# India tells China: Kashmir is to us what Tibet, Taiwan are to you



## unicorn148

Wuhan: Drawing a dramatic parallel between the territorial red lines of both countries, India on Sunday told China that just as New Delhi had been sensitive to its concerns over the Tibet Autonomous Region and Taiwan, Beijing too should be mindful of Indian sensitivities on Jammu and Kashmir.

The comparison  which is intended to drive home the depth of Indian concerns over recent Chinese attempts to question the country's sovereignty in Kashmir  was made by External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna in his meeting with China's Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi on the sidelines of the Russia-India-China trilateral meeting here.

This is the first time India has drawn this parallel directly, Indian officials told The Hindu.

Briefing reporters about the meeting, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said the two Ministers reviewed the state of bilateral relations, which Mr. Yang described as being in very good shape. As India-China relations grew, Mr. Krishna said, there was a need for both sides to be sensitive to each other's core concerns. In that context, said Ms. Rao, [the External Affairs Minister] spoke of Jammu and Kashmir and expressed the hope that China would be sensitive to J&K just as we have been to the Tibet Autonomous Region and Taiwan.

According to Ms. Rao, Mr. Yang said in response that China always believed the problem of Jammu and Kashmir could only be resolved through dialogue and negotiations between India and Pakistan and that there has been no change in its policy.

The Chinese Minister also said Beijing wanted to expand the political content of the relationship between the two countries. He said both countries should see each other's growth as an opportunity and not a challenge.

India has been objecting to the Chinese policy of issuing stapled' visas to Kashmiri-domicile Indian citizens. New Delhi suspended defence exchanges with Beijing in August after an Indian general from Kashmir was denied a proper visa to travel to China on an official visit.

On the question of a permanent seat for India on a reformed UN Security Council  a question Mr. Krishna raised in a general way without reference to President Barack Obama's recent announcement  Mr. Yang said he acknowledged there had been a fundamental change in the international situation and that consultations were needed on the question of UN reform. He added that China was willing to continue and increase its consultations with India and others on this question, a stand Ms. Rao described as incrementally speaking, a positive development.

But she quickly added: To say that they have given full-scale endorsement would be inaccurate.

Also on Sunday, Mr. Krishna held bilateral talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and attended a working dinner of the RIC trilateral.

Ms. Rao said Mr. Lavrov strongly supported India's prospective membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and urged the country to work closely together with Russia and others for promoting security and cooperation across the Asia-Pacific region.

The RIC Foreign Ministers also strongly endorsed the idea of a trilateral discussion on the situation in Afghanistan and agreed that the BRIC forum, which links the three with Brazil, be expanded to include South Africa by the time of the next summit.

Also present at Mr. Krishna's meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister was Duan Yunlin, vice governor of Hubei province. Mr. Duan spoke of Hubei's economic relations with India and described his own involvement in promoting business links with Bangalore and Andhra Pradesh. Mr. Krishna said he hoped India-China bilateral trade would cross the target of $ 60 billion but urged the Chinese side to do more to ensure a better balance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## StingRoy

Posted and being discussed at http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/80534-india-tells-china-kashmir-us-what-tibet-taiwan-you.html


----------



## Rumpelstilskin

India has finally started to act.... Now that Kashmir is out from the Disputed Territories List , I do not See any further debates On The Issue Of Kashmir from now on.... All Settled , Let the peace Prevail


----------



## IND151

*i found this well written article.*

















































*



Er by the way, Tibet!

by Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 25th Jan 11 

China has unquestionably boxed India into a corner in their boundary dispute. Hardening its position on the status of J&K, Beijing now treats that state as a part of Pakistan until determined otherwise. It is time for India to recalibrate its Tibet policy based on a harder-nosed appreciation of happenings in the Land of the Snows.

That New Delhi is already willing to play the Tibet card was signalled by foreign minister SM Krishna on a visit to Beijing last November, when he compared Indias sensitivities over Kashmir with Chinas over Tibet and Taiwan. The foreign ministry also claims to have been blunt while raising the issue with Wen Jiabao during the Chinese premiers visit to Delhi last month.

While a tactical Beijing may proffer cosmetic concessions, Indias key concern --- the boundary dispute --- will probably remain ignored. China simply has no incentive to settle that problem. Indian policymakers ascribe Beijings indifference to its calculation that a better border deal lies further down the superpower road, but more sophisticated China watchers discern another reason. With Chinas leaders obsessively aware of their failure in suppressing Tibetan nationalism, they fear that delineating the border might see Indian influencing radiating into Tibet.

The Chinese logic is simple and elegant: keep New Delhis attention on Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh to prevent it from focusing on Tibet.

New Delhi must counter that strategy with a fundamental shift in the way it views the border dispute: as an India-Tibet-China issue, rather than as a purely Sino-Indian one. Tibet has long been the elephant in the room when New Delhi talks to Beijing; that presence must be unambiguously placed on the table. Beijings road to Lhasa, it must be made clear, runs through New Delhi.

This will harmonise many of the dissonances that afflict Indias China policy. The first of these is the uncomfortable political paradox of pretending that the Tibet issue does not exist, even while providing asylum to a hundred thousand Tibetan refugees, an entire eco-system of Tibetan Buddhism, the Tibetan government-in-exile and the Dalai Lama himself.

New Delhi also faces an ethical disconnect between its morality in providing that sanctuary on the one hand; and its grubby realism in neutering Tibetan interests for fear of offending Beijing on the other. In emphasising the latter, India unwisely relinquishes the opportunity to generate and coalesce around itself global moral opinion on Tibet. This is especially surprising, given that Indias conciliation on Tibet has only emboldened China further.

Finally, the greatest inconsistency in New Delhis approach is the deep divide between its placatory, softly-softly approach towards China --- itself born of the harsh lesson of 1962 --- and the Indian citizens more robust suspicion of Chinas motives and actions on the other. This gulf will ensure that any back-room settlement that is hammered out with China --- in the unlikely event that one is --- will simply not fly in this country. Indian officials must frankly reflect the national belief that China, after illegitimately occupying Tibet, occupies and covets Indian soil.

Zhongnanhai (the Beijing headquarters of the communist party and the executive government) can be expected to react with anger, given its deep insecurities about Tibet. But it will then have a motive to talk seriously about the boundary question.

New Delhi must note that top Chinese administrators in Lhasa already accuse India of malevolence in Tibet. Lao Daku, the chief of the feared Tibet Autonomous Region Public Security Bureau (TARPSB), declares in a Tibetan language internet article published in his name after his ground tour of Tibetan areas from July to September 2010: The collusion between the Dalai Clique, splittist forces, internal and external, and hostile foreign forces is stronger than before. India, our large neighbour and a developing country, is getting closer to the West day by day, and poses a new threat to our countrys security. Indias indulgence and harbouring of the Dalai Clique is undermining Tibets stability and development.

As the common Indian would put it: Munni to vaise bhi badnaam ho gayi.

Even considering that Lao, a regional security chief, might paint a bleak picture of security in order to extract more resources from Beijing, his article vividly illustrates the historical Chinese paranoia about the empire crumbling from the fringes. Railing against the melding of separatism in Tibet, Xinjiang and Taiwan, Lao warns, We can see how, with Western support, the [supporters of] Tibet independence, Xinjiang independence and Taiwan independence are acting crazy. If it is like that, there is a danger that these three causes will be combined.

While Taiwan encompasses a different set of dynamics, Beijing regards Tibet as a far bigger problem than Xinjiang. This belief was reinforced by the 2008 uprising that sprang from Amdo one of traditional Tibets three provinces that now lies outside the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), mainly in Qinghai province, and which demographic transfers have converted into a Han-majority area.If even a pacified Amdo could erupt in rebellion argue the mandarins in Zhongnanhai, how do we deal with the remote reaches of Tibet that border on India? In contrast, the borders of Xinjiang have been effectively sealed through agreements with Pakistan and the Central Asian Republics, all of who function as Rottweilers for Beijing.

And so Beijing heaps greater repression upon Tibet, increasing Tibetan hostility. This is overlooked in New Delhi, where border policy is guided by the assumption of perpetual weakness. Beijing realises that its dramatic infrastructure development programme in Tibet, and the lightening march of Peoples Liberation Army divisions to the Indian border all rest on very shaky foundations.it is time for Indian diplomats to treat Tibet as an asset, rather than as an embarrassment. 
[/COLOR][/SIZE]
Broadsword: Er by the way, Tibet!

Click to expand...

*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Leviza

Rumpelstilskin said:


> India has finally started to act.... Now that Kashmir is out from the Disputed Territories List , I do not See any further debates On The Issue Of Kashmir from now on.... All Settled , Let the peace Prevail



even if its out of Disputed Territories List which i doubt ........
we are not leaving Kashmir and its on our list for sure... 

UNO is a fail organization in keeping world peace


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

India has been hosting our largest separatist group (Tibetan government "in exile") for over half a century.

So what are they trying to say here? That we should do the same?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Paan Singh

Chinese-Dragon said:


> India has been hosting our largest separatist group (Tibetan government "in exile") for over half a century.
> 
> So what are they trying to say here? That we should do the same?



even tibetans here says that india is soft to china,india dont care abt us.while china is destroying our language and our culture.
watever it is,they have massive anger in their present generation also

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Prism said:


> even tibetans here says that india is soft to china,india dont care abt us.while china is destroying our language and our culture.
> watever it is,they have massive anger in their present generation also



I'm talking about the thread topic.

India says that China should be sensitive to India's concerns in Kashmir, in the same way that India is "sensitive" to China's concerns in Tibet.

Since India hosted our largest separatist group (Tibetan government "in exile") for over half a century, does that mean India wants us to do the same to them with regards to Kashmir?


----------



## Veeru

Its very silly statement because Tibet is an independent country under illigal chinese occupation by force and Taiwan is a seprate country.

But Kashmir is legally and rightfully belongs to India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Veeru said:


> Its very silly statement because Tibet is an independent country under illigal chinese occupation by force and Taiwan is a seprate country.
> 
> But Kashmir is legally and rightfully belongs to India.



So basically India is asking China to treat Kashmir in the same way that India treats Tibet.

According to your above statement, that would mean recognizing an Independent Kashmir. And giving support to any separatist groups that require it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Paan Singh

Chinese-Dragon said:


> I'm talking about the thread topic.
> 
> India says that China should be sensitive to India's concerns in Kashmir, in the same way that India is "sensitive" to China's concerns in Tibet.
> 
> Since India hosted our largest separatist group (Tibetan government "in exile") for over half a century, does that mean India wants us to do the same to them with regards to Kashmir?



oh my dear CD,

we have separatist group in our kashmir and we know pakistan is supporting them and we know how they supported it.

still their leaders live,and one of them got slap in chandigarh.
so u r free to do so.,its ur policy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Prism said:


> so u r free to do so.,its ur policy.



I know that, I just find it curious that the Indian government seems to be asking us to do it.


----------



## IND151

*



@ Chinese-Dragon
I'm talking about the thread topic.

India says that China should be sensitive to India's concerns in Kashmir, in the same way that India is "sensitive" to China's concerns in Tibet.

Since India hosted our largest separatist group (Tibetan government "in exile") for over half a century, does that mean India wants us to do the same to them with regards to Kashmir?

Click to expand...

* read article posted by me post # 4.


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

IND151 said:


> read article posted by me post # 4.



India has been interfering in Tibet for over half a century, ever since Nehru back stabbed us, by singing Hindi Chini bhai bhai, while hosting our largest separatist group immediately after they failed to overthrow the Chinese government.

India has already been playing the Tibet card for over half a century.

Now the Indian government is asking us to do the same with regards to Kashmir, well I think that is quite fair of them to ask.


----------



## IND151

*every member kindly read article posted by me. post # 4.* thanks in advance to every one!


----------



## Obambam

Veeru said:


> Its very silly statement because Tibet is an independent country under illigal chinese occupation by force and Taiwan is a seprate country.
> 
> But Kashmir is legally and rightfully belongs to India.



Tibet and Taiwan are seperate countries? I'd like to hear the Indian government make an official statement in regards to that. Lets see what will happen to them then?

Since the statement was made by yourself, I don't think anyone should take it seriously.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Obambam said:


> Tibet and Taiwan are seperate countries? I'd like to hear the Indian government make an official statement in regards to that. Lets see what will happen to them then?
> 
> Since the statement was made by yourself, I don't think anyone should take it seriously.



The Indian government is not brave enough to say it. 

They always try to undermine us in Tibet, but do not have the balls to come out and say it openly.


----------



## KS

Chinese-Dragon said:


> The Indian government is not brave enough to say it.
> 
> They always try to undermine us in Tibet, but do not have the balls to come out and say it openly.



No country says anything on the face. They use a diplomatic language which their counterparts can very well understand.

One such thing was the refusal to commit to a One china policy recently and i think the diplomats in China would have understood that.


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Karthic Sri said:


> No country says anything on the face. They use a diplomatic language which their counterparts can very well understand.
> 
> One such thing was the refusal to commit to a One china policy recently and i think the diplomats in China would have understood that.



They refused to "reiterate" it, during a joint-statement.

They did however say that would continue to follow the policies that were set out during all previous joint-statements.

So it seems mostly for domestic consumption. I wish they would come out openly for once.

Maybe when the BJP wins the next elections they will have the courage to say it out loud.


----------



## Paan Singh

Chinese-Dragon said:


> The Indian government is not brave enough to say it.
> 
> They always try to undermine us in Tibet, but do not have the balls to come out and say it openly.



there is bird named as *diplomacy*,thats enough


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Prism said:


> there is bird named as *diplomacy*,thats enough



Yes and counter-diplomacy too. 

I don't think China should go for the "eye-for-an-eye" approach though, and start supporting separatists in Kashmir.

The reason for this, would be an old Chinese quote:

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Paan Singh

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Yes and counter-diplomacy too.
> 
> I don't think China should go for the "eye-for-an-eye" approach though, and start supporting separatists in Kashmir.
> 
> The reason for this, would be an old Chinese quote:



write this in english,so that i can counter-attack u


----------



## Obambam

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Yes and counter-diplomacy too.
> 
> I don't think China should go for the "eye-for-an-eye" approach though, and start supporting separatists in Kashmir.
> 
> The reason for this, would be an old Chinese quote:



Hehe..an eye for an eye would only achieve a static result. They must be more proactive and aggressive than that in order to send out a stronger message and to change ones point of view.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Khan_patriot

Chinese-Dragon said:


> India has been hosting our largest separatist group (Tibetan government "in exile") for over half a century.
> 
> So what are they trying to say here? That we should do the same?



i would suggest taking more of India's land like aksai chin........


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Prism said:


> write this in english,so that i can counter-attack u



The direct translation is "The Dragon King's temple is flooded".

The basic premise behind the saying, is that "even the things you control can destroy you".

The Dragon King controls the water, yet his own temple can be flooded by the water.

China is extremely lucky that we are not suffering from any active armed insurgencies, I would like to keep it that way. Supporting separatists in another country could come back to bite us.


----------



## Khan_patriot

Chinese-Dragon said:


> India has been hosting our largest separatist group (Tibetan government "in exile") for over half a century.
> 
> So what are they trying to say here? That we should do the same?





Prism said:


> there is bird named as *diplomacy*,thats enough



is diplomacy a synonym for having no nuts in ''The worlds Largest democracy''..


----------



## Paan Singh

Chinese-Dragon said:


> The direct translation is "The Dragon King's temple is flooded".
> 
> The basic premise behind the saying, is that "even the things you control can destroy you".
> 
> The Dragon King controls the water, yet his own temple can be flooded by the water.
> 
> China is extremely lucky that we are not suffering from any active armed insurgencies, I would like to keep it that way. Supporting separatists in another country could come back to bite us.



good gesture,but not necessary that it will hit the bulls eye always


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Prism said:


> good gesture,but not necessary that it will hit the bulls eye always



It is not a "good gesture". It is purely self-interest.

South Asia is being constantly hit by terrorist/separatist attacks, I don't want China to go down the same road.


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Khan_patriot said:


> is diplomacy a synonym for having no nuts in ''The worlds Largest democracy''..



Maybe you're right.


----------



## faithfulguy

I think India should recognize Tibet and Taiwan as a separate country. This would make the Indian members here proud and demonstrate India's intent. Taiwan definitely would welcome an embassy from India. However, this would also recognize that the Republican of China government represents the legitimate government of the whole China. This government makes big claims, including some Indian land.


----------



## Assange

I would like to ask some Pakistani members who support China in Tibet matter. As far as you guys are concerned India occupied Kashmir using its army. And you guys support freedom movement in Kashmir because it is an illegal occupation (according to you guys). Now just tell me how China came into Tibet? And in what way are you guys going to say it is not an illegal occupation ? Can you guys explain?


----------



## dabong1

Assange said:


> I would like to ask some Pakistani members who support China in Tibet matter. As far as you guys are concerned India occupied Kashmir using its army. And you guys support freedom movement in Kashmir because it is an illegal occupation (according to you guys). Now just tell me how China came into Tibet? And in what way are you guys going to say it is not an illegal occupation ? Can you guys explain?




Ironically, it originates in large part with British imperialism. British forces invaded Tibet in 1904 and administered it until 1947. Their aim was to create what they self-consciously called a buffer state to protect their immense interests in India, then run by the British Raj, from potential advances by Russia and China. Tibet was turned into a guard dog for Britains vast Indian Empire. And the British discovered that the idea of Tibet as a mystical, paranormal land - that is, not a normal state and certainly not a part of those other normal states of China or Russia - was a very useful propaganda tool. As Alex McKay, author of Tibet and the British Raj: The Frontier Cadre 1904 to 1947, points out: The [British] found that the mystical image could serve British interests. The mystical image reinforced Tibets separate identity furthering the interests of the British cadre. The British had a strict policy of only allowing in writers and explorers who were sympathetic to the mystical image of Tibet and who also would not criticise the severities of British rule or of Buddhist serfdom. And, says McKay, in the absence of a viable alternative, the image of Tibet they constructed became the dominant historical image followed by Western academics (2).Tibet: still a &#8216;buffer state&#8217; for posh Westerners? | spiked

role played by the British rulers of Tibet in the 1920s, 30s and 40s in creating so-called Tibetan Independence. Where under the feudal rule of the Dalai Lamas, Tibet had conceived of itself largely as a religious entity, the lamas were convinced by the British to adopt the trappings of nationalism. *As one fascinating historical study points out, the British funded the creation of a national Tibetan flag, a Tibetan football team and Tibetan school uniform, with the explicit, express aim, in the words of one British imperialist, of showing that Tibet had its own art etc and that in some ways Tibet is more closely allied to India than to China (4)*. In short, the idea of Tibetan independence was born largely from the needs of British imperialism in India, and from British conflict with China, rather than from the demands of the Tibetan masses.

Western pro-Tibet activists also overlook the role later played by Washington, in particular the CIA, in funding and training the Dalai Lamas armed forces in the 1950s. Between Chinas invasion of Tibet in 1951 and the fleeing of the Dalai Lama in 1959, the CIA took a keen interest in directing the Tibetan forces as part of what the Dalai Lama himself later described as Washingtons broader international campaign of anti-Communism (5)Chinese officialdom embraces &#8216;Shangri-La&#8217; | spiked

I dont recall the chinese leader asking the UN to intervene in tibet or taiwan and promising a vote to the people like the indian leader did in kashmir.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CardSharp

Assange said:


> I would like to ask some Pakistani members who support China in Tibet matter. As far as you guys are concerned India occupied Kashmir using its army. And you guys support freedom movement in Kashmir because it is an illegal occupation (according to you guys). Now just tell me how China came into Tibet? And in what way are you guys going to say it is not an illegal occupation ? Can you guys explain?



Time is really running out for you folks isn't it ? I wonder if there is still going to be a free Tibet movement in 10 years once Hollywood finds something shinier and more trendy to support.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

CardSharp said:


> Time is really running out for you folks isn't it ? I wonder if there is still going to be a free Tibet movement in 10 years once Hollywood finds something shinier and more trendy to support.



As long as the development money keeps pouring into Tibet, the situation will continue to improve.

The Chinese government has a good track record at preventing any "armed insurgencies" from arising. Using the carrot and stick approach, i.e. development and good law enforcement.


----------



## CardSharp

Chinese-Dragon said:


> As long as the development money keeps pouring into Tibet, the situation will continue to improve.
> 
> The Chinese government has a good track record at preventing any "armed insurgencies" from arising. Using the carrot and stick approach, i.e. development and good law enforcement.



Nah more important is cultural and demographic dilution. Start opening nightclubs and internet cafes then we'll see how many of them are eager to jump back in the lama's lap.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## webber

when did india play the tibet or taiwan card?

did they confused themself with U.S 

tibet never was independent, all generations of dalai lama need central government approval, and that's why british negotiate with china the border

U.S try to split tibet from china coz cold war and failed

china is not U.S which can massacred the native people

all country recognize tibet is part of china including dalai

daydream is free for traitors


for Kashmir, it's a different types of legal issue


----------



## Roybot

I think what Mr S.M. Krishna tried to convey by drawing parallel between Kashmir and Tibet is that, just like how Tibet is important to China, Kashmir is important to India. And both the issues are fueled by outsiders with vested interests with leaders playing the religious and "ethnically different" cards. 

If China looses Tibet, other restive regions like Xinjiang would want to secede as well. Same goes with India in Kashmir, it doesn't want to let go Kashmir and set a precedence for other separatists movements in the country.

Why would India wan't to negate China's claim on Tibet and then draw parallel to Kashmir as many of you here think. Its like saying "India said Tibet is Occupied and its same as Kashmir issue and hence Kashmir is occupied by India." 

Is it really that hard to understand, or were you guys just trolling and I am being a captain obvious?


----------



## Roybot

CardSharp said:


> Time is really running out for you folks isn't it ? I wonder if there is still going to be a free Tibet movement in 10 years once Hollywood finds something shinier and more trendy to support.





CardSharp said:


> Nah more important is cultural and demographic dilution. Start opening nightclubs and internet cafes then we'll see how many of them are eager to jump back in the lama's lap.



I don't think rubbing it in helps with the cause of integrating Tibetans into main stream China


----------



## Hindustani

faithfulguy said:


> I think India should recognize Tibet and Taiwan as a separate country. This would make the Indian members here proud and demonstrate India's intent. Taiwan definitely would welcome an embassy from India. However, this would also recognize that the Republican of China government represents the legitimate government of the whole China. This government makes big claims, including some Indian land.



As far as I'm concerned India does recognize Taiwan as a seperate country 
Political status of Taiwan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
India ? Republic of China relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for Tibet, India has always supported the policy of Tibet being part of China. However the *"government in exile (Tibetan government) is pretty much taking refugee in India. Who says India is supporting the seperatist movement? *


----------



## eastwatch

If KLashmir is to India what Tibet and Taiwan are to China, then why this big-mouth India avoids a voting in Kashmir to know if Kashmiris also feel the same love towards India? India's love is one-sided and is answered by constant opposition to its rule by the Kashmiris themselves. India should also demand to hand over Azad Kashmir from Pakistan. India is the biggest mouth democracy in the world without a culture of democracy.


----------



## Hindustani

eastwatch said:


> If KLashmir is to India what Tibet and Taiwan are to China, then why this big-mouth India avoids a voting in Kashmir to know if Kashmiris also feel the same love towards India? India's love is one-sided and is answered by constant opposition to its rule by the Kashmiris themselves. India should also demand to hand over Azad Kashmir from Pakistan. India is the biggest mouth democracy in the world without a culture of democracy.



Then why do your countrymen keep coming into our border via illegeally? I guess your bangladeshi brothers love big mouth democracy that they'd rather die than live in bangladesh


----------



## CardSharp

roy_gourav said:


> I don't think rubbing it in helps with the cause of integrating Tibetans into main stream China



I doubt he actually lives in Tibet. Most of the Tibetans that could afford rides out of China in the 50's were the lamas or the aristocrats and judges by what they did to their own people, they're pretty much scum anyways.


----------



## ajtr

Hindustani said:


> As far as I'm concerned India does recognize Taiwan as a seperate country
> Political status of Taiwan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> India ? Republic of China relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> As for Tibet, India has always supported the policy of Tibet being part of China. However the *"government in exile (Tibetan government) is pretty much taking refugee in India. Who says India is supporting the seperatist movement? *


if u recognize one china policy or not it doesnt matter for china.but status of kashmir will remain disputed until it gains freedom from india.Kashmir is not an integral part of india.


----------



## Hindustani

ajtr said:


> if u recognize one china policy or not it doesnt matter for china.but status of kashmir will remain disputed until it gains freedom from india.Kashmir is not an integral part of india.



Of course it is


----------



## Brotherhood

Hindustani said:


> *As far as I'm concerned India does recognize Taiwan as a seperate country *Political status of Taiwan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> India ? Republic of China relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> As for Tibet, India has always supported the policy of Tibet being part of China. However the *"government in exile (Tibetan government) is pretty much taking refugee in India. Who says India is supporting the seperatist movement? *



Yes, you are right if as far as you concern but the reality dosn't seem to support your ignorant claim.

*Currently, the countries who maintain formal diplomatic relations with the ROC are:*

Belize (1989)
Burkina Faso (1994)
Dominican Republic (1957)
El Salvador (1961)
Gambia (1995)
Guatemala (1960)
Haiti (1956)
Honduras (1965)
Kiribati (2003)
Marshall Islands (1998)
Nauru (19802002, 2005)
Nicaragua (1990)
Palau (1999)
Panama (1954)
Paraguay (1957)
Saint Kitts and Nevis (1983)
Saint Lucia (19841997, 2007)
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (1981)
São Tomé and Príncipe (1997)
Solomon Islands (1983)
Swaziland (1968)
Tuvalu (1979)
Vatican City (The Holy See) (1942)
Political status of Taiwan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ajtr

Hindustani said:


> Then why do your countrymen keep coming into our border via illegeally? I guess your bangladeshi brothers love big mouth democracy that they'd rather die than live in bangladesh


So killing teenager girl like felani is a very brave job for u indians.


