Los Angeles, 3 January 2010: Some well-wishers of India suggest that the country should be somewhere in the middle in the India-US-China triangle, friendly to both big powers but not particularly unfriendly to China. Mention is made of the greatness of India (and China) up to the early nineteenth century but of its subsequent bleeding by British imperialism aided by its divide-and-rule policy. The insinuation is that the United States may be up to the same divide-and-rule game apropos India and China, and that India must discover (or invent, presumably) a new friend in China. China historically had no cause for enmity with India and, -- this is not stated but hinted at -- therefore, the Chinese aggression of nineteen sixty-two must be forgotten and new bonds established. There are problems with this thesis-cum-advocacy which will be sought to be explained in the following paragraphs. This writer's conclusive point will be that India is best suited to remain within the paradigm of "peaceful rise", and that whatever the fears of China be vis-a-vis India, India is not about to play the role of "balancer" (or "bridge", another corny idea of Indian-American provenance) at the behest of the United States to China's detriment. India is unfathomably and tiresomely clumsy and glacially slow in its rise, but rise it will. So long no one hurts India, nobody will be hurt, and China should have the intelligence to understand that, although it hasn't so far.