Sino-Indian friendship can change 'look of Asia'

[Sena Lee]

The friendship between China and India and their "mutually beneficial cooperation will change the look of Asia and the world at large", President Hu Jintao told Sonia Gandhi, president of India's ruling Congress Party on Friday.

Gandhi met with Premier Wen Jiabao, too, and exchanged views on a range of bilateral and party-to-party issues with the two leaders.

With leaders on both sides appreciating the steadily growing bilateral ties, Hu, also general secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee, said the CPC and the Chinese government have always tried to develop ties with India from a strategic and global point of view.

The CPC is willing to maintain the good momentum in developing relations with major political parties in India, Hu said, and pledged to enhance the exchange of young politicians between the CPC and the Congress Party.

Gandhi, too, said she would like to see more active party-to-party exchanges.

The widow of former Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi is the first leader of a foreign political party to meet Hu and Wen since the conclusion of the 17th CPC National Congress on October 21.

Sonia Gandhi's visit shows the great importance the two sides attach to the development of bilateral ties, Hu said.

Her five-day visit to China comes just before Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's impending visit later this year.

The Congress Party chief said she treasured the rare honor bestowed on her, and was impressed by the achievements of the Chinese people as great changes had taken place since her last visit.

Wen recalled his meeting with Sonia Gandhi when she accompanied her husband to China in 1988. At that time, he said, late leader Deng Xiaoping told Rajiv Gandhi that without the development of China and India, the next century could not be called "the century of Asia".

China hopes to see a prosperous India because the two countries, being the most populous and among the largest developing countries, are neighbors, friends and partners, Wen said.

Sonia Gandhi delivered a speech at Tsinghua University to about 50 students on Saturday.

"We may well have different views and different perspectives on both bilateral and global issues. That is only natural," Gandhi said.

"However, I have no doubt that there is no problem that can not be sorted out through free and frank dialogue and discussion."

In her 20 minute speech, Sonia Gandhi also spoke highly of China's progress in recent years, saying that the two countries "have much to contribute to one another."

"People in our country admire the tremendous progress China has made since it began its economic reforms in 1978."

Gandhi's speech comes nearly 20 years after her husband, then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, gave a speech to the same university during his official visit in 1988. He was assassinated in 1991.

She will also visit Xi'an, capital of Shaanxi Province, and one of China's ancient capitals famous for the terracotta warriors, and Shanghai during her five-day visit.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2...nt_6211116.htm

 

[Flintlock]

Sonia Gandhi!!

It sounds all goody-goody doesn't it?

However, reality is quite different.

China has been, and still is an ally of Pakistan. If anything, that relationship has strengthened in recent times.

Naturally, the only way China and India can be truly friendly, is if India and Pakistan are truly friendly.

Indo-Pak friendship remains a myth rather than reality, even though some baby steps have been taken recently.

So, the best case scenario, according to me, is a peacetime coordial relationship between India and China. Perhaps increased cooperation in trade and commerce.. Nothing more.

 

[Sena Lee]

Sonia Gandhi!!
It sounds all goody-goody doesn't it?

However, reality is quite different.

I think this depends how one looks at the situation. I tend to take a positive stance. One thing is for sure, both China and India wants good relations with each other. This is because both are developing countries and have strong bilateral trade and economics.

Cordial relations is in the best interests of both nations.

China has been, and still is an ally of Pakistan. If anything, that relationship has strengthened in recent times.

This is correct, Sino-Pak relations are very strong and unshakable. But this does not mean Sino-India relations could not be improved.

Naturally, the only way China and India can be truly friendly, is if India and Pakistan are truly friendly.

The trilateral relationship is complicated. China hopes the Pak-India relations would be better and find a resolution to their differences.

Indo-Pak friendship remains a myth rather than reality, even though some baby steps have been taken recently.

I think we just need to give it time and patience, this cannot be rushed. For trust and friendship are built with time and confidence. But I am optimistic that one day Pakistan and India would truely be friends.