----------



## Hindustani

Brotherhood said:


> Yes, you are right if as far as you concern but the reality dosn't seem to support your ignorant claim.
> 
> *Currently, the countries who maintain formal diplomatic relations with the ROC are:*
> 
> Belize (1989)
> Burkina Faso (1994)
> Dominican Republic (1957)
> El Salvador (1961)
> Gambia (1995)
> Guatemala (1960)
> Haiti (1956)
> Honduras (1965)
> Kiribati (2003)
> Marshall Islands (1998)
> Nauru (19802002, 2005)
> Nicaragua (1990)
> Palau (1999)
> Panama (1954)
> Paraguay (1957)
> Saint Kitts and Nevis (1983)
> Saint Lucia (19841997, 2007)
> Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (1981)
> São Tomé and Príncipe (1997)
> Solomon Islands (1983)
> Swaziland (1968)
> Tuvalu (1979)
> Vatican City (The Holy See) (1942)
> Political status of Taiwan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Dude India does not support Taiwan period. Whatever you posted proved my point. Do you see India in the above?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hindustani

ajtr said:


> So killing teenager girl like felani is a very brave job *for u indians*.



All of a sudden you're not Indian anymore? No I condone the killing actually. I'd like to see how rubber bullets work.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ajtr

Hindustani said:


> Dude India does not support Taiwan period. Whatever you posted proved my point. Do you see India in the above?


*EMBASSY INFORMATION
Taiwan*
Embassy / High Comission / Consulate for India

Office	: Embassy
Street Address	:	12 Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar
Postal Address	:	
ZIP Code	:	110057
City	:	New Delhi
State	:	New Delhi
Country	:	India
Telephone	:	(+91-11) 41662700, 41662701, 41662702
Faximile	:	(+91-11) 26148480
Email	:	ind@mofa.gov.tw
Website	:	2011????????

Taiwan Embassy - Taiwan Embassy Information


*Taiwan 

Indian Taipei Association*
Room No 2010, Cetra Tower, No 333, Keelunig Road, Section I, Taipei, Taiwan Toc
Tel: + 886 -2-2757 6112/6113
Fax: +886 -2-2757 6117
Indian Missions Abroad


----------



## Brotherhood

Hindustani said:


> *As far as I'm concerned India does recognize Taiwan as a seperate country*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hindustani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude India does not support Taiwan period. Whatever you posted proved my point. Do you see India in the above?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, are you alright or simply ready to lie as if everyone else are all blind?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Hindustani

ajtr said:


> *EMBASSY INFORMATION
> Taiwan*
> Embassy / High Comission / Consulate for India
> 
> Office	: Embassy
> Street Address	:	12 Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar
> Postal Address	:
> ZIP Code	:	110057
> City	:	New Delhi
> State	:	New Delhi
> Country	:	India
> Telephone	:	(+91-11) 41662700, 41662701, 41662702
> Faximile	:	(+91-11) 26148480
> Email	:	ind@mofa.gov.tw
> Website	:	2011????????
> 
> Taiwan Embassy - Taiwan Embassy Information
> 
> 
> *Taiwan
> 
> Indian Taipei Association*
> Room No 2010, Cetra Tower, No 333, Keelunig Road, Section I, Taipei, Taiwan Toc
> Tel: + 886 -2-2757 6112/6113
> Fax: +886 -2-2757 6117
> Indian Missions Abroad





*Embassy / High Comission / Consulate for China*

Office : Consulate 
Street Address : 40th Floor, Tower One, Lippo Centre No. 89 Queensway 
Postal Address : PO Box 13485 Hong Kong 
ZIP Code : 
City : Hong Kong 
State : Hong Kong 
Country : China 
Telephone : (2-852) 2525 8315 
Faximile : (2-852) 2810 0591 
Email : rochkg@netvigator.com 
Website : 


There's a Taiwanese embassy in China as well, your point?


----------



## Roybot

ajtr said:


> *EMBASSY INFORMATION
> Taiwan*
> Embassy / High Comission / Consulate for India
> 
> Office	: Embassy
> Street Address	:	12 Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar
> Postal Address	:
> ZIP Code	:	110057
> City	:	New Delhi
> State	:	New Delhi
> Country	:	India
> Telephone	:	(+91-11) 41662700, 41662701, 41662702
> Faximile	:	(+91-11) 26148480
> Email	:	ind@mofa.gov.tw
> Website	:	2011????????
> 
> Taiwan Embassy - Taiwan Embassy Information
> 
> 
> *Taiwan
> 
> Indian Taipei Association*
> Room No 2010, Cetra Tower, No 333, Keelunig Road, Section I, Taipei, Taiwan Toc
> Tel: + 886 -2-2757 6112/6113
> Fax: +886 -2-2757 6117
> Indian Missions Abroad



Having a embassy or consulate doesn't mean official recognition. There is one even in Hong Kong, does that mean PRC recognizes Taiwan as a separate country 

Heres a list of all the embassies of Taiwan. Now please don't tell me all these countries formally recognize Taiwan 

Overseas Embassies and Consulates of Taiwan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## aakash_2410

Chinese-Dragon said:


> So basically India is asking China to treat Kashmir in the same way that India treats Tibet.
> 
> According to your above statement, that would mean recognizing an Independent Kashmir. And giving support to any separatist groups that require it.



Recongnising taiwan??!! looooll I can understand the urge to hate india but let's take a second. shall we? 'People's republic China [mainland china] would break up all the diplomatic and economic relations with the country that recognises the republic of china[taiwan] or its' government?'

The last time I checked India still had both diplomatic and economic relations with china??


----------



## applesauce

aakash_2410 said:


> Recongnising taiwan??!! looooll I can understand the urge to hate india but let's take a second. shall we? 'People's republic China [mainland china] would break up all the diplomatic and economic relations with the country that recognises the republic of china[taiwan] or its' government?'
> 
> The last time I checked India still had both diplomatic and economic relations with china??



taiwan doesn't have "embassies" in any country that recognize the PRC they have things like "Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office" which ACT like a embassy but is not, this way countries like the USA can deal with both PRC and ROC

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Contract Killer

ajtr said:


> So killing teenager girl like felani is a very brave job for u indians.



No matter how much you spill venom, your land Was, Is & will always be ours.


----------



## CardSharp

aakash_2410 said:


> Recongnising taiwan??!! looooll I can understand the urge to hate india but let's take a second. shall we? 'People's republic China [mainland china] would break up all the diplomatic and economic relations with the country that recognises the republic of china[taiwan] or its' government?'
> 
> The last time I checked India still had both diplomatic and economic relations with china??





applesauce said:


> taiwan doesn't have "embassies" in any country that recognize the PRC they have things like "Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office" which ACT like a embassy but is not, this way countries like the USA can deal with both PRC and ROC



Yep try again.


----------



## Srinivas

How can China claim Taiwan which has its own Democratic govt.,, ideology and all other things which are needed for an independent nation to exist?
Taiwan existed as a country for almost 60 years and these criteria are enough for India to recognize Taiwan as an independent country.
Chinese should rise peacefully without bullying small countries in the south China sea and Yellow sea.


----------



## CardSharp

sukhoi_30MKI said:


> How can China claim Taiwan which has its own Democratic govt.,, ideology and all other things which are needed for an independent nation to exist?
> Taiwan existed as a country for almost 60 years and these criteria are enough for India to recognize Taiwan as an independent country.
> Chinese should rise peacefully without bullying small countries in the south China sea and Yellow sea.



Good thing what you think should pass as an independent country doesn't matter to anyone.


----------



## Hindustani

Brotherhood said:


> Hindustani said:
> 
> 
> 
> *As far as I'm concerned India does recognize Taiwan as a seperate country*
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, are you alright or simply ready to lie as if everyone else are all blind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here I'll help you out
> 
> *India recognised the People's Republic of China on April 1, 1950 and was supportive of its stand that it was the only state that could be recognised as "China" and that the island of Taiwan was a part of Chinese territory. India was one of the supporters of the People's Republic of China's bid to join the United Nations and replace the Republic of China to fill the seat for China in the U.N. Security Council.[2] Despite the ups and downs in its relations with the People's Republic of China, including the border war of 1962, India has not changed its "One China" policy.*
> 
> It's from the wiki article I doubt you read.
> 
> EDIT: My mistake on post # 31. I meant to say India does *not* recognize Taiwan as a seperate country.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Srinivas

CardSharp said:


> Good thing what you think should pass as an independent country doesn't matter to anyone.



Not a problem with your post there are lot of support for Taiwan as an independent country world wide.


----------



## Brotherhood

sukhoi_30MKI said:


> How can China claim Taiwan which has its own Democratic govt.,, ideology and all other things which are needed for an independent nation to exist?
> Taiwan existed as a country for almost 60 years and *these criteria are enough for India to recognize Taiwan as an independent country.*
> Chinese should rise peacefully without bullying small countries in the south China sea and Yellow sea.



Too bad your impotent government do not agree with you, you need "guts" to do that.
And i fully support China's policy on Kashmir issue.
"Free Indian illegal occupying Kashmir"


----------



## Hindustani

Brotherhood said:


> Too bad your impotent government do not agree with you, you need "guts" to do that.
> And i fully support China's policy on Kashmir issue.
> "Free Indian illegal occupying Kashmir"



Free Tibet I guess? 

But things like these are not gonna improve relations with two Asian giants. Which is why I wish better sense prevails.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SR 71 Blackbird

Brotherhood said:


> Too bad your impotent government do not agree with you, you need "guts" to do that.
> And i fully support China's policy on Kashmir issue.
> "Free Indian illegal occupying Kashmir"



I too fully support US, Indian & Japanese policy in Tibet in order to free Tibet from Chinese oppressors.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CardSharp

sukhoi_30MKI said:


> Not a problem with your post there are lot of support for Taiwan as an independent country world wide.



lol by "world wide" support do you mean support from power house countries like Saint Lucia Island or the mighty nation of Swaziland? By the way Taiwan has bribe these countries to stay in its camp which is why you see countries like Nauru with two sets of dates behind it (1980&#8211;2002, 2005), ie bribed, then rebribed.




> LENDING A HAND The foreign ministry confirmed that Taiwan has promised Nauru an aid package of up to *US$13 million* as part of an ongoing program


Nauru aid part of bigger plans, MOFA confirms - Taipei Times

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Obambam

SR 71 Blackbird said:


> I too fully support US, Indian & Japanese policy in Tibet in order to free Tibet from Chinese oppressors.



wow.. talk about sheeples? so easily manipulated.


----------



## CardSharp

SR 71 Blackbird said:


> I too fully support US, Indian & Japanese policy in Tibet in order to free Tibet from Chinese oppressors.



Why not put your money where your mouth is. Grab a rifle, cross the mountain and start the revolution. Failing that you can at least get your government to change its stance right? No?




Obambam said:


> wow.. talk about sheeples? so easily manipulated.



Nah, it's like what Chinese Dragon said these Indians will support anything that might be bad for China whether they know the situation or not.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## IND151

India should use Tibet card.* time has come to tell china that if they refuse to accept Kashmir as part of India, we will change our stand over Tibet.*


----------



## Hindustani

CardSharp said:


> Why not put your money where your mouth is. Grab a rifle, cross the mountain and start the revolution. Failing that you can at least get your government to change its stance right? No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, it's like what Chinese Dragon* said these Indians *will support anything that might be bad for China whether they know the situation or not.



Better not to generalize all Indians.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hindustani

IND151 said:


> India should use Tibet card. *time as come to tell china **that if they refuse to accept Kashmir as part of India, we will change our stand over Tibet.*



True 

We have always supported a "one china" policy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CardSharp

IND151 said:


> India should use Tibet card.* time has come to tell china that if they refuse to accept Kashmir as part of India, we will change our stand over Tibet.*



Tibet card right? 



Except from The Chinese Puzzle by Srinath Raghavan from the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi.



> However, Tibet is the more serious problem. Ties between India and Tibet have always been viewed by Beijing with wariness, not to say suspicion. The troubles in Tibet have ccentuated Chinas concerns about the Dalai Clique and its links with India. *Repeated calls in Indian public discourse on the need to play the Tibet card only serve to stoke Chinas suspicions*. Beijings protests against the Dalai Lamas visit to Tawang were vehement precisely ecause it put the spotlight on the links between the Tibetan problem and Chinas territorial claims on the area.
> 
> *Indeed, Tibet is the one issue that could undermine Indias steadily improving ties with China.* Contrary to wishful thinking in some quarters, the Tibetan issue does not afford any leverage to India. The issue has no purchase on the Indian political class or public opinion. This being case, the realistic course is to &#64257;nd ways of offering more convincing reassurances to China about its attitude to Tibet. This will be essential to removing needless mistrust and to reaching an accord on the boundary. Towards the latter end, it is equally imperative that the Indian government informs and shapes domestic opinion on China. *The bogey of an aggressive China may well become a self-ful&#64257;lling prophecy*, for strident views on both sides feed on and accentuate the other. An accord on the boundary may not be reached in the near-term. But the boundary dispute need not hold to ransom the multifaceted relationship between the two countries. As Deng Xiaoping once observed, perhaps our grandchildren will be wiser than us.




Full article.
http://chinaindiaborderdispute.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/1263975668-chinese-puzzle_epw_srinath.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Srinivas

Hindustani said:


> True
> 
> We have always supported a "one china" policy.



One China policy was not mentioned in the latest joint statement issued by India and China. I think India is moving in right direction to cancel the AP and Kashmir card used by China.
I feel Chinese are not for territory of AP they simply want to put pressure on India and divert its attention just like what USA did to USSR. *Chinese must realize it is almost impossible to Change the border lines in todays world between India and China or through force*.
Chinese are nervous about India and about India-US relations in retaliation they are flexing there muscles, Which won't have any affect on India.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CardSharp

sukhoi_30MKI said:


> One China policy was not mentioned in the latest joint statement issued by India and China. I think India is moving in right direction to cancel the AP and Kashmir card used by China.
> I feel Chinese are not for territory of AP they simply want to put pressure on India and divert its attention just like what USA did to USSR. *Chinese must realize it is almost impossible to Change the border lines in todays world between India and China or through force*.
> Chinese are nervous about India and about India-US relations in retaliation they are flexing there muscles, Which won't have any affect on India.



You sir are a special breed of stupid.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hindustani

sukhoi_30MKI said:


> One China policy was not mentioned in the latest joint statement issued by India and China. I think India is moving in right direction to cancel the AP and Kashmir card used by China.
> I feel Chinese are not for territory of AP they simply want to put pressure on India and divert its attention just like what USA did to USSR. *Chinese must realize it is almost impossible to Change the border lines in todays world between India and China or through force*.
> Chinese are nervous about India and about India-US relations in retaliation they are flexing there muscles, Which won't have any affect on India.





True 

Starting another war, who's it gonna benefit? -----> 

The best way to live and let live would just to have everything status quo, meaning Kashmir, Aksai Chin, and Arunachal Pradesh. 
Yeah land was lost, but whatever it's time to move on.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Srinivas

Brotherhood said:


> Too bad your impotent government do not agree with you, you need "guts" to do that.
> And i fully support China's policy on Kashmir issue.
> "Free Indian illegal occupying Kashmir"



Well Times have change and One China policy was not mentioned in latest joint statement. *We Indians truly consider we have only Buddist border related to Tibet*. No question of China recognizing kashmir as a part of India.


----------



## Brotherhood

sukhoi_30MKI said:


> Well Times have change and One China policy was not mentioned in latest joint statement. *We Indians truly consider we have only Buddist border related to Tibet*. No question of China recognizing kashmir as a part of India.



Well, perhaps you should come back and talk to me when your GOI officially change her stand on taiwan or tibet. 
Until then your rant will be nothing other than some bad breath shooting out from your big mouth period.


----------



## Christian

CardSharp said:


> You sir are a special breed of stupid.



im sorry i just dont see whats wrong with that post...care to elaborate?


----------



## IND151

*



by CardSharp
Tibet card right? 



Except from The Chinese Puzzle by Srinath Raghavan from the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi.

Click to expand...

*
Tibet card will force china to rethink its stand over Kashmir.


----------



## Hindustani

IND151 said:


> Tibet card will force china to rethink its stand over Tibet.



You mean Kashmir? If so hopefully, because India has always supported a "One China Policy" 
Last thing we need right now is another war.


----------



## ajtr

IND151 said:


> Tibet card will force china to rethink its stand over Tibet.


u need to show spine for enforcing tibet card which indian leadership seriously lacks.


----------



## Dash

ajtr said:


> u need to show spine for enforcing tibet card which indian leadership seriously lacks.


You are terribly misinformed...


----------



## CardSharp

Dash said:


> You are terribly misinformed...



Oh pray tell, how would you play the Tibet card, what would it accomplish and how many countries would follow an Indian lead on the issue?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani Warrior

CardSharp said:


> Oh pray tell, how would you play the Tibet card, what would it accomplish and how many countries would follow an Indian lead on the issue?



Tibet is already sensitive issue 2 most countries. India stirring the Tibet pot will not be good for China. Maybe our leaders should grow a spine and do the same when it comes 2 Kashmir issue. Start petitioning USA and other friendlies to put pressure on Indian establishment to hand us Kashmir.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dash

CardSharp said:


> Oh pray tell, how would you play the Tibet card, what would it accomplish and how many countries would follow an Indian lead on the issue?



Dont act smart Cardsharp.

Looks like you read only one side of my comment.

I didnt not use any word called as China or Tibet in that statement. I only commented about "ajtr's" knowledge on Indian backbone.

So just leave it.....else we both will be talking about who has more spine and we are much more sensible than that.

and just FYI -

Regarding Tibet - We are not playing any Tibet card, and we dont need a spine to play that card. Your own Tibetians are playing it themselves.


----------



## CardSharp

Dash said:


> Dont act smart Cardsharp.
> 
> Looks like you read only one side of my comment.
> 
> I didnt not use any word called as China or Tibet in that statement. I only commented about "ajtr's" knowledge on Indian backbone.
> 
> So just leave it.....else we both will be talking about who has more spine and we are much more sensible than that.
> 
> and just FYI -
> *
> Regarding Tibet - We are not playing any Tibet card, and we dont need a spine to play that card. Your own Tibetians are playing it themselves.*



Ahhh so an admission of using Tibetans in exile as a successful proxy against China?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dash

CardSharp said:


> Ahhh so an admission of using Tibetans in exile as a successful proxy against China?


Alas - Again reading one side of facts, looks like you are reading what you want to read. Sorry cant help it.......

I didnt say anything about it.

ok, food for thought -

You are thinking that we are using Tibetans in exile as proxies, According to you?. Its correct. but not according to me, coz thats what you think.

Now think, If India asks China not interfere in Kashmir as Kahmir is as important and problematic to us like Tibet and Taiwan is for you, whats wrong in that. At least an admission to a fact that its a country's internal matter will lead to first step of a solution.

If you are saying we are using Tibetans in exile as proxies, then We can say you are using Pakistan as proxy. 

Sounds logical??, if yes then does it give us a platform to sit and talk or it leaves us in ambiguity and illusional perception abt each other.


----------



## Rig Vedic

This is a simple statement - J&K is as important for India as Tibet or Taiwan (or Xinjiang) are to China. 

Where does this imply that India playing any kind of card. India is simply communicating the seriousness with which it views the J&K issue.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rig Vedic

Dash said:


> If you are saying we are using Tibetans in exile as proxies, then We can say you are using Pakistan as proxy.



Actually Chinese have never complained, in the past two decades say, that the Tibetan refugees are involved in any illegal activities. Simply because they don't have a leg to stand on. 

If the Tibetans refugees are pushed out of India they would go to could Europe or USA. I don't think it would help China in the slightest.


----------



## CardSharp

Rig Vedic said:


> Actually Chinese have never complained, in the past two decades say, that the Tibetan refugees are involved in any illegal activities. Simply because they don't have a leg to stand on.
> 
> If the Tibetans refugees are pushed out of India they would go to could Europe or USA. I don't think it would help China in the slightest.



Actually I agree. India in someways is doing a favour for China, it keeps a lid more or less on these exiles. If they are dispersed like chaff in the wind, they potentially could cause more harm.


----------



## CardSharp

Dash said:


> Alas - Again reading one side of facts, looks like you are reading what you want to read. Sorry cant help it.......
> 
> I didnt say anything about it.
> 
> ok, food for thought -
> 
> You are thinking that we are using Tibetans in exile as proxies, According to you?. Its correct. but not according to me, coz thats what you think.
> 
> Now think, If India asks China not interfere in Kashmir as Kahmir is as important and problematic to us like Tibet and Taiwan is for you, whats wrong in that. At least an admission to a fact that its a country's internal matter will lead to first step of a solution.
> 
> If you are saying we are using Tibetans in exile as proxies, then We can say you are using Pakistan as proxy.
> 
> Sounds logical??, if yes then does it give us a platform to sit and talk or it leaves us in ambiguity and illusional perception abt each other.



Well I just don't think India can hurt China on those two issues.


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Rig Vedic said:


> Actually Chinese have never complained, in the past two decades say, that the Tibetan refugees are involved in any illegal activities. Simply because they don't have a leg to stand on.
> 
> If the Tibetans refugees are pushed out of India they would go to could Europe or USA. I don't think it would help China in the slightest.



Well then why don't you reply to the actual complaint?

The actual complaint being that India back stabbed China in 1959, by hosting our largest separatist group, immediately after they failed to overthrow the Chinese government.

That too, while Nehru was singing the stupid Hindi Chini bhai bhai song. Which was obviously a complete lie.


----------



## Dash

CardSharp said:


> Well I just don't think India can hurt China on those two issues.


Vica versa....


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Dash said:


> Vica versa....



Disagree. In the *event* of another war between India and Pakistan (following a repeat of the Mumbai attacks for example)... then the Sino-Pakistani alliance will be very influential with regard to these territorial disputes.

In fact, even without a war-situation, we will still have influence. Who are Pakistan's two biggest allies? USA and China.


----------



## CardSharp

Dash said:


> Vica versa....



Then I'll not hear another word about stapled visa etc right?


----------



## Contract Killer

Let BJP come in Power................... And then you all will see, who plays what Card.


----------



## CardSharp

Contract Killer said:


> Let BJP come in Power................... And then you all will see, who plays what Card.



I'm sure this is said with the accompanied fist shaking.


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Contract Killer said:


> Let BJP come in Power................... And then you all will see, who plays what Card.



Ironically, the BJP actually seems more friendly to China than the current Indian government.


----------



## Joe Shearer

CardSharp said:


> Ahhh so an admission of using Tibetans in exile as a successful proxy against China?



I can understand your irritation at some of the statements made earlier, but just to go on record: 
Neither the government of India nor any other responsible political organisation has made any claim that Tibet is anything but an integral part of China;
The Dalai Lama and the refugees have not been allowed to function officially as an organised government;
There is huge sentimental support and veneration for the Dalai Lama, which somehow does not seem to register with the Chinese government as anything other than a provocation. All these private citizens are emphatically not part of an official conspiracy;
The bottom line is that Tibetan refugees who have tried to demonstrate against official Chinese visitors and representatives have been arrested, sometimes imprisoned for the duration;
Considering how little harm they do, there is no case for any hardening of the terms of treatment for them;
Indian courts have recently ruled that those refugees born in India between independence (1947) and the date of a certain legislation in the central parliament denying illegal immigrants the right to become citizens of India are entitled to Indian citizenship, and quite a few of these refugee families, including descendants of the 'Dharma Raja' (you are obviously aware of the dual system prevalent in Tibet for centuries) have applied for citizenship, and are likely to be granted it;
Tibetan families in the north and in the south (they have a large settlement in the uplands near Bangalore in the south) enjoy huge goodwill as they are always peaceful and as their settlements are so neat and clean, exemplary in fact. They are very good guests, never making any trouble, never asking for anything that they may not ask for, always minding their own business and always a pleasure to deal with. This should be known to you in order to explain in part why most Indians feel sympathetic to them, without wishing to complicate matters by defying their own government on the issue.
As a result, they are an isolated community by and large; younger people are educated and are coming out to seek jobs in India;
Other than speculative elements resident in the ether of the Internet, there is nobody suggesting that we play the 'Tibetan' card against China. This should not stop us in any way from reminding China and the Chinese leadership in the most forceful terms that Kashmir is indeed central to us as an issue, as central as the issues of Tibet and Taiwan are.
It is impossible to get this sympathetic and tolerant air towards the Tibetan understood without a personal visit or inspection. I hope that will be possible.

I hope my intervention was useful.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## CardSharp

Joe Shearer said:


> I can understand your irritation at some of the statements made earlier, but just to go on record:
> Neither the government of India nor any other responsible political organisation has made any claim that Tibet is anything but an integral part of China;
> The Dalai Lama and the refugees have not been allowed to function officially as an organised government;
> There is huge sentimental support and veneration for the Dalai Lama, which somehow does not seem to register with the Chinese government as anything other than a provocation. All these private citizens are emphatically not part of an official conspiracy;
> The bottom line is that Tibetan refugees who have tried to demonstrate against official Chinese visitors and representatives have been arrested, sometimes imprisoned for the duration;
> Considering how little harm they do, there is no case for any hardening of the terms of treatment for them;
> Indian courts have recently ruled that those refugees born in India between independence (1947) and the date of a certain legislation in the central parliament denying illegal immigrants the right to become citizens of India are entitled to Indian citizenship, and quite a few of these refugee families, including descendants of the 'Dharma Raja' (you are obviously aware of the dual system prevalent in Tibet for centuries) have applied for citizenship, and are likely to be granted it;
> Tibetan families in the north and in the south (they have a large settlement in the uplands near Bangalore in the south) enjoy huge goodwill as they are always peaceful and as their settlements are so neat and clean, exemplary in fact. They are very good guests, never making any trouble, never asking for anything that they may not ask for, always minding their own business and always a pleasure to deal with. This should be known to you in order to explain in part why most Indians feel sympathetic to them, without wishing to complicate matters by defying their own government on the issue.
> As a result, they are an isolated community by and large; younger people are educated and are coming out to seek jobs in India;
> Other than speculative elements resident in the ether of the Internet, there is nobody suggesting that we play the 'Tibetan' card against China. This should not stop us in any way from reminding China and the Chinese leadership in the most forceful terms that Kashmir is indeed central to us as an issue, as central as the issues of Tibet and Taiwan are.
> It is impossible to get this sympathetic and tolerant air towards the Tibetan understood without a personal visit or inspection. I hope that will be possible.
> 
> I hope my intervention was useful.



