IMHO, it isn’t in China’s best interest to annex entire Indian NE area.
That was never even on the table.
Instead, China should only have some small part of that area, such as Tawang, that is significant to China, but not that important to India.
Not that important? What even makes you think so. The Chinese claim to Tawang is eye wash:
Tawang district - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A sizeable population of 20,000 live in Tawang town. The dominant ethnic group are the Monpa, who inhabit 162 out of 163 villages. The Tibetan are also found in small scattered numbers throughout Tawang, but their main concentration is in the village of Shyo, which houses about 90 Tibetan families. The Takpa, a small tribal group, are found in small, scattered numbers in the West and the North.
Basically the Chinese clamor for Arunachal is idealogical. The Tawang Monastery of the Gelugpa sect in Tawang town was built by the Mera Lama in 1681. This monastery is one of the largest in the country and is one of the largest Buddhist monasteries in the world. It is a major holy site for Tibetan Buddhists.
So obviously their intent is to psychologically destroy the Tibetan resistance movement by occupying this major monastry & amalgamating it in China.
It is however perhaps in everybody’s interest to have several independent regions in those areas
They were relatively independent until Chinese fingering prompted Army to go in with a CI deployment.
, where India is not treated nicely anyways.
So long as a culture/way of life is not brutally suppressed there should be no problem. Unlike some other countries.
This article claims that China support NE separatists. There are rumors but hardly any hard proofs.
China no longer does. Or so is thought. The days of India supporting Tibet passionately are long passe. Now it is basically individual organisations and their fight for survival, which means they take support from wherever they can get, including ISI.
In the early days (1950s), China viewed India as a same brother who suffered from imperialists and colonists. Thus, in 1962 China hadn’t used full strength in “teaching a lesson”.
China may/may not have used full strength. But '62 is an example of f-a-r sighted Chinese leadership. Chou En-Lai and his party was of the opinion that Nehru's bellicosity should be made an example of (welcoming open armed a fleeing Dalai Lama at US's behest), so that for decades to follow there is no confusion over who is the dominant player in Indo-China context. It is also not without reason that India-China borders have been peaceful, with Chinese occupying dominating positions all along the LAC.
It looks indeed the gap in infrastructure between China and India is becoming bigger and bigger day by day.
Things may not be as bad as you make them out to be. India is not the idealistic sucker country that said "We are the pearl of the world, nobody can attack us, because we are just so good human beings".
Nehru was infact so shocked by the border war that it led to his dis illusionment & ultimately his death. He was actually expecting other countries of the world, the UNs, the US's, the UK's and the NAM's to come to India's aid because they were 'morally' bound to do so.
Let me assure you, they will not meet the Army of 1962 if they come up again to test Indian resolve. You may care to look at Chola incident (1967) and more recently Sumdorong Chu Valley (1987). The skirmish in 1987 is a half answer of sorts to the 1962 disgrace.