So, the best case scenario, according to me, is a peacetime coordial relationship between India and China. Perhaps increased cooperation in trade and commerce.. Nothing more.

I agree with this, Trade is one major factor that brings us together closer. Sometimes in politics too where China and India shares the same view and cooperation.

An example of this is the climate change, the West is placing the blame on emerging economies like China and India.

 

[Bushroda]

I don't think Sino-pak relation can have much of bearing on India's relation with China. Pak afterall is a major non nato ally & still it hasn't discouraged us from pursueing sound relations with EU, US, Canada, Australia. Even Indian leadership knows that they cannot expect a relationship to develop at the expense of any third country. On the look of it, it seems a great picture perfect vista. With more people to people contact & with growing trade, ties can evolve between two nations. And at certain point when both are an integral cog into running eachother's machinery ties can blossom into strategic partnership. But, this however is not the case between India & China (though I wish it could). At this moment both these behemoths are growing rapidly & need to secure as much energy resources as possible. I see them clashing on this point. This one single point is what puts these two nations on the opposite ends of eachother. Supremacy over African & Latin American oil can be possible source of tension in near future.

 

[IceCold]

India supports taiwan, has a dispute over tibet, how can that lead to better relations, moreover india has a problem to show her mother india status over southasia and beyond. Pak India relations cannot and will not get better there are too many disputes that will not let it happen no matter what babysteps confidence building measures are taken.
Pakistan is not an major non nato ally, just by saying so doesnt make us one, but it can be said in the case of india afterall we are not the one getting the nuke deal.

 

[su-47]

India supports taiwan, has a dispute over tibet, how can that lead to better relations, moreover india has a problem to show her mother india status over southasia and beyond. Pak India relations cannot and will not get better there are too many disputes that will not let it happen no matter what babysteps confidence building measures are taken.
Pakistan is not an major non nato ally, just by saying so doesnt make us one, but it can be said in the case of india afterall we are not the one getting the nuke deal.

India has cordial relations with taiwan, but does not support taiwan. India has actually recognised PRC's 'One China Policy'!

After indian independance, India and China had very good relationship. Problem started when China invaded Tibet and India supported the dalai lama. This lead to 1962 war, which severed relationships. Also, after '62, China laid a claim to the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. Then China started being friendly with pak to contain India.

Now its impossible to improve Sino-Indian relations in a day, but what is possible is to build a realtion step-by-step, starting with trade between the nations, followed by more negotiations, meetings of top politicians etc.

 

[gpit]

Two major issues in Sino-India relationship: territorial dispute and Dalai Lama (Tibet).

In comparison, there are no such issues in Sino-Pakistan relationship.

These facts, plus past experiences, determine that China and Pakistan can develop a relationship that is a lot broader and deeper than that between China and India where skepticism exists and only business seems a currently feasible action, which, nontheless, is interesting and important.

I believe that it is in China's interest to see a peaceful South Asia to provide a kind of friendly environment, such that China can sustain its growth. It is also in the interest of all South Asia countries.

BTW, any calls/actions for countering China is laughable, in vain, and will only be self-detrimental. Only cooperation will benefit all.

 

[su-47]

Territorial disputes were not there before '62. In the 50s China never claimed arunachal Paradesh. then why suddenly claim it in '62?

It was just a ploy to keep the real conflict open: Tibetans and the dalai lama

 

[kvLin]

Territorial disputes were not there before '62. In the 50s China never claimed arunachal Paradesh. then why suddenly claim it in '62?

coz there was not an arunachal paradesh until 1987,mate.

actually there're some facts facing us,

1. China has never recognized the McMahon Line which India takes as creditable border.

2. Even the McMahon Line has never made itself clearly down to the ground. "it's all by Mcmahon's geogrphaical speculation"--The Fall of Towang.