I know all of these facts more or less. Hence 



CardSharp said:


> Actually I agree. India in someways is doing a favour for China, it keeps a lid more or less on these exiles. If they are dispersed like chaff in the wind, they potentially could cause more harm.



The rest is verbal jousting. 

But I really don't see a parity of leverage in comparing the two sets of issues. Not that China would be right to openly take a stance in the Kashmir dispute.


----------



## Contract Killer

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Ironically, the BJP actually seems more friendly to China than the current Indian government.



Thats what I want to say................. Once it comes to power, every issues will be settled. It is like Man talking to Man.

You remember........... during there tenure, Sikkim was officially acknowledged as Indian State by China.


----------



## Guest

Contract Killer said:


> Thats what I want to say................. Once it comes to power, *every issues will be settled. It is like Man talking to Man*.
> 
> You remember........... during there tenure, Sikkim was officially acknowledged as Indian State by China.



not necessarily. Last time, India has the Tibeten card and China has the Sikkim card, so they can reach an aggrement. but now, what can India put on the table?


----------



## Contract Killer

Guest said:


> not necessarily. Last time, India has the Tibeten card and China has the Sikkim card, so they can reach an aggrement. but now, what can India put on the table?



Trust me there are many other issues............... and it will be explored by them. Time will tell.


----------



## Joe Shearer

CardSharp said:


> I know all of these facts more or less. Hence
> 
> 
> 
> CardSharp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I agree. India in someways is doing a favour for China, it keeps a lid more or less on these exiles. If they are dispersed like chaff in the wind, they potentially could cause more harm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely. In my personal view, the Government of China should be thanking GoI in its collective prayers every evening, for such a smooth, gentle, non-violent, non-controversial arrangement. Even His Holiness the Dalai Lama probably is secretly thankful that this arrangement really puts the lid on violent activity, although we all know that some of the younger Tibetan people think that the 'Middle Way' has been tried long enough and that it is now time to look for more dramatic and direct measures.
> 
> The rest is verbal jousting.
> 
> But I really don't see a parity of leverage in comparing the two sets of issues. Not that China would be right to openly take a stance in the Kashmir dispute.
Click to expand...


There is no parity of leverage; there can be no parity of leverage. The two issues are different, identical in only one respect, that they are vitally close to the state interests of the respective parties.

Do remember, all that India is asking is that China should do the opposite of openly taking a stance on the Kashmir dispute. All that India is asking is that China should revert to its earlier stance of neutrality, exactly what your statement implies. No more, no less.

I am glad that beneath the swarms of fanboys, and their painful attentions to you and our other friends, this basic reality is present and clear.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Patriot

India tells China: Kashmir is to us what Tibet, Taiwan are to you
  Like China gives a .


----------



## Rig Vedic

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Well then why don't you reply to the actual complaint?
> 
> The actual complaint being that India back stabbed China in 1959, by hosting our largest separatist group, immediately after they failed to overthrow the Chinese government.
> 
> That too, while Nehru was singing the stupid Hindi Chini bhai bhai song. Which was obviously a complete lie.



Are you still hanging on to a complaint from 1959 (whatever be its merits)? 

Be that as it may, what do you want India to do. Would you like the Dalai Lama to go and live in the US? Or will you be saying the same thing 10 years from now?


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Rig Vedic said:


> Are you still hanging on to a complaint from 1959 (whatever be its merits)?
> 
> Be that as it may, what do you want India to do. Would you like the Dalai Lama to go and live in the US? Or will you be saying the same thing 10 years from now?



India could have disbanded the Tibetan government in exile and let them live out their lives peacefully, or even let them go to live in the West. It is India that has a troubled border with our Tibetan region, not the West.

It is India that claims Chinese land (Aksai Chin) not the West.

But you guys have had over 50 years to do that... and even if that somehow happened today, I think it would be far too late. Now it is simply easier to wait for the Dailai Lama to pass away from old age.


----------



## Paan Singh

Chinese-Dragon said:


> India could have disbanded the Tibetan government in exile and let them live out their lives peacefully, or even let them go to live in the West. It is India that has a troubled border with our Tibetan region, not the West.
> 
> It is India that claims Chinese land (Aksai Chin) not the West.
> 
> But you guys have had over 50 years to do that... and even if that somehow happened today, I think it would be far too late. Now it is simply easier to wait for the Dailai Lama to pass away from old age.



hey bing bing fan,
i have some points

1)u r saying that dalai will pass away,ur problem will be solved
2)but i think dalai has got popularity due to west
3)if he passes away,then another will take his seat
4)the next will also be raised by west as it took place in past
5)so here the cycle continues as long as west dominates

wat do u say?


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Prism said:


> hey bing bing fan,
> 
> wat do u say?



The next Dalai Lama will be born in Tibet, which means within the PRC.

Too bad for India. This so-called "Tibet card" that you gained from Nehru's 1959 backstabbing will soon disappear.

And why do you insist on calling me a "bing bing fan"?


----------



## Dash

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Disagree. In the *event* of another war between India and Pakistan (following a repeat of the Mumbai attacks for example)... .



So you are admitting that if India attacks Pakistan (Not feasible) then China will support Pakistan, look who is talking of peace in South Asia




> then the Sino-Pakistani alliance will be very influential with regard to these territorial disputes..



again 



> In fact, even without a war-situation, we will still have influence. *Who are Pakistan's two biggest allies? USA and China*.



Again...for the bolded part, terrible misinformed you guys are US is Pak's ally ?, who says so?.....but I am accepting one fact here, China wants to fight a war with India with US-Pakistan-China in its side. tells a story about the confidence level. Anyway bad talk.

The point is if you support Pakistan, then India also has support. I am sure you will not bring your army to our borders , but covert support will be there. take my word, there are people waiting to gove covert support to India and they are just looking for a chance . again misinformed calculation....


----------



## Paan Singh

Chinese-Dragon said:


> The next Dalai Lama will be born in Tibet, which means within the PRC.
> 
> Too bad for India. This so-called "Tibet card" that you gained from Nehru's 1959 backstabbing will soon disappear.
> 
> And why do you insist on calling me a "bing bing fan"?





> The next Dalai Lama will be born in Tibet, which means within the PRC.
> 
> Too bad for India. This so-called "Tibet card" that you gained from Nehru's 1959 backstabbing will soon disappear



but the again the question is west?and their media.
so wat u have prepared for next one?
i heard that china has made their puppet ready for the next dalai lama.although i dont know the details of tibet,but i will say the problem will be west.
and regarding to so called back-stabbing,i would say there are 200000 tibetans live in india and rest in different part of world.
so u cant fool them..



> And why do you insist on calling me a "bing bing fan"?



coz ur post remain butyful like bing bing fan even after few trolling


----------



## Rig Vedic

Chinese-Dragon said:


> India could have disbanded the Tibetan government in exile and let them live out their lives peacefully, or even let them go to live in the West. It is India that has a troubled border with our Tibetan region, not the West.
> 
> It is India that claims Chinese land (Aksai Chin) not the West.
> 
> But you guys have had over 50 years to do that... and even if that somehow happened today, I think it would be far too late. Now it is simply easier to wait for the Dailai Lama to pass away from old age.



Even after the Dalai Lama passes away the Tibetan refugee community will still be there. So you are saying that you prefer that they go and live in America or Europe? Do you think that will help you?


----------



## Dash

CardSharp said:


> Then I'll not hear another word about stapled visa etc right?


CS -

You guys dont consider Kashmir as a part of India and issue staple visas. Fine I can understand its a your strategy and and its our duty to raise a voice. You guys keep doing the same with US and Japan. nothing surprising.

But does that change the status.

1. India gives tibetan refuses a place to live in India. but that *doesnt* change a fact that Tibet is a part of China, atleast per Chinese claim, but you and Tibets are the parties who need to decide, *and among yourselves*, considering its an internal matter.

2. Similarly you issuing stapled visas will not change Kashmir's status as part of India. So I would request you to consider this as our internal matter and leave it to us. Its a matter btn India-Pakistan. Nothing will change if you shout and cry abt Kashmir. coz at the end of the day it *doesnt* change anything.


----------



## Rig Vedic

Chinese-Dragon said:


> The next Dalai Lama will be born in Tibet, which means within the PRC.



The atheist Communist Party wants to choose the next "reincarnation"? I don't think you should get into that business - and even if you do it will have no legitimacy.


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Dash said:


> So you are admitting that if India attacks Pakistan (Not feasible) then China will support Pakistan, look who is talking of peace in South Asia



Absolutely yes. 

The most likely trigger for another war in the subcontinent is a repeat of the Mumbai attacks, which will force the Indian government to take aggressive action against the so-called "training camps" in Pakistan.

Now considering China's close relationship with Pakistan, and the fact that we NEED Pakistan as a geostrategic artery (Gwadar port and KKH), who do you think we will support? Obviously Pakistan.

Certainly not India, the country which has been hosting our largest separatist group for over half a century, and which also makes claims on Chinese land. The country which made it's own decision to turn China into an enemy.


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Dash said:


> 2. Similarly you issuing stapled visas will not change Kashmir's status as part of India. So I would request you to consider this as our internal matter and leave it to us. Its a matter btn India-Pakistan. Nothing will change if you shout and cry abt Kashmir. coz at the end of the day it *doesnt* change anything.



That is the whole crux of the argument.

India wants China to respect India's affairs in Kashmir... in the same way that India has ("apparently") respected our sovereignty over Tibet.

The problem is, India has NOT respected our sovereignty in Tibet, even going so far... as to host our largest separatist group (the Tibetan government "in exile") for over half a century.

So it is a shockingly poor argument by the Indian government.


----------



## Paan Singh

Chinese-Dragon said:


> That is the whole crux of the argument.
> 
> India wants China to respect India's affairs in Kashmir... in the same way that India has ("apparently") respected our sovereignty over Tibet.
> 
> The problem is, India has NOT respected our sovereignty in Tibet, even going so far... as to host our largest separatist group (the Tibetan government "in exile") for over half a century.
> 
> So it is a shockingly poor argument by the Indian government.



*host our largest separatist group (the Tibetan government "in exile") for over half a century*

i think u dont get sleep until u repeat these lines 10-15 times on the forum.


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Prism said:


> *host our largest separatist group (the Tibetan government "in exile") for over half a century*
> 
> i think u dont get sleep until u repeat these lines 10-15 times on the forum.



That's because you guys don't listen. 

I haven't heard any explanation so far, for this back stabbing in 1959.

I would be interested if you are able to answer this. It will be relevant to the topic, since the Indian government is trying to make a comparison between India's attitude towards Tibet, and asking China to take the same attitude towards Kashmir.


----------



## NALANDA

China's Tibet Problem is not a problem at all. Issue is the forces of cetralisation opposing any decentarlization. As China progressess further and as they become more confident, they will like they have been in the past ( Hong Kong, Economic Liberalisation) will be more comfortable and will give Tibetans some form of autonomy within China's Main Land framework and allow them to practice their religion moer openly.....this will happen within 10 years from now.

Post this, most of the Tibetans will go back from India ( as China will be more prominsing land) and China's distrust of India will dis-appear. They may infact thank India for treating Tibetans well ...

By that time India will becoem second or third largest trading partner of China and India will becoem so much inter-linked with China that their will be many forces and vested interest working overtime to have the bestest relation with China. 

I am very positive about future. My profile picture is that of my Son who is going to be 4 years old on 1Feb. I hope to teach him Chinese Language....

21st Century belongs to China.....India will enormously benefit being the neighbor of China.


----------



## Paan Singh

Chinese-Dragon said:


> That's because you guys don't listen.
> 
> I haven't heard any explanation so far, for this back stabbing in 1959.
> 
> I would be interested if you are able to answer this. It will be relevant to the topic, since the Indian government is trying to make a comparison between India's attitude towards Tibet, and asking China to take the same attitude towards Kashmir.



ok i will explain,

actually in 1959,lama didnt find any plane to get himself and his followers to any western country so they chose land path which went to india.and india is famous for taking care of guest so india provided them land to live

-------------------------

coming on topic,
man u dont understand the limits which are imposed on the tibetans here in india.when ever any chinese minister come here of any level ,they protest in massive way without caring for their lives
see this video,and this is nothing.





and more ever in one video they were not allowed to play a football match in delhi.
and they complain that india is soft and dont care abt us inspite of being an democracy.
and u r like an kid repeating the same line again n again.
problem is that ,u dont have access to deep info like other chinese friends i have.they are also told that lama wants separation and he is enemy.
so solve ur problem first.


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Prism said:


> ok i will explain,
> 
> actually in 1959,lama didnt find any plane to get himself and his followers to any western country so they chose land path which went to india.and india is famous for taking care of guest so india provided them land to live



You didn't answer my question. 

My question is, why did India sing the stupid "Hindi Chini bhai bhai" song, and pretend that they were our friends... and then for NO reason at all, decide to host our largest separatist group immediately after they had failed to overthrow the Chinese government?

What was the reason for this backstabbing in 1959?


----------



## Rig Vedic

Chinese-Dragon said:


> That's because you guys don't listen.
> 
> I haven't heard any explanation so far, for this back stabbing in 1959.
> 
> I would be interested if you are able to answer this. It will be relevant to the topic, since the Indian government is trying to make a comparison between India's attitude towards Tibet, and asking China to take the same attitude towards Kashmir.



See, China may have had problems with Nehru, but if you hang out on this board long enough, you will realize that many Indians too are quite contemptuous of Nehru. 

However, when China decided to back terrorist organizations like the Jamaat-ud-Dawah, and proliferate nuclear weapons to the Indo-centric Pakistan military, then China earned the hostility of even those Indians who were unhappy with Nehru.

The people of India, Japan and South Korea are actually in a very similar situation due to Chinese policies in North Korea and Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Rig Vedic said:


> See, China may have had problems with Nehru, but if you hang out on this board long enough, you will realize that many Indians too are quite contemptuous of Nehru.
> 
> However, when China decided to back terrorist organizations like the Jamaat-ud-Dawah, and proliferate nuclear weapons to the Indo-centric Pakistan military, then China earned the hostility of even those Indians who were unhappy with Nehru.



India itself chose to make enemies out of its two biggest neighbours, China and Pakistan.

Ask why China supports Pakistan's military? Because India backstabbed us in 1959. Cause and effect.

Also, China does not "back" any terrorist organizations, unlike India which supported LTTE.


----------



## Rig Vedic

Chinese-Dragon said:


> India itself chose to make enemies out of its two biggest neighbours, China and Pakistan.
> 
> Ask why China supports Pakistan's military? Because India backstabbed us in 1959. Cause and effect.
> 
> Also, China does not "back" any terrorist organizations, unlike India which supported LTTE.



You can read my post again, if you like. You seem to have missed the point entirely.


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Rig Vedic said:


> You can read my post again, if you like.



I have read it. 

My point is that it was *India*, who chose to go down the path of hostility with China.

Your complaints are all recent, they all happened AFTER India backstabbed China in 1959. Cause and effect.

Just be thankful that China is not hosting Indian separatist groups, in retaliation for India's having hosted ours for over half a century.


----------



## Rig Vedic

Chinese-Dragon said:


> I have read it.
> 
> My point is that it was *India*, who chose to go down the path of hostility with China.
> 
> Your complaints are all recent, they all happened AFTER the backstabbing of 1959.
> 
> Just be thankful that China is not hosting Indian separatist groups, in retaliation for India's having hosted ours for half a century.



You are still missing the point. Never mind.


----------



## NALANDA

Chinese-Dragon said:


> I have read it.
> 
> My point is that it was *India*, who chose to go down the path of hostility with China.
> 
> Your complaints are all recent, they all happened AFTER the backstabbing of 1959. Cause and effect.
> 
> Just be thankful that China is not hosting Indian separatist groups, in retaliation for India's having hosted ours for half a century.



CD..
What do you want us to do....annihilate all of them..they are refugees..isn't it...what harm are they doing to you guys...compare them with Kashmiri Terrorist....are they behaving in the same fashion....NO....WHY....because we do not let them.


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Rig Vedic said:


> You are still missing the point. Never mind.



Your point is about Nehru, and how "some" Indians disagree with him. So what? How is that even relevant?

The numbers of Indians who disagree with Nehru is absolutely immaterial from a Chinese perspective. They have no power to change anything.


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

NALANDA said:


> CD..
> What do you want us to do....annihilate all of them..they are refugees..isn't it...what harm are they doing to you guys...compare them with Kashmiri Terrorist....are they behaving in the same fashion....NO....WHY....because we do not let them.



Like I said, you had more than 50 years to "disband" them and let them live out their lives peacefully.

Instead they were held as an Indian "political chip", even though India knew that China was worried about the border between India and our Tibetan region.

Doesn't really matter anymore though, considering the old age of the Dalai Lama.


----------



## Rig Vedic

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Your point is about Nehru, and how "some" Indians disagree with him. So what? How is that even relevant?
> 
> The numbers of Indians who disagree with Nehru is absolutely immaterial from a Chinese perspective. They have no power to change anything.



The second paragraph of my post is also relevant. Think over it, if you feel like.


----------



## Dash

Chinese-Dragon said:


> That is the whole crux of the argument.
> 
> India wants China to respect India's affairs in Kashmir... in the same way that India has ("apparently") respected our sovereignty over Tibet.
> 
> The problem is, India has NOT respected our sovereignty in Tibet, even going so far... as to host our largest separatist group (the Tibetan government "in exile") for over half a century.
> 
> So it is a shockingly poor argument by the Indian government.


We didnt invite your so called groups to Indian teritory. If you say it this way then Tibetans dont consider themselves as a part of China and want to leave that country and get exiled to India.

Now as a country, we dont even keep a track of how many Tibetans/Bangaldeshi refugees are there in India, they have all come by thweir wish.

Now we run democratic country (flawed yet democratic) so we cant kill or deport these people, including Dalai lama just because they have bad rel;ationship with you.

If you are so interested in calling them your own then take care of your own first before pointing at others...


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Dash said:


> We didnt invite your so called groups to Indian teritory. If you say it this way then Tibetans dont consider themselves as a part of China and want to leave that country and get exiled to India.
> 
> Now as a country, we dont even keep a track of how many Tibetans/Bangaldeshi refugees are there in India, they have all come by thweir wish.



They tried to violently overthrow the Chinese government in 1959. When they failed, they escaped to India.

By supporting and hosting them, India showed their true intentions... and proved that the Indian phrase "Hindi Chini bhai bhai" was a complete lie.


----------



## Dash

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Absolutely yes.
> 
> The most likely trigger for another war in the subcontinent is a repeat of the Mumbai attacks, which will force the Indian government to take aggressive action against the so-called "training camps" in Pakistan.
> 
> Now considering China's close relationship with Pakistan, and the fact that we NEED Pakistan as a geostrategic artery (Gwadar port and KKH), who do you think we will support? Obviously Pakistan.
> 
> Certainly not India, the country which has been hosting our largest separatist group for over half a century, and which also makes claims on Chinese land. The country which made it's own decision to turn China into an enemy.




So you dont trust the nukes you gave to Pakistan??

Coz we hear most of the times from our Pak friends that if India attacks millitant camps then we will consider this as a full scale war and will nuke India.

Anyway, sounds like either you doubt your allies capability or just lurking around to attack India. or should I say destroy Pakistan. One bullet and two targets??? and convert the so called artery of yours to a full fledged Chinese anatomical system.

Listen up. Dont dream of joining Pakistan in case of a war with India (i hope sense prevails in both countries), coz if that happens and you join Pak, then consider yourself in very dengerous position..

It might just back fire.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Chinese-Dragon said:


> They tried to violently overthrow the Chinese government in 1959. When they failed, they escaped to India.
> 
> By supporting and hosting them, India showed their true intentions... and proved that the Indian phrase "Hindi Chini bhai bhai" was a complete lie.



It was a lie, but I dont blame them for wanting Tibet as a buffer zone. If China takes over Tibet, It also considers some parts of India as "Tibet"..(Arunachal Pradesh)


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Dash said:


> Listen up. Dont dream of joining Pakistan in case of a war with India (i hope sense prevails in both countries), coz if that happens and you join Pak, then consider yourself in very dengerous position..
> 
> It might just back fire.



India has had MANY opportunities to become friendly with China, all of which were ignored.

Bottom line: India is our rival, and Pakistan our vital ally. Who did you think we were going to support?

Anyway you can avoid all this, just don't play games with your neighbours and don't attack Pakistan.


----------



## Dash

Chinese-Dragon said:


> They tried to violently overthrow the Chinese government in 1959. When they failed, they escaped to India.
> 
> By supporting and hosting them, India showed their true intentions... and proved that the Indian phrase "Hindi Chini bhai bhai" was a complete lie.



Good, they *escaped* to India, we didnt invite them.

We dont flame these groups to go against China, neither we play a role in creating unstability in your country, and if you feel so, then as a country you are insecured.

Second- We do feel the same thing when these terrorists attack innocent citizen here and people die. So responsible country like yours gives it a blind eye. India doesnt do it with you, we can just simply supply arms to Tibetans, is it difficult?, and keep saying we are not involved and show us some proof like our neighbours does to us.

The bottom line is you guys dont want to play it fair. and its not me the whole world complains about you.

and you cant fight the whole world.

We are not the culprit. A sincere suggestion.

Stop crying about the past, and move on......


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Liquid said:


> It was a lie, but I dont blame them for wanting Tibet as a buffer zone. If China takes over Tibet, It also considers some parts of India as "Tibet"..(Arunachal Pradesh)



This is an answer that I can understand from a geostrategic point of view.

Of course they would wanted Tibet as a buffer zone, but the actions of 1959 went much too far in my opinion.


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Dash said:


> and its not me the whole world complains about you.



LOL that is funny.

Look at your neighbours. Pakistan, China, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal. All of them have a reason to dislike you or even hate you.

In fact, your two BIGGEST neighbours are in an alliance against you.


----------



## Paan Singh

Chinese-Dragon said:


> LOL that is funny.
> 
> Look at your neighbours. Pakistan, China, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal. All of them have a reason to dislike you or even hate you.
> 
> In fact, your two BIGGEST neighbours are in an alliance against you.



oh CD,
for bangladesh and nepal,there govts are totaly under control of india.and india wont let them.
and we have not bad relations with lanka.
and rest of two,we are living in the same condition from 50 yrs.
so wat u got now?

i think u predict from the nature of most of members here,i want to remind u that these ppl dont run govt and india dont run by us.

so i hope next time CD player will work well

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ps80

^^Guys,
Please see post #98 by Joe Shearer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Prism said:


> so i hope next time CD player will work well



LOL thanks I guess?


----------



## boris

Prism said:


> oh CD,
> for bangladesh and nepal,there govts are totaly under control of india.and india wont let them.
> and we have not bad relations with lanka.
> and rest of two,we are living in the same condition from 50 yrs.
> so wat u got now?
> 
> i think u predict from the nature of most of members here,i want to remind u that these ppl dont run govt and india dont run by us.
> 
> so i hope next time CD player will work well



with bangladesh depends upon the govt. like khalida zea is anti-india

infact i was reading a book on R&AW by its very first agents and he said infact the 1971 victory would later prove to be a problem as firstly it fastened pakistan's drive for a nuclear weapon and secondly we got a rogue bangladesh sometimes with us sometimes against us.


----------



## Hindustani

Joe Shearer said:


> I can understand your irritation at some of the statements made earlier, but just to go on record:
> Neither the government of India nor any other responsible political organisation has made any claim that Tibet is anything but an integral part of China;
> The Dalai Lama and the refugees have not been allowed to function officially as an organised government;
> There is huge sentimental support and veneration for the Dalai Lama, which somehow does not seem to register with the Chinese government as anything other than a provocation. All these private citizens are emphatically not part of an official conspiracy;
> The bottom line is that Tibetan refugees who have tried to demonstrate against official Chinese visitors and representatives have been arrested, sometimes imprisoned for the duration;
> Considering how little harm they do, there is no case for any hardening of the terms of treatment for them;
> Indian courts have recently ruled that those refugees born in India between independence (1947) and the date of a certain legislation in the central parliament denying illegal immigrants the right to become citizens of India are entitled to Indian citizenship, and quite a few of these refugee families, including descendants of the 'Dharma Raja' (you are obviously aware of the dual system prevalent in Tibet for centuries) have applied for citizenship, and are likely to be granted it;
> Tibetan families in the north and in the south (they have a large settlement in the uplands near Bangalore in the south) enjoy huge goodwill as they are always peaceful and as their settlements are so neat and clean, exemplary in fact. They are very good guests, never making any trouble, never asking for anything that they may not ask for, always minding their own business and always a pleasure to deal with. This should be known to you in order to explain in part why most Indians feel sympathetic to them, without wishing to complicate matters by defying their own government on the issue.
> As a result, they are an isolated community by and large; younger people are educated and are coming out to seek jobs in India;
> Other than speculative elements resident in the ether of the Internet, there is nobody suggesting that we play the 'Tibetan' card against China. This should not stop us in any way from reminding China and the Chinese leadership in the most forceful terms that Kashmir is indeed central to us as an issue, as central as the issues of Tibet and Taiwan are.
> It is impossible to get this sympathetic and tolerant air towards the Tibetan understood without a personal visit or inspection. I hope that will be possible.
> 
> I hope my intervention was useful.



