This is, he says "a Realist interpretation of international relations."
A previous comment on the same post made much the same point, putting it this way: "The fact is that China is too powerful, too big, and too important for countries to risk confrontation with it."
Besides, let's say huge numbers of Indian citizens follow their conscience and protest against China, which is what Nitin says they should feel free to do. Would China ignore such protest, distinguishing between government and citizenry? If the Indian government told China the protest was only citizens expressing themselves, would China sit back mollified?
I don't see the distinction Nitin makes.
The Munich Agreement did not slow down Hitler's aggression. Not only did Germany occupy the Sudetenland, it also overran Poland, and within a year, Europe was in another great war.
Luckily, England found a leader with more backbone only months into the war, one who didn't mind "risking confrontation" with "more powerful" Germany, and eventually won a terrible war. His name: Winston Churchill.
Seems to me it was Churchill -- and not Chamberlain who tried not to "antagonize" Germany -- who was the realist. Seems to me that rather than subsiding behind "they're too powerful", standing up for what you believe is realism.