3. The McMahon Line was drawn in 1914, which pushed the sino-indu border 100+km northward, but Nehru didn't modify his map until 1956. ( ref: the Discovery of India,1951,Nehru.)

4. On Dec.14, 1958, PM Nehru wrote to Chinese PM Zhouenlai, requesting China to correct its map,which had been used since 1948, "to avoid some cartological overlappings especially the area south of McMahon Line."

In an official reply on Jan.23 the next year, Zhou said that the principle of China's mappery had never changed in recent decades,if not longer, and to avoid any immediate dispute with a Non-Alignment friend he added that "the Sino-Indo border is NOT yet offically delimited".

5. In 1960 when dispute was already brought into open, Zhou wrote to Nehru suggesting both withdraw forces 20km away from the McMahon Line. Nehru ignored the proposal and China's pullback was sadly misread as recreance. IMHO, Nehru's "marching forward policy" was undoubtedly part of the origin of the 1962 war.

Dispute is dispute, any unilateral territorial claim would be a furitless hardsale. It's a problem left for human wisdom and patience, not for killing any more.


ref:
Transforming the Cold War: China and the Changing World，1960s-1980s

 

[su-47]

coz there was not an arunachal paradesh until 1987,mate.

actually there're some facts facing us,

1. China has never recognized the McMahon Line which India takes as creditable border.

2. Even the McMahon Line has never made itself clearly down to the ground. "it's all by Mcmahon's geogrphaical speculation"--The Fall of Towang.

3. The McMahon Line was drawn in 1914, which pushed the sino-indu border 100+km northward, but Nehru didn't modify his map until 1956. ( ref: the Discovery of India,1951,Nehru.)

4. On Dec.14, 1958, PM Nehru wrote to Chinese PM Zhouenlai, requesting China to correct its map,which had been used since 1948, "to avoid some cartological overlappings especially the area south of McMahon Line."

In an official reply on Jan.23 the next year, Zhou said that the principle of China's mappery had never changed in recent decades,if not longer, and to avoid any immediate dispute with a Non-Alignment friend he added that "the Sino-Indo border is NOT yet offically delimited".

5. In 1960 when dispute was already brought into open, Zhou wrote to Nehru suggesting both withdraw forces 20km away from the McMahon Line. Nehru ignored the proposal and China's pullback was sadly misread as recreance. IMHO, Nehru's "marching forward policy" was undoubtedly part of the origin of the 1962 war.

Dispute is dispute, any unilateral territorial claim would be a furitless hardsale. It's a problem left for human wisdom and patience, not for killing any more.


ref:
Transforming the Cold War: China and the Changing World，1960s-1980s

Ok, its a chinese site, but i'll take it as credible.

The fact remains that there's a territorial dispute, and for the Sino-indian relations to get much better, that issue has to be solved satisfactorily, with mutual agreement.

When the McMahon line was drawn, india was part of the british empire. And at that time, China didnt contest the line. So that area became part of british india, and the British empire. When india became independant, British india was divided into india and paksitan. India got the territory under the McMahon line. so it was basically British territory now being given back to the indians.

The part in red is my take on events. feel free to put forward your view

 

[gpit]

Ok, its a chinese site, but i'll take it as credible.

The fact remains that there's a territorial dispute, and for the Sino-indian relations to get much better, that issue has to be solved satisfactorily, with mutual agreement.

When the McMahon line was drawn, india was part of the british empire. And at that time, China didnt contest the line. So that area became part of british india, and the British empire. When india became independant, British india was divided into india and paksitan. India got the territory under the McMahon line. so it was basically British territory now being given back to the indians.

The part in red is my take on events. feel free to put forward your view

The site kvlin quoted (Thanks kvlin!) seems to host abstracts from an international conference. They are not Chinese official views. I personally believe that the Japanese view is probably very neutral, and pretty interesting as well. In some articles, possible mis-communications between India and China are also factored in.

I don't know what you attempt to convey in your red other than the logic that India should also inherit the territorial dispute.