Summed up everything 
Thanks Joe

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SaifullahK

Joe Shearer said:


> I can understand your irritation at some of the statements made earlier, but just to go on record:
> Neither the government of India nor any other responsible political organisation has made any claim that Tibet is anything but an integral part of China;
> The Dalai Lama and the refugees have not been allowed to function officially as an organised government;
> There is huge sentimental support and veneration for the Dalai Lama, which somehow does not seem to register with the Chinese government as anything other than a provocation. All these private citizens are emphatically not part of an official conspiracy;
> The bottom line is that Tibetan refugees who have tried to demonstrate against official Chinese visitors and representatives have been arrested, sometimes imprisoned for the duration;
> Considering how little harm they do, there is no case for any hardening of the terms of treatment for them;
> Indian courts have recently ruled that those refugees born in India between independence (1947) and the date of a certain legislation in the central parliament denying illegal immigrants the right to become citizens of India are entitled to Indian citizenship, and quite a few of these refugee families, including descendants of the 'Dharma Raja' (you are obviously aware of the dual system prevalent in Tibet for centuries) have applied for citizenship, and are likely to be granted it;
> Tibetan families in the north and in the south (they have a large settlement in the uplands near Bangalore in the south) enjoy huge goodwill as they are always peaceful and as their settlements are so neat and clean, exemplary in fact. They are very good guests, never making any trouble, never asking for anything that they may not ask for, always minding their own business and always a pleasure to deal with. This should be known to you in order to explain in part why most Indians feel sympathetic to them, without wishing to complicate matters by defying their own government on the issue.
> As a result, they are an isolated community by and large; younger people are educated and are coming out to seek jobs in India;
> Other than speculative elements resident in the ether of the Internet, there is nobody suggesting that we play the 'Tibetan' card against China. This should not stop us in any way from reminding China and the Chinese leadership in the most forceful terms that Kashmir is indeed central to us as an issue, as central as the issues of Tibet and Taiwan are.
> It is impossible to get this sympathetic and tolerant air towards the Tibetan understood without a personal visit or inspection. I hope that will be possible.
> 
> I hope my intervention was useful.



Why do you think all your weeping and pleading will spare you the wrath of the Lashkar.

Bottom line is that the China supports the Jamaat-ud-Dawah, and if you dare cast your evil eye towards Pakistan, it is Chinese nuclear technology that is going to burn your Dhoti.

There is a good reason why you were impotent after the Mujahideen attacked your parliament, and after the Mumbai drama. Why do you think anything has changed.


----------



## Tumba

wrath of the lashkar ...


----------



## foxbat

SaifullahK said:


> Why do you think all your weeping and pleading will spare you the wrath of the Lashkar.
> 
> Bottom line is that the China supports the Jamaat-ud-Dawah, and if you dare cast your evil eye towards Pakistan, it is Chinese nuclear technology that is going to burn your Dhoti.
> 
> There is a good reason why you were impotent after the Mujahideen attacked your parliament, and after the Mumbai drama. Why do you think anything has changed.



Its a sad set of people who take pride in the effect of terrorism on other people. Even if the other people are your enemies.

What makes it sadder is that this is coming from a citizen of a country, which today is far more impacted by the scourge of terrorism which many claim is of its own creation.

The views above simply justify and reinforce those claims

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tumba

foxbat said:


> Its a sad set of people who take pride in the effect of terrorism on other people. Even if the other people are your enemies.
> 
> What makes it sadder is that this is coming from a citizen of a country, which today is far more impacted by the scourge of terrorism which many claim is of its own creation.
> 
> The views above simply justify and reinforce those claims


and i would also like to add ... that its pakistan whos under wrath of pakistani mujahidin aka TERRORISTS ... 

but how can he be sympathetic to common pakistani citizen as he's living in Britain ..


----------



## Dash

Chinese-Dragon said:


> India has had MANY opportunities to become friendly with China, all of which were ignored.
> 
> Bottom line: India is our rival, and Pakistan our vital ally. Who did you think we were going to support?
> 
> Anyway you can avoid all this, just don't play games with your neighbours and don't attack Pakistan.


Just stop advising us CD , dont play games with us, Keep your ally happy. Works well for us.


----------



## Bigoren

Veeru said:


> Its very silly statement because Tibet is an independent country under illigal chinese occupation by force and Taiwan is a seprate country.
> 
> But Kashmir is legally and rightfully belongs to India.



If tibet is a independent country then kashmir is belong to pakistan /china too.


----------



## Contract Killer

Bigoren said:


> If tibet is a independent country then kashmir is belong to pakistan /china too.



Good...... Welldone........... You have passed the Test.


----------



## Joe Shearer

I am glad that a ridiculous post like this comes through once in a while to explain to the rest of us why a perfectly viable state, peopled by intelligent and hard-working people, is gradually sinking in the water. Only the presence of a lunatic fringe, represented so well by this poster, can explain that decline.



SaifullahK said:


> Why do you think all your weeping and pleading will spare you the wrath of the Lashkar.
> 
> I note that you think that a civilised and courteously phrased explanation made to someone else is weeping and pleading.
> 
> I note also that you think that all communications are addressed to the Lashkar - whether you are referring to the Shia-murdering Lashkar-i-Jhangvi or the generally murderous Lashkar-e-Toeba is not clear, since your style of writing is not intended to convey coherence of thought or of speech.
> 
> Bottom line is that the China supports the Jamaat-ud-Dawah,
> 
> The kindest description of that bumptious statement would be hopeful.
> 
> and if you dare cast your evil eye towards Pakistan,
> 
> I understand that to a confused mind arrested in its development, a discussion of the legal position of Tibetan refugees constitutes casting an evil eye towards Pakistan. It can happen; it sounds bizarre, but not more than some of the very strange concepts that originates in your sort of mentally handicapped substitute for a brain.
> 
> it is Chinese nuclear technology that is going to burn your Dhoti.
> 
> It is such a welcome relief to hear a true statement about the origins of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal. For a few frightening moments, it seemed that Dr. A. Q. Khan would fly again.
> 
> There is a good reason why you were impotent after the Mujahideen attacked your parliament, and after the Mumbai drama. Why do you think anything has changed.
> 
> The reason was to avoid war and bloodshed. This reason has been a constant reason for us, and the opposite holds true for you. Thanks in part to thinking like yours, your country has got itself into war-like situations, which it lost, on at least 4 occasions.
> 
> It is not something new, India striving desperately to keep the peace, against a deranged set of people who desperately provoke India at every opportunity, and succeed only in suffering telling military defeat at the end of the day.
> 
> No, in response to your statement, I don't think anything has changed. The lunatic but impotent war-mongers are there, the provocations are there......nothing has changed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Dear Chinese-Dragon,

Since this is not your usual stance, I can only conclude that something drastic may have happened; either 
You may have lost your job;
You may have temporarily lost the affections of your significant other;
You may have punctured the tire of your bicycle this morning;
You may have been reviewing the value of your stock market investments, at least that part not invested in Indian securities;
You may have been informed that your Indian visa application has been turned down;
You may have been informed that you are being posted to Pakistan;
A combination or all of the above.

I am, therefore, very nervous about seeking to address your concerns, and can only do so in the hope that you will not shoot the messenger who brings bad news. Do, please, be kind and tolerant as far as this message is concerned. If you wish to revert to being a baleful, intolerant ogre, if you can hold off for the duration that it takes you to read this, it would be a kindness.



Chinese-Dragon said:


> India itself chose to make enemies out of its two biggest neighbours, China and Pakistan.
> 
> May I refer you to that excellent handbook on political science and international relations, Aesop's Fables? Especially the story about the Wolf and the Sheep.
> 
> Ask why China supports Pakistan's military? Because India backstabbed us in 1959. Cause and effect.
> 
> Presumably you are referring to the incidents in Tibet, and to the conversion of China's suzerainty over Tibet, as defined in international law and in international treaties, to outright sovereignty. Since these were exclusively actions initiated by the People's Republic of China, it is difficult to see what role India played, other than to be reluctant host to the thousands who took refuge across the borders.
> 
> Further, you have omitted to connect your imposition of direct rule over Tibet with your support for the Pakistani military. The connection has been left unclear, and enquiring minds want to know your reasons. Also, if possible, without inconveniencing you too much, the original reasons of the Politburo of the CPC.
> 
> 
> Also, China does not "back" any terrorist organizations, unlike India which supported LTTE.
> 
> <gasp>
> 
> You spotted this? Now we are done for!
> 
> Of course, if the LTTE had won, and if they had acknowledged the shipments of arms and ammunitions that they had received from sponsors of freedom movements around the world, it would have been a different story today, perhaps to be equated to your support of other freedom movements which became legitimised.
> 
> One in south-east Asia comes to mind, but you may not be fond of quoting that example in view of the subsequent unfortunate incidents of 1989. But that was different, of course; you were offering legitimate and valid support of people ethnically close to you, from the depredations of an imperialist power that sought to exercise hegemonic rule over them.
> 
> Quite, quite different, we understand fully well, from the support given by the Tamils of India to the Tamils of Sri Lanka, against the hegemonic designs of the majority who had in fact abolished the use of Tamil in any official context (just to quote one minor example of the kind of oppression that was exercised).
> 
> By the way, you must meet one Saifullah K, who states categorically that you support the Lashkar (he doesn't know much about it, and particularly doesn't know which Lashkar he wants to indicate. Since he may be one of those hyper-patriots who lives out of Pakistan and is willing to fight to the last Pakistani, he doesn't really know the facts, only that if he doesn't write posts like the one he wrote recently, his willie will fall off.





Chinese-Dragon said:


> I have read it.
> 
> My point is that it was *India*, who chose to go down the path of hostility with China.
> 
> Of course you are right; it goes without saying.
> 
> Let us ignore the fact that the Himalayan boundary has only been penetrated by aggressive war-making in one direction, Tibet to India, in the whole of recorded history from 326 BC to date, before the subsequent events of 62;
> 
> Let us ignore the fact that while the cultural boundaries of India have stayed in place for nearly 3,000 years, with the political boundaries moving out beyond only on less than half-a-dozen occasions for small lengths of time, the cultural and political boundaries of China have grown during the same period to include Gansu, Qing Hai, Xizang and Xinjiang, all of them, not to mention Mongolia, too, on occasion.
> 
> This, of course, means nothing; it is still India which is the aggressor.
> 
> Let us ignore the fact that contrary to all logic, while the PRC has over 400,000 soldiers and huge concentrations of military aircraft in those military regions facing India, India, aggressive, militaristic and spoiling for a fight, has some 150,000 troops facing the PRC, along with some handful of squadrons of little or no consequence.
> 
> Let us ignore the fact that in its zeal to improve the lot of the Tibetan people, the PRC built roads over the populated areas in Tibet but did so at such a high speed that those roads continued right past the people and into barren frontier lands right next to the border, or the line of actual control of the moment. Almost as if to build roads for PLA divisions, some of them armoured divisions located in territory that is broken and known not to be friendly for tank operations.
> 
> We can ignore several other things besides, we can ignore anything in fact that interferes with the clarity and lucidity of the statement that it was all India's fault for stabbing China in the back in 1959. China, unlike India, has always retained clarity and lucidity in its position; logic or external fact is never allowed to interfere.
> 
> Your complaints are all recent, they all happened AFTER India backstabbed China in 1959. Cause and effect.
> 
> Err....yes, indeed. Clear and lucid. China moves in troops into Tibet. China drives out the traditional pillars of society. These elements and poorer elements of Tibetan society take refuge over the nearest international border. The power on the other side of the border treacherously refuses to bar the border and thrust them back into the hands of the PLA at bayonet point.
> 
> Base treachery indeed.
> 
> Nothing is too much to punish such treachery.
> 
> Just be thankful that China is not hosting Indian separatist groups, in retaliation for India's having hosted ours for over half a century.
> 
> More clarity and lucidity.
> 
> To my personal knowledge, from a vantage point on the fringes of the leftist movement in my part of the country, I am aware of the active support given by the PRC to the CPI(ML). The support offered flickered a bit thereafter, on the First Suppression and on the Second Suppression, and was dormant during the manifold split in the 80s, and has now been renewed through other client organisations, such as the ULFA and the NSCN(M-S).
> 
> The NSCN(M-S) has been receiving Chinese arms and ammunition for over half a century; the ULFA only recently, after their patrons the ISI slackened their efforts a little.
> 
> I am sorry to contradict your clear and lucid statement that NO support was given to Indian separatists, but this is the distressing muddy and unclear reality.





Chinese-Dragon said:


> Like I said, you had more than 50 years to "disband" them and let them live out their lives peacefully.
> 
> At least you have the supreme virtue of being consistent throughout. When you have elected for clarity and lucidity, even at the occasional cost of a little bit of detail, you have persisted with it, and the whole picture has the virtue of looking simple and well-structured.
> 
> Small difficulties like the question of how to disband that which has never banded are not allowed to offend the orderly array of clear and lucid argument. The fact that they are already, to visible evidence, leading out their lives peacefully, unbanded except in peaceful demonstrations suppressed by minimum use of force by the police during the occasional visits of Chinese officials to Delhi, is of course not relevant.
> 
> Instead they were held as an Indian "political chip", even though India knew that China was worried about the border between India and our Tibetan region.
> 
> The extent of the worry was apparent in the adamantine refusal of the Chinese leadership to come to a settlement. It is difficult to understand what use this political chip was put to, during the long history of fruitless and frustrating interactions between Indian and Chinese diplomats.
> 
> Doesn't really matter anymore though, considering the old age of the Dalai Lama.
> 
> More lucidity and clarity; long may it reign supreme.
> 
> It has not occurred to anyone, it seems, that the Dalai Lama is a restraining influence, and that younger elements have caused worry and concern and are being tracked by intelligence operatives due to their extreme views on the subject of Tibet.





Chinese-Dragon said:


> They tried to violently overthrow the Chinese government in 1959. When they failed, they escaped to India.
> 
> As I have stated before, this is a travesty of the truth. Chinese troops moved in where Chinese troops were never present. Chinese government officials moved in where none were present before 1959, besides an Amban and his small personal staff, and the uproar that they caused has been described as an attempt to violently overthrow the Chinese government.
> 
> This flatly denies the historical fact that the closest Chinese troops before this year were in the border provinces of Qing Hai and Kham. No Government of China existed in Tibet, none whatsoever.
> 
> But then, clarity and lucidity is everything; facts are not to interfere with this.
> 
> By supporting and hosting them, India showed their true intentions... and proved that the Indian phrase "Hindi Chini bhai bhai" was a complete lie.
> 
> This sounds as if humanitarian assistance is an act of state, and is intended to overthrow the PRC. If feeding poor starving refugees is an act of state and it threatens the PRC, perhaps the PRC should do some soul-searching.
> 
> For your information, the steady trickle of refugees continues; the murderous activities of Chinese border guards against them continues. By fortuitous circumstance, this has been recorded in cold bloody by foreigners who were camped in the high mountains and observed one such incident in minute detail.





Chinese-Dragon said:


> India has had MANY opportunities to become friendly with China, all of which were ignored.
> 
> Bottom line: India is our rival, and Pakistan our vital ally. Who did you think we were going to support?
> 
> Anyway you can avoid all this, just don't play games with your neighbours and don't attack Pakistan.
> 
> By this time, surely no further answer is needed. We live in a violent neighbourhood; we are an oasis of peace and tranquillity and we shall do our best to keep our own country peaceful and quiet. We do not intend to allow the existential struggle of the Pakistani state to survive to disturb us in any way, and will instead step up our vigilance at the borders one ratchet more. We are aware that more terrorist acts will follow, as Pakistan loses the sense of what is a state and what is a state of nature; we are prepared for it.
> 
> Be assured, however, that our desire to maintain peaceful relations with our neighbours is very high, and is unlikely to be upset by violent demonstrations or displays of immaturity or irresponsibility. I have no difficulty in stating that you two bad neighbours will be dealt with on merit; we will always try to avoid bloodshed, and will resort to that with the greatest of reluctance.





Chinese-Dragon said:


> This is an answer that I can understand from a geostrategic point of view.
> 
> Of course they would wanted Tibet as a buffer zone, but the actions of 1959 went much too far in my opinion.
> 
> Quite honestly, and candidly, that is because your opinion has been formed by disinformation. I am sorry to say this bluntly, but the general sanctimonious air that some of our interlocutors bear is quite tiresome.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Dear Joe Shearer:

I'm sure you have noticed that my stance on this forum has changed somewhat, with regards to Sino-Indian relations.

The trigger for this slight change in position, was being called a "slanty-eyed chink" constantly, over and over again, by Indian suicide trolls on this forum. Then having seemingly rational Indian posters telling me that "chink" was not an offensive word.

Rest assured that I do not hold any ill-will towards the Indian people at all. I just decided that there is no real point trying to argue for the idea of Sino-Indian friendship on *this* forum at least.

I will try to respond to your very lengthy post if I can find the time, and apologies in advance for the slow reply.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Dear Joe Shearer:
> 
> I'm sure you have noticed that my stance on this forum has changed somewhat, with regards to Sino-Indian relations.
> 
> The trigger for this slight change in position, was being called a "slanty-eyed chink" constantly, over and over again, by Indian suicide trolls on this forum. Then having seemingly rational Indian posters telling me that "chink" was not an offensive word.
> 
> Rest assured that I do not hold any ill-will towards the Indian people at all. I just decided that there is no real point trying to argue for the idea of Sino-Indian friendship on *this* forum at least.
> 
> I will try to respond to your very lengthy post if I can find the time, and apologies in advance for the slow reply.



My dear friend,

I have noticed the more world-weary, even cynical stance you have taken, and have done so with great distress. If you can point out to me the racists responsible for the insulting behaviour you have described, I will personally go after each and every one of them. That is a promise.

For the rest, if I have taken a stern and unrelenting stand in my mail addressed to you, it was deliberate; while we may joke around and allow each other small - or even mid-sized liberties at times, and while I do not put much store by those pleasantries, I sense that you have come to the end of your tolerance. Even as I am anguished at the behaviour that you report has caused this annoyance and distress, it would be disloyal if I did not put down our side of the story without flinching from possibly causing pain to an esteemed friend.

That is what I have done. 

From my friend, I seek understanding. From the person who has put forward various unflattering interpretations of the Indian actions of the past and of the Indian stand at present, I seek your kind attention to listen to what we have to say before you finally make up your mind.

With warm regards,

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Capt.Popeye

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Dear Joe Shearer:
> 
> I'm sure you have noticed that my stance on this forum has changed somewhat, with regards to Sino-Indian relations.
> 
> The trigger for this slight change in position, was being called a "slanty-eyed chink" constantly, over and over again, by Indian suicide trolls on this forum. Then having seemingly rational Indian posters telling me that "chink" was not an offensive word.
> 
> Rest assured that I do not hold any ill-will towards the Indian people at all. I just decided that there is no real point trying to argue for the idea of Sino-Indian friendship on *this* forum at least.
> 
> I will try to respond to your very lengthy post if I can find the time, and apologies in advance for the slow reply.



Hi CD,
Personally i do feel distressed to sense the mood behind your post. Truth to tell, i could see some changes. But for the fact that that PMs have been discontinued, was tempted to suggest some abstinence from the scene of so much stupid and meaningless mayhem. But that would have only been the 'next best thing'. The 'best thing' is still to (sometimes) ignore the rest of the crazy world around; and (narcissistic as it may seem) to even believe that nothing else exists except some sensible people in this world (however few or remote) apart from me of course ;-). Since i am unwise to carry out either of the above, i listen to music while on this forum. Listening (for example) to the "Ode to Joy" helps me withstand all the stones and more that certain "High IQ" guys can fling in my direction.

i am not what other people consider me to be, but what i understand me to be.

So; "What me worry"-- Alfred E. Neumann
Good Luck and


----------



## Hulk

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Dear Joe Shearer:
> 
> I'm sure you have noticed that my stance on this forum has changed somewhat, with regards to Sino-Indian relations.
> 
> The trigger for this slight change in position, was being called a *"slanty-eyed chink"* constantly, over and over again, by Indian suicide trolls on this forum. Then having seemingly rational Indian posters telling me that "chink" was not an offensive word.
> 
> Rest assured that I do not hold any ill-will towards the Indian people at all. I just decided that there is no real point trying to argue for the idea of Sino-Indian friendship on *this* forum at least.
> 
> I will try to respond to your very lengthy post if I can find the time, and apologies in advance for the slow reply.



About the bold part. Dude please be matured, there will never be any time where every single person of the country will be sane.

Forget country it cannot be achieved even for one city.

So are you going to change your position, because someone offened you.


----------



## Joe Shearer

indianrabbit said:


> About the bold part. Dude please be matured, there will never be any time where every single person of the country will be sane.
> 
> Forget country it cannot be achieved even for one city.
> 
> So are you going to change your position, because someone offened you.



You are right, but it is bitterly offensive, and it is all the more galling to Indians who read about these incidents and feel implicated themselves. Personally, I feel like going after those who offered this kind of provocation, who use the Internet and anonymity there as a shield for a socially indefensible, illegitimate behaviour.

I think right-minded Indians should get together and guard against these lowlife wrecking our environment and ambience with their scummy ways.


----------



## indushek

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Dear Joe Shearer:
> 
> I'm sure you have noticed that my stance on this forum has changed somewhat, with regards to Sino-Indian relations.
> 
> The trigger for this slight change in position, was being called a "slanty-eyed chink" constantly, over and over again, by Indian suicide trolls on this forum. Then having seemingly rational Indian posters telling me that "chink" was not an offensive word.
> 
> Rest assured that I do not hold any ill-will towards the Indian people at all. I just decided that there is no real point trying to argue for the idea of Sino-Indian friendship on *this* forum at least.
> 
> I will try to respond to your very lengthy post if I can find the time, and apologies in advance for the slow reply.



If i remember correctly CD you once stated that not only online racists are the reason for this change of stance but also some real life incident too helped that end. I don't know what that was as i don't recall you stating that one elaborately. I feel bad for this unfortunate outcome and feel bad for loosing a friend like you but i sincerely urge you to be more forgiving if possible (by which i speak of the real life one not the online one).


----------



## ps80

Joe Shearer,

Excellent posts, as always . Really appreciate your time and energy and effort!

Can you please share your views on the current status of the India-China border talks? Has there been any positive progress? If so, where? and If not, why?

Big question in few words! Hope you won't mind.

Regards


----------



## huzihaidao12

Joe, although I certainly appreciate your attitude, but some your point, I obviously do not agree. If have time I will to refute it.


----------



## HongWu

Joe's argument is basically the claim that China and India are equivalent in terms of civilizational greatness so that it is natural for China and India to have equivalent spheres of influence. However, China definitely has a larger territory, sphere of influence and international standing.

Joe is saying, "Why can't India have that too? That's our entitlement. So our expansionist agenda is legitimate."

The answer to Joe's question is, "China is a much much greater civilizational entity, so there is no comparison between China and India. China is unified in time and geography -- a single state. India on the other hand is geographically separate princely kingdoms. South Asian empires are historically and culturally discontinuous. Mughal Empire does not trace its origins from Mauryan Empire for example."

I'm sorry, but India has nothing that remotely compares to China's historical (and present) greatness. Your Hindu civilization is..... charming...... but you are no match for China. Any attempt by Indians to try to picture themselves as China's equal is nothing more than self-delusion.

So as a "not-so-great" power you deserve no imperial territory. No Kashmir and no Assam (if they don't really want to be part of India). China is a great power, so we get imperial territory. It's really that simple, folks. You might say we are in different "castes."


----------



## CardSharp

HongWu said:


> Joe's argument is basically the claim that China and India are equivalent in terms of civilizational greatness so that it is natural for China and India to have equivalent spheres of influence. However, China definitely has a larger territory, sphere of influence and international standing.
> 
> Joe is saying, "Why can't India have that too? That's our entitlement. So our expansionist agenda is legitimate."
> 
> The answer to Joe's question is, "China is a much much greater civilizational entity, so there is no comparison between China and India. China is unified in time and geography -- a single state. India on the other hand is geographically separate princely kingdoms. South Asian empires are historically and culturally discontinuous. Mughal Empire does not trace its origins from Mauryan Empire for example."
> 
> I'm sorry, but India has nothing that remotely compares to China's historical (and present) greatness. Your Hindu civilization is..... charming...... but you are no match for China. Any attempt by Indians to try to picture themselves as China's equal is nothing more than self-delusion.
> 
> So as a "not-so-great" power you deserve no imperial territory. No Kashmir and no Assam (if they don't really want to be part of India). China is a great power, so we get imperial territory. It's really that simple, folks. You might say we are in different "castes."



This is stupid.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gubbi

HongWu said:


> Joe's argument is basically the claim that China and India are equivalent in terms of civilizational greatness so that it is natural for China and India to have equivalent spheres of influence. However, China definitely has a larger territory, sphere of influence and international standing.
> 
> Joe is saying, "Why can't India have that too? That's our entitlement. So our expansionist agenda is legitimate."
> 
> The answer to Joe's question is, "China is a much much greater civilizational entity, so there is no comparison between China and India. China is unified in time and geography -- a single state. India on the other hand is geographically separate princely kingdoms. South Asian empires are historically and culturally discontinuous. Mughal Empire does not trace its origins from Mauryan Empire for example."
> 
> I'm sorry, but India has nothing that remotely compares to China's historical (and present) greatness. Your Hindu civilization is..... charming...... but you are no match for China. Any attempt by Indians to try to picture themselves as China's equal is nothing more than self-delusion.
> 
> So as a "not-so-great" power you deserve no imperial territory. No Kashmir and no Assam (if they don't really want to be part of India). China is a great power, so we get imperial territory. It's really that simple, folks. You might say we are in different "castes."



This rant is what is classically defined as "Racial Superiority" complex. The Japanese & the Germans did precisely that in the years leading to WWII.

List out the criteria on which you consider China a "a much much greater civilizational entity" than India or any other civilization for that matter?


----------



## HongWu

India is name of a region. Not a country until recently. China has been a unified state since 300 BC. The Hindu civilization has no record of great influential empires. The Mauryan Empire was too long ago. Mughal Empire was Islamic. China was the leader in world technology until about 600 years ago. China had probably the first blue water fleet in world history. "India" could never be considered advanced until at least going back to the days of Sanskirt (again, a discontinuous civilization from Mughal, British India and ROI).

I'm sorry but India is not comparable to China in any way. China is simply a greater historical civilization. The sooner Indians realize this the less time they can waste trying to pretend otherwise. This is why China is entitled to have imperial lands like Xinjiang, Tibet and so on. This is why we are part of the P5. This is why 21st century is China's century not "Asia's century." China and India are at completely different levels of greatness.


----------



## HongWu

CardSharp said:


> This is stupid.


