor. Dr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Research Fellow, offered an observation that China cannot be considered to be anti-hegemony, only anti-Western hegemony. It is interested in propounding and propagating a ‘moral realist’ hegemony that it believes would be superior to the West. It has a strong tendency to see the world in its own view.

The Speaker added to this observation by noting that China believes the current world order to be rooted in Western ideas that create simplistic binaries between which conflict is unavoidable. As such, the West is interested in maintaining the current world order in so far as it can help avoid the Thucydides Trap. China’s challenge to this world order draws on its rejection of global governance models based on such paradigms, instead focusing on state capacity-based approaches as favoured by noted Western academics such as Samuel Huntington.

Professor Vijaylakshmi joined the meeting online to offer some comments on the Speaker’s paper as well. She cited the importance of analysing China’s internal debates in context, and mentioned an internal report prepared by certain CPC-affiliated bodies working on historical issues which explicitly states that ‘liberal democracy is not the pinnacle of human evolution’, thus drawing a clear demarcation line between the Western penchant for equating Westernisation with modernisation.

Further, she proposed that area studies scholars studying China ought to focus on the formation of a knowledge-producing apparatus within the CPC as a promising field of study. She pointed out that Xi may be surrounded by a group of scholars and strategic thinkers to assist him in the formulation of concepts such as the Great Changes, so studying these persons’ thought processes may be a fruitful way to develop Indian expertise on China’s strategic culture further. In conclusion, she noted that the delineation of China’s behaviour alone would not suffice. An understanding of China’s, and the CPC’s, ideological underpinnings is necessary too.

The Seminar concluded with Amb. Chinoy thanking all present for their participation.

The Report was prepared by Dr. Arnab Dasgupta, Research Analyst, East Asia Centre, MP-IDSA.