No, stupid is Joe Shearer's claims

_"This flatly denies the historical fact that the closest Chinese troops before this year were in the border provinces of Qing Hai and Kham. No Government of China existed in Tibet, none whatsoever."_

I'm done with this guy. He's just faking being objective and reasonable. There is no objectivity here whatsoever. It's the same "India is just as great as China, so we are entitled to expand more" delusion that other Indian members have, but they put it across less artfully.


----------



## indushek

HongWu said:


> No, stupid is Joe Shearer's claims
> 
> _"This flatly denies the historical fact that the closest Chinese troops before this year were in the border provinces of Qing Hai and Kham. No Government of China existed in Tibet, none whatsoever."_
> 
> I'm done with this guy. He's just faking being objective and reasonable. There is no objectivity here whatsoever. It's the same "India is just as great as China, so we are entitled to expand more" delusion that other Indian members have, but they put it across less artfully.



Jahapanah tusi great ho toufa kubuul karo !!!!


----------



## CardSharp

indushek said:


> Jahapanah tusi great ho toufa kubuul karo !!!!



English please.


----------



## bandit

HongWu said:


> Joe's argument is basically the claim that China and India are equivalent in terms of civilizational greatness so that it is natural for China and India to have equivalent spheres of influence. However, China definitely has a larger territory, sphere of influence and international standing.
> 
> Joe is saying, "Why can't India have that too? That's our entitlement. So our expansionist agenda is legitimate."
> 
> The answer to Joe's question is, "China is a much much greater civilizational entity, so there is no comparison between China and India. China is unified in time and geography -- a single state. India on the other hand is geographically separate princely kingdoms. South Asian empires are historically and culturally discontinuous. Mughal Empire does not trace its origins from Mauryan Empire for example."
> 
> I'm sorry, but India has nothing that remotely compares to China's historical (and present) greatness. Your Hindu civilization is..... charming...... but you are no match for China. Any attempt by Indians to try to picture themselves as China's equal is nothing more than self-delusion.
> 
> So as a "not-so-great" power you deserve no imperial territory. No Kashmir and no Assam (if they don't really want to be part of India). China is a great power, so we get imperial territory. It's really that simple, folks. You might say we are in different "castes."





HongWu said:


> India is name of a region. Not a country until recently. China has been a unified state since 300 BC. The Hindu civilization has no record of great influential empires. The Mauryan Empire was too long ago. Mughal Empire was Islamic. China was the leader in world technology until about 600 years ago. China had probably the first blue water fleet in world history. "India" could never be considered advanced until at least going back to the days of Sanskirt (again, a discontinuous civilization from Mughal, British India and ROI).
> 
> I'm sorry but India is not comparable to China in any way. China is simply a greater historical civilization. The sooner Indians realize this the less time they can waste trying to pretend otherwise. This is why China is entitled to have imperial lands like Xinjiang, Tibet and so on. This is why we are part of the P5. This is why 21st century is China's century not "Asia's century." China and India are at completely different levels of greatness.



This is a why all of China's neighbours are wary of its economic and military rise. As pointed out above this racial supremacy crap was what directly led y\to WW2 and the extermination of jews. This is becoming too often the case with Chinese posters here and other fora to point out their racial superiority over others. If this thinking is what goes on in an ordinary Chinese mind, how can one be sure this isnt a pointer to what will be coming in future.
And then we hear all that talk about peaceful rise and non-expansionist agenda.


----------



## Wounded-Monk

HongWu said:


> No, stupid is Joe Shearer's claims
> 
> _"This flatly denies the historical fact that the closest Chinese troops before this year were in the border provinces of Qing Hai and Kham. No Government of China existed in Tibet, none whatsoever."_
> 
> I'm done with this guy. He's just faking being objective and reasonable. There is no objectivity here whatsoever.*It's the same "India is just as great as China,* so we are entitled to expand more" delusion that other Indian members have, but they put it across less artfully.



you kidding china is nowhere as great as India.......

IndiaROX......India is the greatest civilisation in whole of the human history.........

Comparing apples with oranges ehh......


----------



## HongWu

bandit said:


> This is a why all of China's neighbours are wary of its economic and military rise. As pointed out above this racial supremacy crap was what directly led y\to WW2 and the extermination of jews. This is becoming too often the case with Chinese posters here and other fora to point out their racial superiority over others. If this thinking is what goes on in an ordinary Chinese mind, how can one be sure this isnt a pointer to what will be coming in future.
> And then we hear all that talk about peaceful rise and non-expansionist agenda.


Actually, China was a victor in WW2. India cannot lecture China about lessons from WW2.

There is nobody saying one _race _is better than another. It's just that for historical reasons, Chinese civilization is always far more advanced and unified compared to Hindu civilization. This is a fact. Just like saying Western Europe has a greater civilizational history than Subsaharan Africa.

It could well be that civilizations from temperate climates have certain environmental advantages that make us more advanced compared to tropical climates.


----------



## Wounded-Monk

CardSharp said:


> English please.



that was sarcastic reply for his worthy post.....


----------



## Wounded-Monk

HongWu said:


> Actually, China was a victor in WW2. India cannot lecture China about lessons from WW2.
> 
> There is nobody saying one _race _is better than another. It's just that for historical reasons, Chinese civilization is always far more advanced and unified compared to Hindu civilization. This is a fact. Just like saying Western Europe has a greater civilizational history than Subsaharan Africa.
> 
> It could well be that civilizations from temperate climates have certain environmental advantages that make us more advanced compared to tropical climates.



If you are implying that Chinese culcure is more homogenous compared to Indian......I agree with you.......otherwise I dont see much of the point in making comparisons for the sake of determining which is the more superior one......


----------



## Peshwa

HongWu said:


> Actually, China was a victor in WW2. India cannot lecture China about lessons from WW2.



China was as much a victor in WW2 as France.



> There is nobody saying one _race _is better than another. It's just that for historical reasons, Chinese civilization is always far more advanced and unified compared to Hindu civilization. This is a fact. Just like saying Western Europe has a greater civilizational history than Subsaharan Africa.



United States the current "alpha dog" is a conglomoration of various races, states and ideas. Never in its pre-modern history has it been a homogenous entity under the rule of one power. In fact just like India, it was colonized by the English, has had social and structural problems, yet tops the category in every spectrum.

So what exactly are you trying to prove? That a country can be great only if it is a homogenous, united entity that had a strong culttural influence on history?

I think your "theory" has been debunked already....quit while you're ahead..


----------



## CardSharp

Wounded-Monk said:


> that was sarcastic reply for his worthy post.....



Still it's would polite to the rest of us to use English.




Peshwa said:


> China was as much a victor in WW2 as France.




China lost 3-4 million soldiers fighting the Japanese, show some respect.


----------



## Peshwa

CardSharp said:


> China lost 3-4 million soldiers fighting the Japanese, show some respect.



No diesrespect implied to the soldiers.....Much respect infact. A lot of Indian soldiers gave their life fighting the japanese as well....

I just dont think China can be considered the victor in WW2.....and France falls in the same category..


----------



## CardSharp

Peshwa said:


> No diesrespect implied to the soldiers.....Much respect infact. A lot of Indian soldiers gave their life fighting the japanese as well....
> 
> I just dont think China can be considered the victor in WW2.....and France falls in the same category..



Whatever we have our victor's seat (so does France).


----------



## Peshwa

CardSharp said:


> Whatever we have our victor's seat (so does France).



Yep....what matters is that you have it....How you spin the acquisition to boost your ego is your business....

Self fulilling prophecy is a common trait for the Subcontinent and China!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CardSharp

Peshwa said:


> How you spin to boost your ego is your business....



Right back at ya.


----------



## gubbi

HongWu said:


> India is name of a region. Not a country until recently. China has been a unified state since 300 BC. The Hindu civilization has no record of great influential empires. The Mauryan Empire was too long ago. Mughal Empire was Islamic. China was the leader in world technology until about 600 years ago. China had probably the first blue water fleet in world history. "India" could never be considered advanced until at least going back to the days of Sanskirt (again, a discontinuous civilization from Mughal, British India and ROI).
> 
> I'm sorry but India is not comparable to China in any way. China is simply a greater historical civilization. The sooner Indians realize this the less time they can waste trying to pretend otherwise. This is why China is entitled to have imperial lands like Xinjiang, Tibet and so on. This is why we are part of the P5. This is why 21st century is China's century not "Asia's century." China and India are at completely different levels of greatness.



This rant, again, is classic "racial superiority" complex. For all that jumble of words you managed to furiously type away, you have yet to construct one meaningful sentence as to why YOU consider China a 'much much greater civilizational entity" than India. 

History is not your forte, I see.


----------



## CardSharp

gubbi said:


> This rant, again, is classic "racial superiority" complex. For all that jumble of words you managed to furiously type away, you have yet to construct one meaningful sentence as to why YOU consider China a 'much much greater civilizational entity" than India.
> 
> History is not your forte, I see.



Let me save you the time. There is no special quality that makes a civilization nation inherently great. A country is what its people make of it. It's something that requires constant vigilance and dedication. As for Hongwu's ideas? If a sense of fraternity or shared culture is what keeps a nation together and going, then fine and good but great nations have been built on other organizing principals as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

ps80 said:


> Joe Shearer,
> 
> Excellent posts, as always . Really appreciate your time and energy and effort!
> 
> Can you please share your views on the current status of the India-China border talks? Has there been any positive progress? If so, where? and If not, why?
> 
> Big question in few words! Hope you won't mind.
> 
> Regards



Thank you so much for the kind words; they are sincerely appreciated. 

To answer your question, yes, I do have views on the current status of the India-China border talks. However, before I go public with them, you should know that my true views are somewhat different from what I stated to Chinese-Dragon. Those views were the 'opening statements', so to speak, and not what we would agree to, or settle for. Or rather, what we should agree to, or settle for.

With that in view, are you sure you will want to know my views, and not be disappointed?

Regards,


----------



## Joe Shearer

huzihaidao12 said:


> Joe, although I certainly appreciate your attitude, but some your point, I obviously do not agree. If have time I will to refute it.



Dear 'huzihaidao12',

I will greatly enjoy reading your response, and hope you will make some time for it. Even points will do; our arguments need to be logical, not polished and honed. You should know also that I was in some respects being wary of Chinese-Dragon's very hurt and very angry state, and exaggerating the Indian position in some respects to keep him at bay and win some space for later.

Our positions may be closer than you think!

Having said that, I do wish to hear from you.

With warm regards,


----------



## Joe Shearer

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Dear Joe Shearer:
> 
> I'm sure you have noticed that my stance on this forum has changed somewhat, with regards to Sino-Indian relations.
> 
> The trigger for this slight change in position, was being called a "slanty-eyed chink" constantly, over and over again, by Indian suicide trolls on this forum. Then having seemingly rational Indian posters telling me that "chink" was not an offensive word.
> 
> Rest assured that I do not hold any ill-will towards the Indian people at all. I just decided that there is no real point trying to argue for the idea of Sino-Indian friendship on *this* forum at least.
> 
> I will try to respond to your very lengthy post if I can find the time, and apologies in advance for the slow reply.





Capt.Popeye said:


> Hi CD,
> Personally i do feel distressed to sense the mood behind your post. Truth to tell, i could see some changes. But for the fact that that PMs have been discontinued, was tempted to suggest some abstinence from the scene of so much stupid and meaningless mayhem. But that would have only been the 'next best thing'. The 'best thing' is still to (sometimes) ignore the rest of the crazy world around; and (narcissistic as it may seem) to even believe that nothing else exists except some sensible people in this world (however few or remote) apart from me of course ;-). Since i am unwise to carry out either of the above, i listen to music while on this forum. Listening (for example) to the "Ode to Joy" helps me withstand all the stones and more that certain "High IQ" guys can fling in my direction.
> 
> i am not what other people consider me to be, but what i understand me to be.
> 
> So; "What me worry"-- Alfred E. Neumann
> Good Luck and





indianrabbit said:


> About the bold part. Dude please be matured, there will never be any time where every single person of the country will be sane.
> 
> Forget country it cannot be achieved even for one city.
> 
> So are you going to change your position, because someone offened you.





indushek said:


> If i remember correctly CD you once stated that not only online racists are the reason for this change of stance but also some real life incident too helped that end. I don't know what that was as i don't recall you stating that one elaborately. I feel bad for this unfortunate outcome and feel bad for loosing a friend like you but i sincerely urge you to be more forgiving if possible (by which i speak of the real life one not the online one).



Dear Friend,

I hope that this compilation of views will show you that some of us are genuinely distressed at the discourtesy that you have been shown and sincerely regret these insults and offensive words. The persons who have reacted are among the level-headed Indians, and people whose views I have personally always found interesting to read, and whose mental and judgemental balance has always been worth emulation.

These expressions of sincere regret should help you to overcome your justifiable anger and hurt at the nasty things that have been said. Please do not continue to feel hurt; it is in turn sad for us to see you in this state.

With sincere regards,

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CardSharp

Joe Shearer said:


> Dear Friend,
> 
> I hope that this compilation of views will show you that some of us are genuinely distressed at the discourtesy that you have been shown and sincerely regret these insults and offensive words. The persons who have reacted are among the level-headed Indians, and people whose views I have personally always found interesting to read, and whose mental and judgemental balance has always been worth emulation.
> 
> These expressions of sincere regret should help you to overcome your justifiable anger and hurt at the nasty things that have been said. Please do not continue to feel hurt; it is in turn sad for us to see you in this state.
> 
> With sincere regards,



Hey Joe, those kind words are appreciate but it's not so much that we will judge Indians collectively, but rather we have to deal with the bad apples on a day in and day out basis when we visit the forum. There's unfortunately little we can do about the uncouth and ignorant members that we run across. 

I'll make a promise to grin and bare it with a better disposition.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Joe Shearer

I beg your pardon, but what you have presented is your view of my views, shadowy and lacking in depth or perspective. These positions below do *not* represent my views, and I am therefore correcting what you have stated wherever the exaggeration or distortion is very great and needs correction.



HongWu said:


> Joe's argument is basically the claim that China and India are equivalent in terms of civilizational greatness so that it is natural for China and India to have equivalent spheres of influence. However, China definitely has a larger territory, sphere of influence and international standing.
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> While I certainly believe that China and India are equivalent in terms of civilisational greatness, I do not believe and have not stated so on any occasion that it is therefore natural for China and India to have equivalent spheres of influence.
> 
> That is nonsense.
> 
> There is nothing 'natural' in acquiring a sphere of influence and acquiring international standing. These are not dependent on civilisational greatness. These are dependent on the circumstances of that time, and their effects. These depend on historical circumstances in other words, not on 'timeless' factors, and are also politically influenced.
> 
> At this moment, and for some of the future, China's economy and social cohesion are such that it is inevitable that her international standing and sphere of influence will be greater.
> 
> Joe is saying, "Why can't India have that too? That's our entitlement. So our expansionist agenda is legitimate."
> 
> Completely contrary to my views.
> 
> The answer to Joe's question is, "China is a much much greater civilizational entity, so there is no comparison between China and India. China is unified in time and geography -- a single state. India on the other hand is geographically separate princely kingdoms. South Asian empires are historically and culturally discontinuous. Mughal Empire does not trace its origins from Mauryan Empire for example."
> 
> An answer to a question that was not asked.
> 
> An answer, amusingly enough, that is worthless in value, and inferior in logic. Not my thinking.
> 
> Sorry. Try elsewhere, please.
> 
> I'm sorry, but India has nothing that remotely compares to China's historical (and present) greatness. Your Hindu civilization is..... charming...... but you are no match for China. Any attempt by Indians to try to picture themselves as China's equal is nothing more than self-delusion.
> 
> So as a "not-so-great" power you deserve no imperial territory. No Kashmir and no Assam (if they don't really want to be part of India). China is a great power, so we get imperial territory. It's really that simple, folks. You might say we are in different "castes."



I can only describe this as a rant based on self-delusion, undeserving of any detailed response.


----------



## Joe Shearer

gubbi said:


> This rant is what is classically defined as "Racial Superiority" complex. The Japanese & the Germans did precisely that in the years leading to WWII.
> 
> List out the criteria on which you consider China a "a much much greater civilizational entity" than India or any other civilization for that matter?





HongWu said:


> India is name of a region. Not a country until recently. China has been a unified state since 300 BC. The Hindu civilization has no record of great influential empires. The Mauryan Empire was too long ago. Mughal Empire was Islamic. China was the leader in world technology until about 600 years ago. China had probably the first blue water fleet in world history. "India" could never be considered advanced until at least going back to the days of Sanskirt (again, a discontinuous civilization from Mughal, British India and ROI).
> 
> I'm sorry but India is not comparable to China in any way. China is simply a greater historical civilization. The sooner Indians realize this the less time they can waste trying to pretend otherwise. This is why China is entitled to have imperial lands like Xinjiang, Tibet and so on. This is why we are part of the P5. This is why 21st century is China's century not "Asia's century." China and India are at completely different levels of greatness.



In one sentence, it is amusing and instructive to see the confusion between civilisation and nation. It is amusing also to see the discontinuity between administrative and political regimes being transferred on to the civilisation itself.

In two sentences, on the basis of a non-existent civilisational superiority, we are asked to believe that perquisites come with this superiority. Rather in the way that higher business status brings a larger office, preferably a corner office, a larger desk, larger car and of course, club memberships and a nice large house as well.

This can only evoke helpless amusement. What would we have done without this kind of light interlude?

It is almost not even worth pointing out that with great power comes great responsibility. A word, and a role that does not occur anywhere in this brilliant analyst's comments.


----------



## Joe Shearer

CardSharp said:


> Hey Joe, those kind words are appreciate but it's not so much that we will judge Indians collectively, but rather we have to deal with the bad apples on a day in and day out basis when we visit the forum. There's unfortunately little we can do about the uncouth and ignorant members that we run across.
> 
> I'll make a promise to grin and bare it with a better disposition.



Please also convey to Chinese-Dragon that he is well-respected and affectionately regarded. We will stomp out suicide trolls and help them achieve their statistical objectives with the greatest of pleasure. He - and you - need to be in the audience on such pleasant occasions.


----------



## CardSharp

There is a serious question I'd like to pose to you Mr Joe, GareebNawaz wrote a little blurb about how India has historically always been (along with some more emotional add-ins) 

I myself perhaps out of ignorance of India's complex history am not convinced of the case, maybe you can explain the issue for me. I'll trust your judgement to be the authoritative word.




Joe Shearer said:


> Please also convey to Chinese-Dragon that he is well-respected and affectionately regarded. We will stomp out suicide trolls and help them achieve their statistical objectives with the greatest of pleasure. He - and you - need to be in the audience on such pleasant occasions.



Thanks, I'll be sure not to miss it Also things should actually get a little better, the admins are going to implement some kind of system to prevent multi-IDs that the suicide trolls take advantage of.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

bandit said:


> This is a why all of China's neighbours are wary of its economic and military rise. As pointed out above this racial supremacy crap was what directly led y\to WW2 and the extermination of jews. This is becoming too often the case with Chinese posters here and other fora to point out their racial superiority over others. If this thinking is what goes on in an ordinary Chinese mind, how can one be sure this isnt a pointer to what will be coming in future.
> And then we hear all that talk about peaceful rise and non-expansionist agenda.



Dear Sir,

I would not waste time answering a fan-boy's effusions and testosterone-driven excesses. It is simply worthless and does not justify any time spent in response. 

In any case, it has been admirably summed up by CardSharp in his mail no. 178. I recommend it to all. If I add something to it, it will be spinning out what has been expressed so succintly.

Warm regards,


----------



## Joe Shearer

Heh. Ironic, considering post 178, one of the best I have read.



CardSharp said:


> There is a serious question I'd like to pose to you Mr Joe, GareebNawaz wrote a little blurb about how India has historically always been (along with some more emotional add-ins)
> 
> I myself perhaps out of ignorance of India's complex history am not convinced of the case, maybe you can explain the issue for me. I'll trust your judgement to be the authoritative word.
> 
> It gives me both great pleasure and great amusement to point out that you have yourself set the foundation for my answer, which I wish to give in a few hours; it is a busy day today, and I need to do a White Rabbit, if only some kind soul were to lend me a pocket watch!
> 
> Your mail no. 178 goes to the heart of the matter. I am pleased because it expresses the core idea with such economy of words; I am amused because one young man spends dozens of words and gets it disastrously wrong, on logic and facts alike, while another (slightly older) young man puts his finger on the core of the topic in less than a hundred words!
> 
> This discussion is getting to be fun!
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, I'll be sure not to miss it Also things should actually get a little better, the admins are going to implement some kind of system to prevent multi-IDs that the suicide trolls take advantage of.


----------



## CardSharp

Joe Shearer said:


> Heh. Ironic, considering post 178, one of the best I have read.



Looking forward to it.


----------



## Guest

Peshwa said:


> China was as much a victor in WW2 as France.



huge difference actually, France was defeated and surrendered, But this never happened to China. China managed to hold the Japanese advancing after losing half of the country, much more like USSR rather than France, except lauching the counter attack.

BTW, at that time, China sent two of her best division to defend the supply route in south Asia. With the US supply, what they did was amazing compare to that of the English army.

as a result, WW2 gave us a grave lesson and experience that India never has a chance to take and to learn. So, today, we can see a big difference in defence doctrine between the two.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Soumitra

indushek said:


> Jahapanah tusi great ho toufa kubuul karo !!!!



Translation : Oh king you are really great!!! please accept my gift!!!!

this was also a dialog in the hit hindi movie "3 Idiots" where the characters used to say this while pulling down there pants and showing their *** to their friend as a gift

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CardSharp

Guest said:


> huge difference actually, France was defeated and surrendered, But this never happened to China. China managed to hold the Japanese advancing after losing half of the country, much more like USSR rather than France, except lauching the counter attack.
> 
> BTW, at that time, China sent two of her best division to defend the supply route in south Asia. With the US supply, what they did was amazing compare to that of the English army.
> 
> as a result, WW2 gave us a grave lesson and experience that India never has a chance to take and to learn. So, today, we can see a big difference in defence doctrine between the two.



China was fighting off an invasion, a world war, and a civil war at the same time. Neither the communists nor the KMT trusted each other enough to truly unite against Japan. Both sides were saving their strength for the civil war they knew was restarting. But nevermind, and nevermind that guy, he's just arguing out of ignorance and patriotism.




Soumitra said:


> Translation : Oh king you are really great!!! please accept my gift!!!!
> 
> this was also a dialog in the hit hindi movie "3 Idiots" where the characters used to say this while pulling down there pants and showing their *** to their friend as a gift



Thanks for the translation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ps80

Joe Shearer said:


> Thank you so much for the kind words; they are sincerely appreciated.
> 
> To answer your question, yes, I do have views on the current status of the India-China border talks. However, before I go public with them, you should know that my true views are somewhat different from what I stated to Chinese-Dragon. Those views were the 'opening statements', so to speak, and not what we would agree to, or settle for. Or rather, what we should agree to, or settle for.
> 
> *With that in view, are you sure you will want to know my views, and not be disappointed?*
> 
> Regards,



Please do share your views.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## newdelhinsa

This is getting tiresome and over PC.

India has recognised China's suzerainty over Tibet not sovereignty.

The dispute over Tibet is not a dispute between India and China because India is not disputing it.

I am not going to ask mods to change the title of this thread. Not because Kashmir word used by Indian diplomat is technically equivalent to Tibet and Taiwan but an intention to play a half-baked chip with significant tactical importance at this stage. 

What needs to be said is already said by Indian diplomat. People here should have the only privilege to discuss, whether India is capable to dispute Tibet alone or with the help of someone else with China and test her teaching skills.

I am not an Astrologer to predict the future BTW, therefore my duration ends here on this thread with this note.


----------



## Joe Shearer

ps80 said:


> Please do share your views.



In a nutshell, without going into a detailed narrative of the number of times met, the places and the personnel concerned, it might be said that the history of India-China talks on the border dispute after 1962 is a story of missed opportunities.

Throughout the 70s through the 90s, the PRC side was more or less agreeable to a compromise solution where the Aksai Chin wilderness would be ceded to China permanently by India; on the other hand, Arunachal Pradesh would be permanently recognised by China as integral part of India.

India failed to take advantage of this very convenient solution. As has already been discussed, because of its arid and unpopulated nature, there is no Indian interest in Aksai Chin, while China finds it a convenient plain through which to run its strategic highway between Lanzhou and Xigatse. It is of vital strategic interest to China, of no strategic or cultural interest to India.

India also failed to take advantage of the flexibility of the Chinese position on Arunachal Pradesh, which is a legitimate area of Indian sovereignty, for a variety of reasons, vitiated only by lack of precision in defining boundaries and in identifying viable landmarks or topological divisions. 

Arunachal Pradesh is inhabited by the following tribes, from west, the borders of Bhutan, to the east - the *Monpa*, the *Aka* or Hrusso, in two clans, the Kutsun and Kovatsun, the *Dafla *or Bangni or Ni, in two classes, the Gute and the Guchi, the *Apa Tani*, and the *Abor *or Adi, divided into Padam, Minyong, Pangi, Shimong and others. Further east than this is the large confederation of the *Mishmi*. In all cases, the names of the tribes have been used as commonly accepted by them; the alternative names that they call themselves have been indicated next to those.

None of these tribes are ethnically Tibetan, or even close, with the possible exception of the Monpas. In the case of the Monpas, it is the consensus of scholars, mainly the British, that they are closely allied to the eastern Bhutanese and any influence of Tibetan culture is due to the dominance of the Tawang monastery and its former feudal grip over this tribe. 

In all other cases, there is greater affinity with tribes living south of the Brahmaputra than with the Tibetans. There are no cultural similarities, and the spread of Buddhism is not uniform here, as it was north of the Himalayas, or even to the west, in Bhutan. Even the residual matter of their folk-memories of migration has been handled academically by the great Christoph von Fuehrer-Haimendorff: ..._these memories can only relate to the last stages of a population movement which may well have changed its course more than once._" 

Further proof of their distinction from Tibetans comes from Bailey, discoverer of the Bailey Trail which the PLA used with such devastating effect to achieve complete tactical surprise in 1962, who said, writing about the term _lopa_ used by the Tibetans for these southern tribesmen,"_The term Lopa meant to the Tibetans what barbarian meant to the Greeks_..."

Quite clearly, we should have come to terms with the PRC while they were favourably inclined to deal with the matter on conditions that were perfectly acceptable and coincided with the primary interests of the two sides. Unfortunately, the dilatory nature of bureaucratic decision-making on the Indian side, and the huge difficulties constituted by political fear, by both major national parties, the Congress and the BJP, of acceptance of cession of land by India to China, (leaving aside the constitutional difficulty of this step, which probably requires an amendment to the constitution) stood in the way of a solution.

Today, these favourable conditions for a peace no longer exist. China has now some medium-term reasons to delay a settlement, as it causes tension and anxiety within Indian decision-making circles. There is clearly a distinction between the authority with which Mao and Deng chaired the Military Commission, and that which their successors brought to the same position. There was a marked difference between the veterancs of the Long March and their followers. As a result, today the PLA as well as the PLA AF and the PLAN have a far more aggressive attitude towards neighbouring countries than does the Foreign Ministry. 

It is my personal evaluation that we may have to wait for the successor of Hu Jin Tao, the successor being a man with some authority among the military circles himself, greater than the influence of HU, or even for an efflux of time until China is markedly ahead of India in all metrics, for a lasting peace to be settled, and for boundaries to be settled.

I hope you found this note useful.



newdelhiinsa said:


> This is getting tiresome and over PC.
> 
> India has recognised China's suzerainty over Tibet not sovereignty.
> 
> 
> This statement is completely incorrect. Government of India has accepted that Tibet is an integral part of China. It was the British Indian government that restricted recognition of Chinese authority over Tibet to recognition of China's suzerainty, not Government of India. It is disheartening to find a fresh cause for confusion being introduced, the dispute being complex enough as it is.
> 
> The dispute over Tibet is not a dispute between India and China because India is not disputing it.
> 
> I am not going to ask mods to change the title of this thread. Not because Kashmir word used by Indian diplomat is technically equivalent to Tibet and Taiwan but an intention to play a half-baked chip with significant tactical importance at this stage.
> 
> What needs to be said is already said by Indian diplomat. People here should have the only privilege to discuss, whether India is capable to dispute Tibet alone or with the help of someone else with China and test her teaching skills.
> 
> The passage marked in red (above) is completely incomprehensible. If it is intended to convey a further protraction of the dispute, this time on a belligerent basis by India, it is difficult to consider a worse scenario from the Indian point of view.
> 
> I am not an Astrologer to predict the future BTW, therefore my duration ends here on this thread with this note.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CardSharp

Wow thanks, your knowledge on stuff like continues to astonish and indeed is a sad story. 

As a follow up can you elaborate on "China's medium-term reasons to delay a settlement, as it causes tension and anxiety within Indian decision-making circles. "?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## indushek

CardSharp said:


> English please.





Soumitra said:


> Translation : Oh king you are really great!!! please accept my gift!!!!
> 
> this was also a dialog in the hit hindi movie "3 Idiots" where the characters used to say this while pulling down there pants and showing their *** to their friend as a gift



While Soumitra explained the real meaning, mine was a little towards the leftist side of that.


----------



## HongWu

Wounded-Monk said:


> If you are implying that Chinese culcure is more homogenous compared to Indian......I agree with you.......otherwise I dont see much of the point in making comparisons for the sake of determining which is the more superior one......


The point is that only great civilizations like China are entitled to have imperial territories like Xinjiang and Tibet. Not-so-great civilizations like India are not entitled to any imperial territory. Not even Kashmir.

So any Indian attempt to justify _India's expansionist agenda _by comparing it to China is a failure. This is a typical Indian claim that is based on nothing more than self-delusion. 

The reality is that India is always weaker and less advanced civilization than China. If it tries to behave as strong and powerful as China on the world stage, it will be beaten back.



Peshwa said:


> China was as much a victor in WW2 as France.


Wrong. China never surrendered and in fact it was Japanese Empire that surrendered personally to Generalissimo Chiang Kai Shek. The Japanese Imperial Army was defeated by Chinese troops by 1945 and then finished off by Soviet troops. The US also offered Okinawa / Ryukyu Islands to China, but China refused.

It was the subsequent civil war and cold war that lead to China becoming weaker again compared to Japan. *But at the end of WW2, China was very much on top of Japan.*



Peshwa said:


> United States the current "alpha dog" is a conglomoration of various races, states and ideas. Never in its pre-modern history has it been a homogenous entity under the rule of one power. In fact just like India, it was colonized by the English, has had social and structural problems, yet tops the category in every spectrum.


LOL. USA was not "colonized" by the English in the same way as India. They were the imperialists! "Indians" are the subjugated colonized native indigenous people. 



gubbi said:


> This rant, again, is classic "racial superiority" complex. For all that jumble of words you managed to furiously type away, you have yet to construct one meaningful sentence as to why YOU consider China a 'much much greater civilizational entity" than India.
> 
> History is not your forte, I see.


You are one of the 90% illiterate in India I see. I've already told you India was never a technologically advanced nation. China was always far more technologically advanced.

What did Zheng He find when he traveled to the Indian Ocean and forced the natives there to pay tribute to the Empire of the Great Ming? He found a bunch of "barbarians."


----------



## indushek

Joe Shearer said:


> In a nutshell, without going into a detailed narrative of the number of times met, the places and the personnel concerned, it might be said that the history of India-China talks on the border dispute after 1962 is a story of missed opportunities.
> 
> Throughout the 70s through the 90s, the PRC side was more or less agreeable to a compromise solution where the Aksai Chin wilderness would be ceded to China permanently by India; on the other hand, Arunachal Pradesh would be permanently recognised by China as integral part of India.
> 
> India failed to take advantage of this very convenient solution. As has already been discussed, because of its arid and unpopulated nature, there is no Indian interest in Aksai Chin, while China finds it a convenient plain through which to run its strategic highway between Lanzhou and Xigatse. It is of vital strategic interest to China, of no strategic or cultural interest to India.
> 
> India also failed to take advantage of the flexibility of the Chinese position on Arunachal Pradesh, which is a legitimate area of Indian sovereignty, for a variety of reasons, vitiated only by lack of precision in defining boundaries and in identifying viable landmarks or topological divisions.
> 
> Arunachal Pradesh is inhabited by the following tribes, from west, the borders of Bhutan, to the east - the *Monpa*, the *Aka* or Hrusso, in two clans, the Kutsun and Kovatsun, the *Dafla *or Bangni or Ni, in two classes, the Gute and the Guchi, the *Apa Tani*, and the *Abor *or Adi, divided into Padam, Minyong, Pangi, Shimong and others. Further east than this is the large confederation of the *Mishmi*. In all cases, the names of the tribes have been used as commonly accepted by them; the alternative names that they call themselves have been indicated next to those.
> 
> None of these tribes are ethnically Tibetan, or even close, with the possible exception of the Monpas. In the case of the Monpas, it is the consensus of scholars, mainly the British, that they are closely allied to the eastern Bhutanese and any influence of Tibetan culture is due to the dominance of the Tawang monastery and its former feudal grip over this tribe.
> 
> In all other cases, there is greater affinity with tribes living south of the Brahmaputra than with the Tibetans. There are no cultural similarities, and the spread of Buddhism is not uniform here, as it was north of the Himalayas, or even to the west, in Bhutan. Even the residual matter of their folk-memories of migration has been handled academically by the great Christoph von Fuehrer-Haimendorff: ..._these memories can only relate to the last stages of a population movement which may well have changed its course more than once._"
> 
> Further proof of their distinction from Tibetans comes from Bailey, discoverer of the Bailey Trail which the PLA used with such devastating effect to achieve complete tactical surprise in 1962, who said, writing about the term _lopa_ used by the Tibetans for these southern tribesmen,"_The term Lopa meant to the Tibetans what barbarian meant to the Greeks_..."
> 
> Quite clearly, we should have come to terms with the PRC while they were favourably inclined to deal with the matter on conditions that were perfectly acceptable and coincided with the primary interests of the two sides. Unfortunately, the dilatory nature of bureaucratic decision-making on the Indian side, and the huge difficulties constituted by political fear, by both major national parties, the Congress and the BJP, of acceptance of cession of land by India to China, (leaving aside the constitutional difficulty of this step, which probably requires an amendment to the constitution) stood in the way of a solution.
> 
> Today, these favourable conditions for a peace no longer exist. China has now some medium-term reasons to delay a settlement, as it causes tension and anxiety within Indian decision-making circles. There is clearly a distinction between the authority with which Mao and Deng chaired the Military Commission, and that which their successors brought to the same position. There was a marked difference between the veterancs of the Long March and their followers. As a result, today the PLA as well as the PLA AF and the PLAN have a far more aggressive attitude towards neighbouring countries than does the Foreign Ministry.
> 
> It is my personal evaluation that we may have to wait for the successor of Hu Jin Tao, the successor being a man with some authority among the military circles himself, greater than the influence of HU, or even for an efflux of time until China is markedly ahead of India in all metrics, for a lasting peace to be settled, and for boundaries to be settled.
> 
> I hope you found this note useful.



I have a better suggestion if u can consider it  just go by my signature and u will know it

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CardSharp

HongWu said:


> The point is that only great civilizations like China are entitled to have imperial territories like Xinjiang and Tibet. Not-so-great civilizations like India are not entitled to any imperial territory. Not even Kashmir.
> 
> So any Indian attempt to justify _India's expansionist agenda _by comparing it to China is a failure. This is a typical Indian claim that is based on nothing more than self-delusion.
> 
> The reality is that India is always weaker and less advanced civilization than China. If it tries to behave as strong and powerful as China on the world stage, it will be beaten back.
> 
> 
> Wrong. China never surrendered and in fact it was Japanese Empire that surrendered personally to Generalissimo Chiang Kai Shek. The Japanese Imperial Army was defeated by Chinese troops by 1945 and then finished off by Soviet troops. The US also offered Okinawa / Ryukyu Islands to China, but China refused.
> 
> It was the subsequent civil war and cold war that lead to China becoming weaker again compared to Japan. *But at the end of WW2, China was very much on top of Japan.*
> 
> 
> LOL. USA was not "colonized" by the English in the same way as India. They were the imperialists! "Indians" are the subjugated colonized native indigenous people.
> 
> 
> You are one of the 90% illiterate in India I see. I've already told you India was never a technologically advanced nation. China was always far more technologically advanced.
> 
> What did Zheng He find when he traveled to the Indian Ocean and forced the natives there to pay tribute to the Empire of the Great Ming? He found a bunch of "barbarians."



Can I ask that people just not respond anymore?


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Peshwa said:


> China was as much a victor in WW2 as France.



Unlike France China didn't come entirely under Axis occupation.

And Chinese do have a surrender document.

Second Sino-Japanese War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

@gubbi
@CardSharp
Others

We still have not considered the following issues:

The question of any difference or distinction between Chinese and Indian civilisation, and the associated question of the inherent right of greater sphere of influence or of greater international standing due to this alleged superiority;
The question of the status of the two countries in WWII;
The points raised by Gareeb Nawaz, referred by CardSharp; while these have been deleted by a merciful moderator, perhaps CardSharp could use <ahem, ahem> the usual route to send me a copy, which I shall then respond to;

Could I please be granted a little time, as Saturday and Sunday are both very packed days, and I will be running around within half an hour from now? I should be back at the grind on Monday.



gubbi said:


> This rant is what is classically defined as "Racial Superiority" complex. The Japanese & the Germans did precisely that in the years leading to WWII.
> 
> List out the criteria on which you consider China a "a much much greater civilizational entity" than India or any other civilization for that matter?





HongWu said:


> India is name of a region. Not a country until recently. China has been a unified state since 300 BC. The Hindu civilization has no record of great influential empires. The Mauryan Empire was too long ago. Mughal Empire was Islamic. China was the leader in world technology until about 600 years ago. China had probably the first blue water fleet in world history. "India" could never be considered advanced until at least going back to the days of Sanskirt (again, a discontinuous civilization from Mughal, British India and ROI).
> 
> I'm sorry but India is not comparable to China in any way. China is simply a greater historical civilization. The sooner Indians realize this the less time they can waste trying to pretend otherwise. This is why China is entitled to have imperial lands like Xinjiang, Tibet and so on. This is why we are part of the P5. This is why 21st century is China's century not "Asia's century." China and India are at completely different levels of greatness.





HongWu said:


> No, stupid is Joe Shearer's claims
> 
> _"This flatly denies the historical fact that the closest Chinese troops before this year were in the border provinces of Qing Hai and Kham. No Government of China existed in Tibet, none whatsoever."_
> 
> I'm done with this guy. He's just faking being objective and reasonable. There is no objectivity here whatsoever. It's the same "India is just as great as China, so we are entitled to expand more" delusion that other Indian members have, but they put it across less artfully.





HongWu said:


> Actually, China was a victor in WW2. India cannot lecture China about lessons from WW2.
> 
> There is nobody saying one _race _is better than another. It's just that for historical reasons, Chinese civilization is always far more advanced and unified compared to Hindu civilization. This is a fact. Just like saying Western Europe has a greater civilizational history than Subsaharan Africa.
> 
> It could well be that civilizations from temperate climates have certain environmental advantages that make us more advanced compared to tropical climates.





Wounded-Monk said:


> If you are implying that Chinese culcure is more homogenous compared to Indian......I agree with you.......otherwise I dont see much of the point in making comparisons for the sake of determining which is the more superior one......





Peshwa said:


> China was as much a victor in WW2 as France.
> 
> 
> 
> United States the current "alpha dog" is a conglomoration of various races, states and ideas. Never in its pre-modern history has it been a homogenous entity under the rule of one power. In fact just like India, it was colonized by the English, has had social and structural problems, yet tops the category in every spectrum.
> 
> So what exactly are you trying to prove? That a country can be great only if it is a homogenous, united entity that had a strong culttural influence on history?
> 
> I think your "theory" has been debunked already....quit while you're ahead..





CardSharp said:


> Still it's would polite to the rest of us to use English.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China lost 3-4 million soldiers fighting the Japanese, show some respect.





Peshwa said:


> No diesrespect implied to the soldiers.....Much respect infact. A lot of Indian soldiers gave their life fighting the japanese as well....
> 
> I just dont think China can be considered the victor in WW2.....and France falls in the same category..





CardSharp said:


> Whatever we have our victor's seat (so does France).





Peshwa said:


> Yep....what matters is that you have it....How you spin the acquisition to boost your ego is your business....
> 
> Self fulilling prophecy is a common trait for the Subcontinent and China!





CardSharp said:


> Right back at ya.





gubbi said:


> This rant, again, is classic "racial superiority" complex. For all that jumble of words you managed to furiously type away, you have yet to construct one meaningful sentence as to why YOU consider China a 'much much greater civilizational entity" than India.
> 
> History is not your forte, I see.





CardSharp said:


> There is a serious question I'd like to pose to you Mr Joe, GareebNawaz wrote a little blurb about how India has historically always been (along with some more emotional add-ins)
> 
> I myself perhaps out of ignorance of India's complex history am not convinced of the case, maybe you can explain the issue for me. I'll trust your judgement to be the authoritative word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, I'll be sure not to miss it Also things should actually get a little better, the admins are going to implement some kind of system to prevent multi-IDs that the suicide trolls take advantage of.





Guest said:


> huge difference actually, France was defeated and surrendered, But this never happened to China. China managed to hold the Japanese advancing after losing half of the country, much more like USSR rather than France, except lauching the counter attack.
> 
> BTW, at that time, China sent two of her best division to defend the supply route in south Asia. With the US supply, what they did was amazing compare to that of the English army.
> 
> as a result, WW2 gave us a grave lesson and experience that India never has a chance to take and to learn. So, today, we can see a big difference in defence doctrine between the two.





CardSharp said:


> China was fighting off an invasion, a world war, and a civil war at the same time. Neither the communists nor the KMT trusted each other enough to truly unite against Japan. Both sides were saving their strength for the civil war they knew was restarting. But nevermind, and nevermind that guy, he's just arguing out of ignorance and patriotism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the translation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Indians just ignore Hongwu

Next he"ll bring the topic of IQ,regarding the greatness of his civilization.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CardSharp

Can you guys seriously drop this obsession with this IQ thing, it was started by an *absolute *crackpot and perpetuated in this little Petridish of hate, we call a forum by a FEW misguided members (as a convenient pot shot). I have seriously never met any Chinese person who dwell on this IQ thing (there wasn't an IQ test in China until recently, it was uncommunist). I can safely say this is not a part of mainsteam Chinese consciousness. 

So just drop it and ignore it if it is brought up again. It will go away (banning a certain someone would help but that is outside my prerogative) 


@ Joe

I'm afraid there isn't anything to send. His claim that "India was a nation thousands of years ago"merely prompt me to ask a question that I had before. 
The list you gave does seems like a good set of topics to explore and I'll happily join in for the duration.


----------



## CardSharp

Joe Shearer said:


> @gubbi
> @CardSharp
> Others
> 
> We still have not considered the following issues:
> 
> The question of any difference or distinction between Chinese and Indian civilisation, and the associated question of the inherent right of greater sphere of influence or of greater international standing due to this alleged superiority;
> The question of the status of the two countries in WWII;
> The points raised by Gareeb Nawaz, referred by CardSharp; while these have been deleted by a merciful moderator, perhaps CardSharp could use <ahem, ahem> the usual route to send me a copy, which I shall then respond to;
> 
> Could I please be granted a little time, as Saturday and Sunday are both very packed days, and I will be running around within half an hour from now? I should be back at the grind on Monday.



At point #1 I think in order to compare the two countries, we need to pin down what perimeters exactly we wish to examine, and perhaps just drop the whole thing on inherent superiority (there just isn't anything to talk about because it doesn't exist, well either that or I missed something when I was reading history)


----------



## Joe Shearer

CardSharp said:


> At point #1 I think in order to compare the two countries, we need to pin down what perimeters exactly we wish to examine, and perhaps just drop the whole thing on inherent superiority (there just isn't anything to talk about because it doesn't exist, well either that or I missed something when I was reading history)



Frankly, I agree. 

What I would have done, instead of getting into a hair-pulling match, however, is to link the various successive dynasties in the six important centres of civilisation in India, the Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Narmada, Godavari and Krishna (with the possible addition of the Mahanadi) river valleys. This would explain to those not familiar with the minute details of Indian history how the whole thing hangs together. Also, perhaps, it would explain to some confused souls who have simply not had sufficiently exposure to facts how the valleys interacted with each other, and created a common civilisation out of interestingly distinctive cultures.

But in plain terms, your caution is on target, as usual. I was planning to use those unfortunate remarks of our astonishingly prolific young friend as a jumping off point.

Till Monday then.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Manas

^^Hello,Indrajeet(?) sir,...how R u doing??


----------



## Manas

India did a big mistake by accepting Tibet as part of China, Suzerainty of China over Tibet, without exracting any concession over AP.Now they say AP being a Tibet is in turn a part of china.


----------



## indushek

Manas said:


> ^^Hello,Indrajeet(?) sir,...how R u doing??



Is it Joe's name in real?? have met him on some other forum??


----------



## Manas

indushek said:


> Is it Joe's name in real?? have met him on some other forum??



hmm,I don't know for sure(90%) thats why i put a ? there.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HongWu

Joe Shearer said:


> While I certainly believe that China and India are equivalent in terms of civilisational greatness, I do not believe and have not stated so on any occasion that it is therefore natural for China and India to have equivalent spheres of influence.
> 
> That is nonsense.
> 
> There is nothing 'natural' in acquiring a sphere of influence and acquiring international standing. These are not dependent on civilisational greatness. These are dependent on the circumstances of that time, and their effects. These depend on historical circumstances in other words, not on 'timeless' factors, and are also politically influenced.
> 
> At this moment, and for some of the future, China's economy and social cohesion are such that* it is inevitable that her international standing and sphere of influence will be greater*.


Then you would have to disagree the title: "Kashmir is to us what Tibet, Taiwan are to you." Kashmir is imperial land occupied by India against the will of some group of people living there. Tibet and Taiwan are also imperial land for China. If there is no equivalence, then China can have Tibet and Taiwan but India is not entitled to Kashmir.



Joe Shearer said:


> In two sentences, on the basis of a non-existent civilisational superiority, we are asked to believe that perquisites come with this superiority. Rather in the way that higher business status brings a larger office, preferably a corner office, a larger desk, larger car and of course, club memberships and a nice large house as well.


Yes of course. It's a natural consequence of wealth and power. To be more specific, dominant civilizations have more imperial territories compared to their neighbors. So India should not feel bad that China's borders go right up to India, including Tibet. It should not feel as if China is getting more than its fair share. The shares are unequal because China is a much more dominant civilization, especially in technology.



Joe Shearer said:


> It is almost not even worth pointing out that with great power comes great responsibility. A word, and a role that does not occur anywhere in this brilliant analyst's comments.


I try to be objective. Philosophical comments are not really my fare. I do recall this particular one from spiderman though. 

China's historical greatness has always nurtured its neighbors in the same way the sun nurtures the earth with warmth. Look at how Japanese and Koreans use Chinese characters.


----------



## Manas

HongWu said:


> Yes of course. It's a natural conuding Tibet. It should not feel as if China is getting more than its fair share. The shares are unequal because China is a much more dominant civilization, especially in technology.



Okay,especially in technology,Will kindly innumerate Chinese contribution to science & technology in last few centuries.

When did for first time a Chinese receive a Nobel prize in science & technology ??


----------



## Tumba

Going by Mr. HongWu's logic ...


USA as the most Tech. Advance nation so it should have right to all the planet ... 

why shud we confine to civilizations in past only ,, ...



......................

and regarding tech advancements in ancient civilizations. ..

i wont rate one on another either indian or chinese ,,, 


0 was an indian contribution to human civilization... 

so speaking digitally .. 0 1 0 1 ... these things define everyhing in this information age.. no cutting age design and R&D is possible without this zero even J-20 uses zero in its name  


so in modern age...
India has contributed much much more 1000s of years ago...

mr HongWu... these post you are posting here is actually made up by 0 1 01 digital language... an indian invention...

 ...


so going by your logic china as a much less contributer to todays advancement in this INFORMATION AGE... is a less civilization ... so shud be subdued by INDIA..


----------



## Developereo

SaifullahK said:


> Why do you think all your weeping and pleading will spare you the wrath of the Lashkar.
> 
> Bottom line is that the China supports the Jamaat-ud-Dawah, and if you dare cast your evil eye towards Pakistan, it is Chinese nuclear technology that is going to burn your Dhoti.
> 
> There is a good reason why you were impotent after the Mujahideen attacked your parliament, and after the Mumbai drama. Why do you think anything has changed.



False flag Indian trolls don't come any plainer than this. Interesting to see so many senior members played along, just to score cheap shots at Pakistan.



Joe Shearer said:


> Throughout the 70s through the 90s, the PRC side was more or less agreeable to a compromise solution where the Aksai Chin wilderness would be ceded to China permanently by India; on the other hand, Arunachal Pradesh would be permanently recognised by China as integral part of India.
> 
> India failed to take advantage of this very convenient solution



Translation: China offered to compromise, but India was greedy. Now China is quite powerful and seems less amenable to compromise.



Joe Shearer said:


> The question of any difference or distinction between Chinese and Indian civilisation, and the associated question of the inherent right of greater sphere of influence or of greater international standing due to this alleged superiority;



There is no inherent right by virtue of age. The US is only 200 years old and dominates the globe.


----------



## HongWu

Tumba said:


> 0 was an indian contribution to human civilization...


The concept of zero was invented by China, not India! So was an early form of calculus.



Manas said:


> Okay,especially in technology,Will kindly innumerate Chinese contribution to science & technology in last few centuries.
> 
> When did for first time a Chinese receive a Nobel prize in science & technology ??


China does not need a "Nobel prize". That is just political theater by the West.

China is the world's first great maritime power. Chinese navy sailed to Indian Ocean, African East Coast and perhaps further.


----------



## Tumba

HongWu said:


> The concept of zero was invented by China. So was an early form of calculus.


haha  ...


----------



## HongWu

Tumba said:


> haha  ...


India is such a backward civilization even your one and only "invention" is *a lie*. Do you have no shame?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tumba

HongWu said:


> The concept of zero was invented by China, not India! So was an early form of calculus.
> 
> 
> China does not need a "Nobel prize". That is just political theater by the West.
> 
> China is the world's first great maritime power. Chinese navy sailed to Indian Ocean, African East Coast and perhaps further.


The Indian ideas spread east to China as well as west to the Islamic countries. In 1247 the Chinese mathematician Ch'in Chiu-Shao wrote Mathematical treatise in nine sections which uses the symbol O for zero. A little later, in 1303, Zhu Shijie wrote Jade mirror of the four elements which again uses the symbol O for zero.


----------



## Tumba

HongWu said:


> India is such a backward civilization even your one and only "invention" is *a lie*. Do you have no shame?


yaaa such a backward civilization ...

check Budha on net ... and think why still chinese follow Him after thousand of years,,,


----------



## HongWu

Tumba said:


> yaaa such a backward civilization ...
> 
> check Budha on net ... and think why still chinese follow Him after thousand of years,,,


Siddartha Gautama was from Nepal, not India.


----------



## duhastmish

*hong hu sweet heart listen to this : india invented china . *


since you can talk out of your bottom without proof you must accept it.


----------



## Tumba

HongWu said:


> Siddartha Gautama was from Nepal, not India.


Budha was from Indian civilization ,,,

a hindu prince... 

and his ideas are still embedded into chinese,,,


indian civilization has subdued chinese without sending a single soldier thousand of years ago ... 


HongWu... so by your theory,,, your chinese civilization is a lesser civilization ...

BOW to us indians...


----------



## faithfulguy

Tumba said:


> Budha was from Indian civilization ,,,
> 
> a hindu prince...
> 
> and his ideas are still embedded into chinese,,,
> 
> 
> indian civilization has subdued chinese without sending a single soldier thousand of years ago ...
> 
> 
> HongWu... so by your theory,,, your chinese civilization is a lesser civilization ...
> 
> BOW to us indians...



If you enjoy talking to him... you are just as guilty as him. Do you want to be the Indian version of Hong Wu?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## faithfulguy

HongWu said:


> Siddartha Gautama was from Nepal, not India.



Nepal was part of the Indian civilization. Indian civilization spread further than the current border of India. The current border of India is mainly created by the British colonial government.


----------



## HongWu

Indian civilization changed a lot. It is not continuous and unitary like Chinese. *Indian civilization gave birth to Buddhism but then it also destroyed it!*

Buddhism survives on in SE Asia and East Asia, no thanks to India.


----------



## Tumba

faithfulguy said:


> If you enjoy talking to him... you are just as guilty as him. Do you want to be the Indian version of Hong Wu?


thr are somethings ppl should learn in the HARDWAY ...

and i was only giving him taste of his own medicine...  it was due for some time...


----------



## Developereo

faithfulguy said:


> Nepal was part of the Indian civilization. Indian civilization spread further than the current border of India. The current border of India is mainly created by the British colonial government.



He does have a valid point. Buddha lived in Nepal under the Kosala Kingdom.

Saying that Buddha lived in India is like saying Jesus lived in Rome.


----------



## faithfulguy

HongWu said:


> Indian civilization changed a lot. It is not continuous and unitary like Chinese. *Indian civilization gave birth to Buddhism but then it also destroyed it!*
> 
> Buddhism survives on in SE Asia and East Asia, no thanks to India.



I believe that South Asian civilization can claim the legacy of creating Buddhism. Like how Christianity was created in the Holy Lands and confucianism was created by Chinese civilization. 

But I agree that Indian civilization is a misnomer as India is a country that happened to contains the biggest portion of the South Asian land mass colonized by Europeans, especially the British. Pakistan, Bangledesh, Sri Lanka, and Napal also can lay claim to the "Indian" civilization.


----------



## Dharmocol

faithfulguy said:


> I believe that South Asian civilization can claim the legacy of creating Buddhism. Like how Christianity was created in the Holy Lands and confucianism was created by Chinese civilization.
> 
> But I agree that Indian civilization is a misnomer as India is a country that happened to contains the biggest portion of the South Asian land mass colonized by Europeans, especially the British. Pakistan, Bangledesh, Sri Lanka, and Napal also can lay claim to the "Indian" civilization.



Yes correctly put it,Indian civilization is much bigger than the nation India itself,it had become a legacy in history.


----------



## faithfulguy

Sohni Dharti said:


> He does have a valid point. Buddha lived in Nepal under the Kosala Kingdom.
> 
> Saying that Buddha lived in India is like saying Jesus lived in Rome.



Both India, Napal, and Pakistan are successor states of the South Asian civilization that all South Asian countries can lay claim to. As I mentioned previously, the current nation boundaries were created by the British empire. As matter in fact, I think the difference between Napal and the Ganges valley is the difference between that of macedonia and Peloponnesian peninsula


----------



## newdelhinsa

> Joe Shearer
> *Originally Posted by newdelhiinsa
> 
> This is getting tiresome and over PC.
> 
> India has recognised China's suzerainty over Tibet not sovereignty.*
> 
> This statement is completely incorrect. Government of India has accepted that Tibet is an integral part of China. It was the British Indian government that restricted recognition of Chinese authority over Tibet to recognition of China's suzerainty, not Government of India. It is disheartening to find a fresh cause for confusion being introduced, the dispute being complex enough as it is.
> 
> *The dispute over Tibet is not a dispute between India and China because India is not disputing it.
> 
> I am not going to ask mods to change the title of this thread. Not because Kashmir word used by Indian diplomat is technically equivalent to Tibet and Taiwan but an intention to play a half-baked chip with significant tactical importance at this stage.
> 
> What needs to be said is already said by Indian diplomat. People here should have the only privilege to discuss, whether India is capable to dispute Tibet alone or with the help of someone else with China and test her teaching skills.*
> 
> The passage marked in red (above) is completely incomprehensible. If it is intended to convey a further protraction of the dispute, this time on a belligerent basis by India, it is difficult to consider a worse scenario from the Indian point of view.



The half baked chip (Technically incorrect) has played well. 

The proof of pie is in eating, rest is futile, the earth is round, so this discussion.

One can go in many length and use this thread as an excuse to learn heaps but to me China's recent effort to not issue stapled visa to Kashmiris (if true) is a sign and part and parcel of the same diplomatic effort India has done so far. 

Whatever the status of Tibet and Tibetans in India may be, the textbook Chinese concern (bluff) is win win situation for India. If India is going to be sensitive about Chinese concern then at the end of the thousands of Tibetans belong to China and is Chinese responsibility to accept them back, provide conducive atmosphere and rehabilitate (under comprehensive UN watch) or face repercussions (international community). China is not Afghanistan and is a thriving economy, why shouldn't they be ready to rehabilitate its citizens. 

I dare to ask Chinese poster out to accept this responsibility before ranting Govt. in exile blah blah blah.


----------



## Developereo

faithfulguy said:


> Both India, Napal, and Pakistan are successor states of the South Asian civilization that all South Asian countries can lay claim to. As I mentioned previously, the current nation boundaries were created by the British empire. As matter in fact, I think the difference between Napal and the Ganges valley is the difference between that of macedonia and Peloponnesian peninsula



Correct.

When we say 'Indian civilization' we are using the adjective in the ancient, sloppy usage. Joe is the historian here but I always understood that, in antiquity, the word India was used as a sloppy shorthand for 'the lands of the Indus and beyond'. Kind of like the word 'the Orient'.

The periods when these lands comprised a single political entity were few and far between.


----------



## faithfulguy

newdelhinsa said:


> The half baked chip (Technically incorrect) has played well.
> 
> The proof of pie is in eating, rest is futile, the earth is round, so this discussion.
> 
> One can go in many length and use this thread as an excuse to learn heaps but to me China's recent effort to not issue stapled visa to Kashmiris (if true) is a sign and part and parcel of the same diplomatic effort India has done so far.
> 
> Whatever the status of Tibet and Tibetans in India may be, the textbook Chinese concern (bluff) is win win situation for India. If India is going to be sensitive about Chinese concern then at the end of the thousands of Tibetans belong to China and is Chinese responsibility to accept them back, provide conducive atmosphere and rehabilitate (under comprehensive UN watch) or face repercussions (international community). China is not Afghanistan and is a thriving economy, why shouldn't they be ready to rehabilitate its citizens.
> 
> I dare to ask Chinese poster out to accept this responsibility before ranting Govt. in exile blah blah blah.



I am certain China would sort the people that is rehabitate and put the certain portion of it in the labor camp. So India will be the country condemn by the west if India repatriate them.


----------



## faithfulguy

Sohni Dharti said:


> Correct.
> 
> When we say 'Indian civilization' we are using the adjective in the ancient, sloppy usage. Joe is the historian here but I always understood that, in antiquity, the word India was used as a sloppy shorthand for 'the lands of the Indus and beyond'. Kind of like the word 'the Orient'.



I totally agree with you. Its a term created by Europeans to describe a land conquered by Alexander the Great. Subsequent European nations use India in this sense. So India is a totally European created term and country. As India is the Hindu part of the partition and Pakistan (East and West) the Muslim part of the partition. Both India and Pakistan are equal in term of history. So its not correct to say that Pakistan break away from India as the nation of India came into being the same time as Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

faithfulguy said:


> I totally agree with you. Its a term created by Europeans to describe a land conquered by Alexander the Great. Subsequent European nations use India in this sense. So India is a totally European created term and country. As India is the Hindu part of the partition and Pakistan (East and West) the Muslim part of the partition. Both India and Pakistan are equal in term of history. So its not correct to say that Pakistan break away from India as the nation of India came into being the same time as Pakistan.



Just to bring it back to topic, and before the Indians step in, let me just acknowledge pre-emptively that modern Hinduism is probably the largest torch holder of that ancient civilization. Therefore, Indians can legitimately claim that 'their' civilization goes back thousands of years.


----------



## indushek

faithfulguy said:


> I totally agree with you. Its a term created by Europeans to describe a land conquered by Alexander the Great. Subsequent European nations use India in this sense. So India is a totally European created term and country. *As India is the Hindu part of the partition and Pakistan (East and West) the Muslim part of the partition.* Both India and Pakistan are equal in term of history. So its not correct to say that Pakistan break away from India as the nation of India came into being the same time as Pakistan.



This history thing has been discussed so many times here. But i couldn't resist from commenting on the bolded part up there,  India has large number of Muslims and Christians other than Hindus when it broke away, this is not a breakage of Hindu part and Muslim part as u put it. 

I will ask u to go back and read the history books so that u can either refresh or learn about it more.


----------



## Developereo

indushek said:


> This history thing has been discussed so many times here. But i couldn't resist from commenting on the bolded part up there,  India has large number of Muslims and Christians other than Hindus when it broke away, this is not a breakage of Hindu part and Muslim part as u put it.
> 
> I will ask u to go back and read the history books so that u can either refresh or learn about it more.



India is the collection of majority Hindu provinces, and Pakistan/Bangladesh is the collection of majority Muslim provinces.

Happy chappy?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ps80

Joe Shearer said:


> In a nutshell, without going into a detailed narrative of the number of times met, the places and the personnel concerned, it might be said that the history of India-China talks on the border dispute after 1962 is a story of missed opportunities.
> 
> Throughout the 70s through the 90s, the PRC side was more or less agreeable to a compromise solution where the Aksai Chin wilderness would be ceded to China permanently by India; on the other hand, Arunachal Pradesh would be permanently recognised by China as integral part of India.
> 
> India failed to take advantage of this very convenient solution. As has already been discussed, because of its arid and unpopulated nature, there is no Indian interest in Aksai Chin, while China finds it a convenient plain through which to run its strategic highway between Lanzhou and Xigatse. It is of vital strategic interest to China, of no strategic or cultural interest to India.
> 
> India also failed to take advantage of the flexibility of the Chinese position on Arunachal Pradesh, which is a legitimate area of Indian sovereignty, for a variety of reasons, vitiated only by lack of precision in defining boundaries and in identifying viable landmarks or topological divisions.
> 
> Arunachal Pradesh is inhabited by the following tribes, from west, the borders of Bhutan, to the east - the *Monpa*, the *Aka* or Hrusso, in two clans, the Kutsun and Kovatsun, the *Dafla *or Bangni or Ni, in two classes, the Gute and the Guchi, the *Apa Tani*, and the *Abor *or Adi, divided into Padam, Minyong, Pangi, Shimong and others. Further east than this is the large confederation of the *Mishmi*. In all cases, the names of the tribes have been used as commonly accepted by them; the alternative names that they call themselves have been indicated next to those.
> 
> None of these tribes are ethnically Tibetan, or even close, with the possible exception of the Monpas. In the case of the Monpas, it is the consensus of scholars, mainly the British, that they are closely allied to the eastern Bhutanese and any influence of Tibetan culture is due to the dominance of the Tawang monastery and its former feudal grip over this tribe.
> 
> In all other cases, there is greater affinity with tribes living south of the Brahmaputra than with the Tibetans. There are no cultural similarities, and the spread of Buddhism is not uniform here, as it was north of the Himalayas, or even to the west, in Bhutan. Even the residual matter of their folk-memories of migration has been handled academically by the great Christoph von Fuehrer-Haimendorff: ..._these memories can only relate to the last stages of a population movement which may well have changed its course more than once._"
> 
> Further proof of their distinction from Tibetans comes from Bailey, discoverer of the Bailey Trail which the PLA used with such devastating effect to achieve complete tactical surprise in 1962, who said, writing about the term _lopa_ used by the Tibetans for these southern tribesmen,"_The term Lopa meant to the Tibetans what barbarian meant to the Greeks_..."
> 
> Quite clearly, we should have come to terms with the PRC while they were favourably inclined to deal with the matter on conditions that were perfectly acceptable and coincided with the primary interests of the two sides. Unfortunately, the dilatory nature of bureaucratic decision-making on the Indian side, and the huge difficulties constituted by political fear, by both major national parties, the Congress and the BJP, of acceptance of cession of land by India to China, (leaving aside the constitutional difficulty of this step, which probably requires an amendment to the constitution) stood in the way of a solution.
> 
> Today, these favourable conditions for a peace no longer exist. China has now some medium-term reasons to delay a settlement, as it causes tension and anxiety within Indian decision-making circles. There is clearly a distinction between the authority with which Mao and Deng chaired the Military Commission, and that which their successors brought to the same position. There was a marked difference between the veterancs of the Long March and their followers. As a result, today the PLA as well as the PLA AF and the PLAN have a far more aggressive attitude towards neighbouring countries than does the Foreign Ministry.
> 
> It is my personal evaluation that we may have to wait for the successor of Hu Jin Tao, the successor being a man with some authority among the military circles himself, greater than the influence of HU, or even for an efflux of time until China is markedly ahead of India in all metrics, for a lasting peace to be settled, and for boundaries to be settled.
> 
> *I hope you found this note useful*.



Very useful and informative, indeed. Thanks.

I am disappointed, not at your views on the issue, but the missed opportunities that we could have used to resolve this dispute. 

If I understand your views correctly, and please correct me if I get it wrong, the current dispute is mainly over the two areas - AP and Aksai Chin. I think Aksai Chin is already under Chinese control, so it's AP that is the main subject of ongoing discussions between the two sides. Do you think that there is still any dispute over Sikkim?


----------



## CardSharp

ps80 said:


> Very useful and informative, indeed. Thanks.
> 
> I am disappointed, not at your views on the issue, but the missed opportunities that we could have used to resolve this dispute.
> 
> If I understand your views correctly, and please correct me if I get it wrong, the current dispute is mainly over the two areas - AP and Aksai Chin. I think Aksai Chin is already under Chinese control, so it's AP that is the main subject of ongoing discussions between the two sides. Do you think that there is still any dispute over Sikkim?



No Sikkim has been recognized by the PRC.


----------



## ps80

CardSharp said:


> No Sikkim has been recognized by the PRC.



OK..then a potential solution, in my view, is to accept the _status quo_. Is it not acceptable to both sides?


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

ps80 said:


> OK..then a potential solution, in my view, is to accept the _status quo_. Is it not acceptable to both sides?



As Joe Shearer said, it has been offered before.

I don't think it will work now, considering the ratcheting up of nationalism on both sides over the issue. The time has come and passed.


----------



## CardSharp

ps80 said:


> OK..then a potential solution, in my view, is to accept the _status quo_. Is it not acceptable to both sides?



Well the situation is as Joe described. If you read it carefully it will say why a status quo solution is still not feasible.


----------



## dataminer123

Joe Shearer said:


> India failed to take advantage of this very convenient solution. As has already been discussed, because of its arid and unpopulated nature, there is no Indian interest in Aksai Chin, *while China finds it a convenient plain through which to run its strategic highway between Lanzhou and Xigatse.* It is of vital strategic interest to China, of no strategic or cultural interest to India.



Joe, i guess you must mistake cities Lanzhou or Xigatse. Strategic highway of these two cities cannot be run through Aksai Chin if you don't want take extra thousand miles of detour.

The highway between Xinjiang and Tibet has to pass through this area


----------



## Joe Shearer

dataminer123 said:


> Joe, i guess you must mistake cities Lanzhou or Xigatse. Strategic highway of these two cities cannot be run through Aksai Chin if you don't want take extra thousand miles of detour.
> 
> The highway between Xinjiang and Tibet has to pass through this area



I am terribly sorry. That should have been reported as "between Xinjiang in the Lanzhou Military Region and Lhaze in the Xigatse area of Tibet." Lhaze is a small town in Xigatse region, and not to be confused with Lhasa. If possible, it would have made things clear to map the National Highway 219, which runs through the following:

Kargilik, Xinjiang 0
Rutog, Tibet 994
Gar County, Tibet 1111
Tingkye, Tibet 1829
Saga County, Tibet 2035
Ngamring, Tibet 2282
Lhaze, Tibet 2342

Thanks to Dataminer for spotting this howler. 

I wonder if somebody can help with a map of the road.


----------



## KS

ps80 said:


> OK..then a potential solution, in my view, is to accept the _status quo_. Is it not acceptable to both sides?



Not a potential solution ; but the _only_ conceivable solution IMHO.


----------



## Joe Shearer

CardSharp said:


> Wow thanks, your knowledge on stuff like continues to astonish and indeed is a sad story.
> 
> As a follow up can you elaborate on "China's medium-term reasons to delay a settlement, as it causes tension and anxiety within Indian decision-making circles. "?



The assumption here is that the more aggressive, the military faction within the PrC leadership, is motivated to reduce the Indian leadership to a humiliated, bewildered and indecisive state, incapable of taking any actions that challenge China's complete freedom of action within Asia. 

It is clear that if such a faction exists, and its existence is as yet a matter of conjecture, it will have a wide range of options at its disposal to achieve its ends. While a brief armed conflict, of short duration, begun and ended by the PLA according to its own timetable, is at one end of the spectrum of action, the violent end, there are other options. Threatening moves at the borders, for instance, by Chinese border guards threatening Indian contractors working on local infrastructural projects (road-works, for instance), would be one option. Other possibilities are

Replacement of border markers, or their displacement to indicate a greater extent of territory held than actually the case;
Military manoeuvres near the borders;
Construction of infrastructural works in combination with neighbouring countries, with a clear dual-use option;
Printing and publishing maps that uphold major territorial claims, and encouraging adoption of these maps by all international map-makers who can be influenced by the PRC;
Statements in publications, learned papers and the publication of expert analyses proclaiming the existing border disputes to be serious in nature and violently expressed sentiments at international seminars;
It is possible that while Chinese supremacy in Asia is still in doubt, that is, for a period of another ten to fifteen years, while the economic, international and military gaps widen increasingly, this kind of pressure tactic will be used to unsettle the Indian decision-making apparatus. 

It is likely to be combined with warm and fraternal exchanges of a cultural, sporting and people-to-people kind, which will thoroughly confuse the opposing leadership, and which will create a 'peace' constituency within India to oppose any hard stand or overt resistance to China.

The general effect will be to enhance and strengthen the divided nature of a democratic polity, and to keep the services and administration completely bewildered over the intentions of the Chinese leadership. Such a situation will inevitably lead to lack of long-term planning, lack of short-term responses and a generally ad-hoc incoherent foreign policy which fails to build any confidence in India's capability to offer leadership to Asia.

It will be of interest to see if any of these factors are perceived to exist today by various members of the forum, and if they are so perceived, is it the opinion of those members that these events are concerted centrally?


----------



## HongWu

Joe Shearer said:


> The assumption here is that the more aggressive, the military faction within the PrC leadership, is motivated to reduce the Indian leadership to a humiliated, bewildered and indecisive state, incapable of taking any actions that challenge China's complete freedom of action within Asia.


Surely India brought its fate on itself. It refused to recognize the future supremacy of China in East Asia early on like, for example, its neighbor Pakistan did. India keeps pretending that it is a superpower going to challenge China.... LOL.

If India surrenders all its imperial territory (including Kashmir) then maybe it can have a good strategic relationship with China. Until then, India is merely another adversary to be defeated by China's economic and military might!!



Joe Shearer said:


> It is likely to be combined with warm and fraternal exchanges of a cultural, sporting and people-to-people kind, which will thoroughly confuse the opposing leadership, and which will create a 'peace' constituency within India to oppose any hard stand or overt resistance to China.
> 
> The general effect will be to enhance and strengthen the divided nature of a democratic polity, and to keep the services and administration completely bewildered over the intentions of the Chinese leadership. Such a situation will inevitably lead to lack of long-term planning, lack of short-term responses and a generally ad-hoc incoherent foreign policy which fails to build any confidence in India's capability to offer leadership to Asia.


Not likely. India is clearly preparing for war along the border. It's already militarizing the LOC with mountain troops and buying advanced western weapons like M777 light howitzer to try to counter Chinese firepower.

Indian government is never confused about its own expansionist intentions. Indian government is confused, however, about China's capability to quickly overwhelm India with firepower.


----------



## Masterchief

@hongwu: why the hell should we look china as our superior, your rants of nuking india, wet dreams of war between china and india have reached the horizon troll, do not derail the topic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HongWu

Masterchief said:


> @hongwu: why the hell should we look china as our superior, your rants of nuking india, wet dreams of war between china and india have reached the horizon troll, do not derail the topic.


We are talking about Indo-China relations including territorial disputes and competition to be #1 Asian superpower. These relations can be peaceful, tense or hostile. 

You seem to forget there was already a war in 1962 over these territories. So how can it be off-topic? The only question is whether there will be a rematch.

Recognizing China's supremacy in East Asia would bring peace to South Asia. Trying to challenge China's supremacy in East Asia and conspiring with USA to pull China down to India's level will only bring sorrow to India.


----------



## ksgokul

Joe Shearer said:


> It is likely to be combined with warm and fraternal exchanges of a cultural, sporting and people-to-people kind, which will thoroughly confuse the opposing leadership, and which will create a 'peace' constituency within India to oppose any hard stand or overt resistance to China.



Sir,
I have a question here. While i may perceive this, can't we not assume that there may be two factions inside China - one preferring peace and other preferring otherwise. 

Thanks.


----------



## Rig Vedic

HongWu said:


> Recognizing China's supremacy in East Asia would bring peace to South Asia. Trying to challenge China's supremacy in East Asia and conspiring with USA to pull China down to India's level will only bring sorrow to India.


Don't you want supremacy over South Asia also?


----------



## chinapakistan

ksgokul said:


> Sir,
> I have a question here. While i may perceive this, can't we not assume that there may be two factions inside China - one preferring peace and other preferring otherwise.
> 
> Thanks.



Not only inside china, these two factions are inside every country.


----------



## HongWu

Rig Vedic said:


> Don't you want supremacy over South Asia also?


Nah..... we are not overly concerned with South Asia but we will not tolerate a hostile power in South Asia threatening Chinese interests like Tibet.


----------



## Rig Vedic

HongWu said:


> Nah..... we are not overly concerned with South Asia but we will not tolerate a hostile power in South Asia threatening Chinese interests like Tibet.



So what will be the consequences if Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh are red lines for India?


----------



## RoYaL~GuJJaR

HongWu said:


> Nah..... we are not overly concerned with South Asia but we will not tolerate a hostile power in South Asia threatening Chinese interests like Tibet.



*If you poke ur nose in kashmir issue then it is bound to happen or India will get forced to re-think about it stand over Tibet..!

So, better way is to respect each others core concerns rather then pinching India.

It will be the best in intrest of both nations...*


----------



## Joe Shearer

ksgokul said:


> Sir,
> I have a question here. While i may perceive this, can't we not assume that there may be two factions inside China - one preferring peace and other preferring otherwise.
> 
> Thanks.





chinapakistan said:


> Not only inside china, these two factions are inside every country.



Precisely.

Look at the number of Indians who want a bloody confrontation - with China, with Pakistan, with Bangladesh. It isn't funny, and what makes it even less funny is that there are weirdos on the other side in each case who think the same way.


----------



## HongWu

Rig Vedic said:


> So what will be the consequences if Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh are red lines for India?


There cannot be two tigers on the same mountain! China will likely showdown with India again, just like 1962.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/86894-second-indo-chinese-war-2013-2015-a.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RoYaL~GuJJaR

HongWu said:


> There cannot be two tigers on the same mountain! China will likely showdown with India again, just like 1962.
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/86894-second-indo-chinese-war-2013-2015-a.html



*Bringing 1962 into every post?? Lols..That happen half a century ago 50 years..!! And India was a new born nation at that time with no economy and organised military..Defeting a Nation which got independen merely 10 years ago(1962 war) and chest thumping over it?? Lols....Atleast we lost a war with a nation almost 3 times the size of our's...Atleast we didnt got massacred by a tiny nation..!! 

Thank god!! 

But this is'nt 1962..! And if you people are despreate for WAR!! Then bring it on..! I am sure all those dreams about becaming a super power will get vanish in drain..! Be it in 2011 or 2015..!
*


----------



## Joe Shearer

HongWu said:


> There cannot be two tigers on the same mountain! China will likely showdown with India again, just like 1962.
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/86894-second-indo-chinese-war-2013-2015-a.html





B_R_I_C said:


> *Bringing 1962 into every post?? Lols..That happen half a century ago 50 years..!! And India was a new born nation at that time with no economy and organised military..Defeting a Nation which got independen merely 10 years ago(1962 war) and chest thumping over it?? Lols....Atleast we lost a war with a nation almost 3 times the size of our's...Atleast we didnt got massacred by a tiny nation..!!
> 
> Thank god!!
> 
> But this is'nt 1962..! And if you people are despreate for WAR!! Then bring it on..! I am sure all those dreams about becaming a super power will get vanish in drain..! Be it in 2011 or 2015..!
> *



@ksgokul: QED.
@chinapakistan: thanks for the clarity of your response.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Dataminer,

If you are on line at the moment, could you help me with my earlier map query? Much obliged.

Regards,


----------



## ksgokul

Joe Shearer said:


> @ksgokul: QED.


Sir,
I think that would be the result, whenever we have one or both the parties involved in a discussion start to do just propaganda and really are not interested in a conversation. I am really surprised when i see you replying to him. I always remember the saying

"Dont argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Thanks.


----------



## ksgokul

Joe Shearer said:


> Dataminer,
> 
> If you are on line at the moment, could you help me with my earlier map query? Much obliged.
> 
> Regards,



Sir,
This is confirming to your statement.
China National Highway 219 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

ksgokul said:


> Sir,
> I think that would be the result, whenever we have one or both the parties involved in a discussion start to do just propaganda and really are not interested in a conversation. I am really surprised when i see you replying to him. I always remember the saying
> 
> "Dont argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
> 
> Thanks.





Replying to whom? Normally I keep away from trolls. There is one whom the Chinese members want us to avoid; I avoid him religiously. There are some Chinese members who react badly to improper discussions but are very interesting on a logical, rational plane, and are a pleasure to talk to. Most of them are like this. So, too, with every other nationality: one or two or a few more lunatics, the vast majority prone to lose their tempers, but good to talk to at a rational plane.

Don't you find this the situation?


----------



## ksgokul

[/QUOTE]
There are some Chinese members who react badly to improper discussions but are very interesting on a logical, rational plane, and are a pleasure to talk to. Most of them are like this. So, too, with every other nationality: one or two or a few more lunatics, the vast majority prone to lose their tempers, but good to talk to at a rational plane.
Don't you find this the situation?[/QUOTE]

Sir,

I would agree to that. But i have been impressed only by a few conversations like the one you had with CardSharp in "Concentrating Forces..", where people coolly discuss their views and being useful for everyone to read and rethink what they have learnt. But i have gone and read almost all of your messages and gained atleast 10-20% of your insights.

Thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

There are some Chinese members who react badly to improper discussions but are very interesting on a logical, rational plane, and are a pleasure to talk to. Most of them are like this. So, too, with every other nationality: one or two or a few more lunatics, the vast majority prone to lose their tempers, but good to talk to at a rational plane.
Don't you find this the situation?[/QUOTE]

Sir,

I would agree to that. But i have been impressed only by a few conversations like the one you had with CardSharp in "Concentrating Forces..", where people coolly discuss their views and being useful for everyone to read and rethink what they have learnt. But i have gone and read almost all of your messages and gained atleast 10-20% of your insights.

Thanks.[/QUOTE]

What can I say to such a post but a very humble 'Thank You'? I notice that CardSharp has also acknowledged your post and your kind words, as is quite in line with what we have come to expect from him.

On the other hand, I must caution you against writing off some other excellent contributors among the Chinese members. The thing is that if I were to name them, it would amount to setting up a bathing beauty contest among them, and it is certain that they would then collectively kill me! But do look for what I have found, a calm, rational, logical view of things, among very many of our friends bearing Chinese flags.

Since you are celebrity-spotting, look out for Alternative; he is more than my match, and has a breath-taking spread of knowledge and information. He is busy skewering me on another thread even as we speak.


----------



## kishana

Hey! Dear
It was china which backstabbed
and Tibet was forcefully occupied by Chinese
Nehru did not allow the use of airforce or neither deployed forces on border
that was more than a proof 
that he stupidly trusted Chinese who are a shame to be a Buddhist nation.

I don't know what the people of chinese are on this dispute
but for sure as we have seen so far chinese are all about deceit and not trustworthy.

And now there is no bhai bhai philosphy
Just one thing cheer denge


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

kishana said:


> *chinese are all about deceit and not trustworthy.*



LOL okay sure, whatever you say.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Peshwa

Bombensturm said:


> Unlike France China didn't come entirely under Axis occupation.
> 
> And Chinese do have a surrender document.
> 
> Second Sino-Japanese War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Bombensturm...

The surrender of the Japanese was a result of the American nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that led to the collapse of Japan. 

The instrument of surrender was initiatied by the Americans under McArthur who instructed the Japanese to surrender to China....
Chinese "victories" as claimed by certain members here were NOT the reason for the Japanese collapse...in fact far from it....
The same has been clearly mentioned in your source as well...

NOTE: I would like to clarify my position that I am completely disgusted by the Japanese offensive in China and in fact laud the Chinese resistance in the face of Japanese brutality.

However, crediting China as a victor here would be wrong in the face of unequal losses faced by them and having lost their entire eastern seabord and some of their best divisions to the Japanese...Had America not dropped the bomb, China was bound to fall


Anyways.....My response was meant to quiet one Chinese poster a Mr.Hongwu.. In the Sino-Chinese war, I am on the side of China since they supported our cause against the British as well...

Nevertheless, I see the Chinese members here are equally nationalistic as the Indians.....something they often accuse us of....


----------



## gubbi

This is one of the most interesting threads on the forum, except hoping that it doesnt get to be a troll fest what with an absolute idiot on the loose.

Thanks to Joe, you are indeed an ocean of knowledge. Interesting insight into the Indo-China talks.



Joe Shearer said:


> India failed to take advantage of this very convenient solution. As has already been discussed, because of its arid and unpopulated nature, there is no Indian interest in Aksai Chin, while China finds it a convenient plain through which to run its strategic highway between Lanzhou and Xigatse. It is of vital strategic interest to China, of no strategic or cultural interest to India.
> 
> India also failed to take advantage of the flexibility of the Chinese position on Arunachal Pradesh, which is a legitimate area of Indian sovereignty, for a variety of reasons, vitiated only by lack of precision in defining boundaries and in identifying viable landmarks or topological divisions.


It would be interesting to understand the psyche of Indian diplomats when this kind of offer was made by the Chinese. 
Was it because of Pakistan centric doctrines that we then followed, and not being able to foresee our own rise?
Why did those diplomats then consider a barren piece of Jammu & Kashmir more important than securing borders in Arunachal Pradesh?
Or was it plain arrogance?



> Unfortunately, the dilatory nature of bureaucratic decision-making on the Indian side, and the huge difficulties constituted by political fear, by both major national parties, the Congress and the BJP, of acceptance of cession of land by India to China, (leaving aside the constitutional difficulty of this step, which probably requires an amendment to the constitution) stood in the way of a solution.


How is the decision making process today different, if any, from that being followed then?


> As a result, today the PLA as well as the PLA AF and the PLAN have a far more aggressive attitude towards neighbouring countries than does the Foreign Ministry.


Are you implying that there is a possibility of rise of multiple blocks of power in China, a la Pakistan? Isnt the PLA firmly under the control of the CPC?


> It is my personal evaluation that we may have to wait for the successor of Hu Jin Tao, the successor being a man with some authority among the military circles himself, greater than the influence of HU, or even for an efflux of time until China is markedly ahead of India in all metrics, for a lasting peace to be settled, and for boundaries to be settled.


Hu's successor is most probably going to be *Xi Jinping* - some say he's a hawk, while others say he is very pragmatic. Whats you opinion and how would he influence Indo-China talks?


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

gubbi said:


> Are you implying that there is a possibility of rise of multiple blocks of power in China, a la Pakistan? Isnt the PLA firmly under the control of the CPC?



The PLA is the military arm of the CPC.

All authority ultimately derives from the Politburo Standing Committee, i.e. from civilian leaders.

For example, Hu Jintao is the Paramount leader of China, and he is ALSO the head of the Central Military Commission.

There may be different factions "vying for influence" within the party itself, but at the end of the day, everyone answers to the Politburo.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

Veeru said:


> Its very silly statement because Tibet is an independent country under illigal chinese occupation by force and Taiwan is a seprate country.
> 
> But Kashmir is legally and rightfully belongs to India.



Thats because you are Ignorant about virtually everything

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Brotherhood

Peshwa said:


> Bombensturm...
> 
> The surrender of the Japanese was a result of the American nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that led to the collapse of Japan.
> 
> The instrument of surrender was initiatied by the Americans under McArthur who instructed the Japanese to surrender to China....
> Chinese "victories" as claimed by certain members here were NOT the reason for the Japanese collapse...in fact far from it....
> The same has been clearly mentioned in your source as well...
> 
> NOTE: I would like to clarify my position that I am completely disgusted by the Japanese offensive in China and in fact laud the Chinese resistance in the face of Japanese brutality.
> 
> However, crediting China as a victor here would be wrong in the face of unequal losses faced by them and having lost their entire eastern seabord and some of their best divisions to the Japanese...Had America not dropped the bomb, China was bound to fall
> 
> 
> Anyways.....My response was meant to quiet one Chinese poster a Mr.Hongwu.. In the Sino-Chinese war, I am on the side of China since they supported our cause against the British as well...
> 
> Nevertheless, I see the Chinese members here are equally nationalistic as the Indians.....something they often accuse us of....




You can keep degrading the Chinese contribution in WW2 regarding the defeat of the Japanese but history doesn't lie...









*Franklin Roosevelt:"Had China not been fighting, or had China been defeated, how many Japanese troops do you think would then be deployed..." View More>>*




*Winston Churchill: "If the Japanese attack the West Indian Ocean, all our positions in the Middle East will be lost. Only China can help us..."
View More>> *




*Joseph Stalin: "Only when the Japanese invaders´ hands and feet are tied up, can we avoid fighting on two fronts simultaneously..."
View More>>*




*J.F.C. Fuller: "China´s fight against the Japanese aggression had a great impact on the course and outcome of World War II..."
View More>>*

65th Anniversary of Victory in War against Japan - Japan surrender- world war two - 65th anniversary - CCTV-News - CNTV-English

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Peshwa

Brotherhood said:


> You can keep degrading the Chinese contribution in WW2 regarding the defeat of the Japanese but history doesn't lie...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Franklin Roosevelt:"Had China not been fighting, or had China been defeated, how many Japanese troops do you think would then be deployed..." View More>>*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Winston Churchill: "If the Japanese attack the West Indian Ocean, all our positions in the Middle East will be lost. Only China can help us..."
> View More>> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Joseph Stalin: "Only when the Japanese invaders´ hands and feet are tied up, can we avoid fighting on two fronts simultaneously..."
> View More>>*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *J.F.C. Fuller: "China´s fight against the Japanese aggression had a great impact on the course and outcome of World War II..."
> View More>>*
> 
> 65th Anniversary of Victory in War against Japan - Japan surrender- world war two - 65th anniversary - CCTV-News - CNTV-English



Im sure you're aware of the fact that the allies wanted to use Chinese manpower to defend their own assets (airfields, supply routes) in Indo-China, Burma and India in particular...

Besides....other than quotes, do you have any evidence that the fall of Japan is attributed to Chinese victory and not America dropping the bomb on Japan that led to its collapse?

PS: No one has degraded Chinese contribution in WW2....I have clearly stated my position with regards to the same. 
Though it seems you have a hard time digesting that Chinese were not victors in this endeavour...at least not on their own merit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Peshwa said:


> Besides....other than quotes, do you have any evidence that the fall of Japan is attributed to Chinese victory and not America dropping the bomb on Japan that led to its collapse?



Nobody claimed that.

That is a strawman argument.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CardSharp

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Nobody claimed that.
> 
> Strawman argument.



Drop it, let's not let him derail the thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Peshwa said:


> Im sure you're aware of the fact that the allies wanted to use Chinese manpower to defend their own assets (airfields, supply routes) in Indo-China, Burma and India in particular...
> 
> Besides....other than quotes, do you have any evidence that the fall of Japan is attributed to Chinese victory and not America dropping the bomb on Japan that led to its collapse?
> 
> PS: No one has degraded Chinese contribution in WW2....I have clearly stated my position with regards to the same.
> Though it seems you have a hard time digesting that Chinese were not victors in this endeavour...at least not on their own merit.



First you say that we were not victors in the second Sino-Japanese war, which is BS, we have an instrument of surrender from Japan.

Then you say our fight against the Japanese had no merit. 

As Cardsharp said, there is no point derailing the thread further, so don't expect any further replies.


----------



## Brotherhood

Peshwa said:


> Im sure you're aware of the fact that the allies wanted to use Chinese manpower to defend their own assets (airfields, supply routes) in Indo-China, Burma and India in particular...
> 
> Besides....other than quotes, do you have any evidence that the fall of Japan is attributed to Chinese victory and not America dropping the bomb on Japan that led to its collapse?



At least i don't just talk with my mouth only, but with "historial quotes" from the most important Leaders of allies against the Japanese in WW2 and you? speculation for the sake of...?
BTW, do you have any evidence that China will fall without US nuking Japan other than your words?


----------



## Peshwa

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Nobody claimed that.



Mr.Hongwu did....

I clearly mentioned that the statement that led to the Chinese members jumping in was to shut Mr.HongWu up....

And my responses have been to the same....read below.



> Wrong. China never surrendered and in fact it was Japanese Empire that surrendered personally to Generalissimo Chiang Kai Shek. *The Japanese Imperial Army was defeated by Chinese troops by 1945* and then finished off by Soviet troops. The US also offered Okinawa / Ryukyu Islands to China, but China refused.
> 
> It was the subsequent civil war and cold war that lead to China becoming weaker



I am completely fine with dropping the topic in the interest of the thread....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CardSharp

gubbi said:


> This is one of the most interesting threads on the forum, *except hoping that it doesnt get to be a troll fest what with an absolute idiot on the loose*.



I agree.




gubbi said:


> It would be interesting to understand the psyche of Indian diplomats when this kind of offer was made by the Chinese.
> Was it because of Pakistan centric doctrines that we then followed, and not being able to foresee our own rise?
> Why did those diplomats then consider a barren piece of Jammu & Kashmir more important than securing borders in Arunachal Pradesh?
> Or was it plain arrogance?



I think the offer was rejected for two different reason, one before 1962 another after 1962. 

Before 1962 it was a case of Nehru wanting to lay claim to British colonial borders, he thought more or less, if he can delay a settlement, the Chinese would give up and he'd able to take Aksai Chin and AP. (also one should consider the jublient mood after Goa annexation and how the public reacted after Nehru declared PLA troops on Indian Territory) 

After 1962, I think the Indian government was uncertain as to what to do, it felt its own security severely compromised. To admit any concessions, would have been act that could have further jeopardized Indian security and would be disastrous politically by either party (something Joe mentioned)


----------



## LaBong

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Nobody claimed that.
> 
> That is a strawman argument.



I think the weird Chinese kid claimed China as a victor of WW2, and Peshwa trying to make people understand China was not a victor in it's truest sense. 

Anyway we can count out most of things Mr Hong say keeping in mind his premature exposure to Internet.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CardSharp

Read between the lines please. 


> Chinese-Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody claimed that.Mr.Hongwu did....
> 
> I clearly mentioned that the statement that led to the Chinese members jumping in was to shut Mr.HongWu up....
> 
> And my responses have been to the same....read below.
> 
> Quote:
> Wrong. China never surrendered and in fact it was Japanese Empire that surrendered personally to Generalissimo Chiang Kai Shek. The Japanese Imperial Army was defeated by Chinese troops by 1945 and then finished off by Soviet troops. The US also offered Okinawa / Ryukyu Islands to China, but China refused.
> 
> It was the subsequent civil war and cold war that lead to China becoming weaker
> I am completely fine with dropping the topic in the interest of the thread..
Click to expand...


He said "defeated then finished off by the Soviets". This should have been a clue if you knew history. He obviously meant the IJA was defeated* In China* by the KMT and PLA, because China is the only theatre in which Soviet troops came into contact with the Japanese.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Peshwa said:


> I clearly mentioned that the statement that led to the Chinese members jumping in was to shut Mr.HongWu up....
> 
> And my responses have been to the same....read below.



If you have a problem with Mr Hongwu then feel free to send him a private message, and argue over the point he made. However he didn't actually say that Japan was defeated SOLELY by the Chinese at any point, and Cardsharp has explained the rest.

I do take offense at you saying that firstly Chinese were not the victors in the second Sino-Japanese war (BS), and further that we somehow lacked merit.

Like I said in the other thread about Japanese war atrocities, I don't expect any Indians to sympathize with us, and I have only seen them mentioning it when they are trying to "get at us" for one reason or another.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Peshwa

Chinese-Dragon said:


> First you say that we were not victors in the second Sino-Japanese war, which is BS, we have an instrument of surrender from Japan.
> 
> Then you say our fight against the Japanese had no merit.
> 
> As Cardsharp said, there is no point derailing the thread further, so don't expect any further replies.



I have clearly stated my position in my reply to Bombenstrum......

If you think any of the facts I have mentioned there are wrong...please correct me with the necessary information you have. I am here to learn

Besides, I didnt invite you into this conversation to begin with. So will not miss your response.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CardSharp

Peshwa said:


> I have clearly stated my position in my reply to Bombenstrum......
> 
> If you think any of the facts I have mentioned there are wrong...please correct me with the necessary information you have. I am here to learn
> 
> Besides, I didnt invite you into this conversation to begin with. So will not miss your response.



Fine, you are entitled to your opinion now can we drop it?


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Now back to the ACTUAL topic of the thread: 

(Anyone who wants to talk about the second Sino-Japanese war is free to start a new thread)



CardSharp said:


> I think the offer was rejected for two different reason, one before 1962 another after 1962.
> 
> Before 1962 it was a case of Nehru wanting to lay claim to British colonial borders, he thought more or less, if he can delay a settlement, the Chinese would give up and he'd able to take Aksai Chin and AP. (also one should consider the jublient mood after Goa annexation and how the public reacted after Nehru declared PLA troops on Indian Territory)
> 
> After 1962, I think the Indian government was uncertain as to what to do, it felt its own security severely compromised. To admit any concessions, would have been act that could have further jeopardized Indian security and would be disastrous politically by either party (something Joe mentioned)



Do you think there is any scope for settling the borders nowadays? From what I gather, it doesn't look very likely, and that is probably an understatement.


----------



## huzihaidao12

If you can bundle other interests. . . . . . I think that might be better resolved.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CardSharp

gubbi said:


> -
> Was it because of Pakistan centric doctrines that we then followed, and not being able to foresee our own rise?




Gubbi I'd like to hear what you think about these two points affecting the talks.




gubbi said:


> How is the decision making process today different, if any, from that being followed then?



In my personal opinion this obstacle still exists. 





gubbi said:


> Are you implying that there is a possibility of rise of multiple blocks of power in China, a la Pakistan? Isnt the PLA firmly under the control of the CPC?


The Hawks don't all come out of the PLA. Refer to post #256 http://www.defence.pk/forums/1449983-post256.html




gubbi said:


> Hu's successor is most probably going to be *Xi Jinping* - some say he's a hawk, while others say he is very pragmatic. Whats you opinion and how would he influence Indo-China talks?



Unfortunately I think it doesn't matter who is in charge, the window on the Chinese side is closing, not least because the new more politically conscious middle class is unlikely to allow the government to give away land, they see as Chinese land. The major concessions made to the other 9 bordering countries during the early days of the Republic were possible because the Chinese people were not as politically minded (the way we think about politics).


----------



## huzihaidao12

Premier Wen said "the world has enough space to accommodate China&#8216;s development and India's development", it is true, however, on one condition. If China and India have enough trust and cooperation, it is true, otherwise. . . . . . 

The only problem may be the energy, however, if the energy problem, then the world will have terrible trouble, but not limited to China and India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CardSharp

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Now back to the ACTUAL topic of the thread:
> 
> (Anyone who wants to talk about the second Sino-Japanese war is free to start a new thread)
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think there is any scope for settling the borders nowadays? From what I gather, it doesn't look very likely, and that is probably an understatement.



Time is kind of running out. As public pressure matters more and more (the ironies of a democratic China). The CCP's hands become more and more tied.




huzihaidao12 said:


> If you can bundle other interests. . . . . . I think that might be better resolved.



This is a possibility, if handing over land is a sensitive issue, concessions in others forms can happen on both sides to help the issue along.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

huzihaidao12 said:


> The only problem may be the energy, however, if the energy problem, then the world will have terrible trouble, but not limited to China and India.



You're right, if most of the developing countries, became developed countries, there would not be enough resources on Earth to sustain it. Not even close.

Which is why renewable energy is going to be so important for the future. China right now, is the number one producer of renewable energy in the world, but it still only makes up a small percentage of our energy needs.

I'm most worried about fresh water resources actually, we should borrow some of Singapore's world-beating "desalination" techniques.


----------



## huzihaidao12

If the energy problem, the world will become like hell, China and India will be only one problem.


----------



## Joe Shearer

I am amazed to see how much fun you guys have had on this thread, and am furious that so much of it was while I was away tending to my father in hospital. Terrible sneaky thing to do (having fun without me, I mean, not tending my father)!

But there are some excellent points starting from Gubbi's comments. About the Sino-Japanese War, as someone correctly pointed out, another war, another thread. I'm watching the comments come in fast and furious, and loving it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## huzihaidao12

Wish your father get better, JOE.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Peshwa

CardSharp said:


> He said "defeated then finished off by the Soviets". This should have been a clue if you knew history. He obviously meant the IJA was defeated* In China* by the KMT and PLA, because China is the only theatre in which Soviet troops came into contact with the Japanese.



May I remind you of my initial statement:



> China was as much a victor in WW2 as France



All the evidence I have provided is to support this statement.....Let me refresh:

1. Similar to France the eastern Chinese seaboard and Indo China was overrun by the Japanese. Unlike France which completely fell following which the allies jumped in, China had the help of allies well before the country fell to Japan which was an outcome that the allies feared was feasable causing them to jump in.

2. The instrument of surrender was not a result of the Chinese victory. Hongwu claimed that Chinese victory followed by the "clean up" by the Soviets lead to the defeat of the Japanese. Not true considering it was the japanese bombing by Americans that halted any further aggression in China. 
My argument here is, China may have won the battle against the Japanese, but NOT the war. feel free to diagree

3. Comparing Chinese losses to Japanese losses speaks a very different story. Rarely in history has a victor suffered more losses than its counterpart. 

Anyways. I have no interest in further escalating this. Your lot seems quite perturbed by my words. 

Consider this my POV and move on. You're free to interpret history as per your ideas and thinking. I obviously choose a different path.


----------



## CardSharp

Peshwa said:


> May I remind you of my initial statement:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence I have provided is to support this statement.....Let me refresh:
> 
> 1. Similar to France the eastern Chinese seaboard and Indo China was overrun by the Japanese. Unlike France which completely fell following which the allies jumped in, China had the help of allies well before the country fell to Japan which was an outcome that the allies feared was feasable causing them to jump in.
> 
> 2. The instrument of surrender was not a result of the Chinese victory. Hongwu claimed that Chinese victory followed by the "clean up" by the Soviets lead to the defeat of the Japanese. Not true considering it was the japanese bombing by Americans that halted any further aggression in China.
> My argument here is, China may have won the battle against the Japanese, but NOT the war. feel free to diagree
> 
> 3. Comparing Chinese losses to Japanese losses speaks a very different story. Rarely in history has a victor suffered more losses than its counterpart.
> 
> Anyways. I have no interest in further escalating this. Your lot seems quite perturbed by my words.
> 
> Consider this my POV and move on. You're free to interpret history as per your ideas and thinking. I obviously choose a different path.



Start another thread if you want to talk about it.


----------



## Joe Shearer

huzihaidao12 said:


> Wish your father get better, JOE.



Mikki nandri, Da. (Karthic, please do the honours).


----------



## Joe Shearer

huzihaidao12 said:


> Wish your father get better, JOE.



Thanks, guys, good of you to wish him well. He's 91, so these episodes will happen. Nothing to be done but be calm and get him well asap.

Wish I could tell you his stories of his Army liaison days in WWII on the Arakan front, in Cox's Bazaar.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CardSharp

Joe Shearer said:


> Mikki nandri, Da. (Karthic, please do the honours).



Don't keep us in suspense, I've tried to respond to Gubbi as best I can, Am waiting to hear your response.


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Peshwa said:


> 3. Comparing Chinese losses to Japanese losses speaks a very different story. Rarely in history has a victor suffered more losses than its counterpart.



What about Nazi Germany versus Soviet Russia?

Have you heard of the Battle of Stalingrad?



Peshwa said:


> Anyways. I have no interest in further escalating this. Your lot seems quite perturbed by my words.



I guessed you missed the thread on Japanese atrocities, in the world affairs forum.

Yes, Chinese people do get annoyed when Indians bring the Sino-Japanese war into a thread that has NOTHING to do with it, usually as a means of bashing Chinese people.

Peshwa, I doubt your intention was to bash us, since you're one of the more reasonable posters on this forum. But when Indians are always bringing up the Sino-Japanese war in threads where it is completely irrelevant, yes it will annoy people. This event was no laughing matter, it was a despicable crime against humanity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## huzihaidao12

Joe Shearer said:


> Thanks, guys, good of you to wish him well. He's 91, so these episodes will happen. Nothing to be done but be calm and get him well asap.
> 
> Wish I could tell you his stories of his Army liaison days in WWII on the Arakan front, in Cox's Bazaar.



Well, I hope to hear your story someday.


----------



## huzihaidao12

CardSharp said:


> Don't keep us in suspense, I've tried to respond to Gubbi as best I can, Am waiting to hear your response.



Yes, I would also like to know that any Indians&#65288;especially JOE&#65289; to understand what I mean? If so, please share your views, thank you.


----------



## Peshwa

Chinese-Dragon said:


> If you have a problem with Mr Hongwu then feel free to send him a private message, and argue over the point he made. However he didn't actually say that Japan was defeated SOLELY by the Chinese at any point, and Cardsharp has explained the rest.



Read my explanation to CardSharp.



> I do take offense at you saying that firstly Chinese were not the victors in the second Sino-Japanese war (BS), and further that we somehow lacked merit.



No offense intended. Nor should you feel offended.

I dont agree with your position on many things India-Pak, Indo-China or India in general....
But have never been offended by the same. I hope you look at this as a conversation between 2 adults.
As I mentioned earlier, I am here to learn. I have mentioned what I believe based on facts I have read. Instead of being mad at me and other Indians, maybe you can teach us what you know. 

I am sane enough to admit if Im wrong. But it has to come through evidence and debate, NOT because you believe what I say goes against your line of thinking.



> Like I said in the other thread about Japanese war atrocities, I don't expect any Indians to sympathize with us, and I have only seen them mentioning it when they are trying to "get at us" for one reason or another.



Deleted my earlier comment.

CD...I read your post to me. I agree this can be a sensitive topic. I apologize if I have hurt anyones feelings.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## huzihaidao12

War on Japan, you kids need to know more history, the Japanese army in China has been completely suppressed in 1945 by PLA.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Peshwa said:


> May I remind you of my initial statement:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence I have provided is to support this statement.....Let me refresh:
> 
> 1. Similar to France the eastern Chinese seaboard and Indo China was overrun by the Japanese. Unlike France which completely fell following which the allies jumped in, China had the help of allies well before the country fell to Japan which was an outcome that the allies feared was feasable causing them to jump in.Just curiousity; do you not feel that any credit was due to the Chinese forces for surviving the Japanese onslaught, so much more relentless and sanguinary than the Germans fighting the French? Surely if they had not resisted, and the country had fallen, we wouldn't have any cause to jump in.
> 
> More a case of jumping out, considering that in that case, the Japanese would have outflanked the British on the left flank, across the Sino-Burmese border?
> 
> 2. The instrument of surrender was not a result of the Chinese victory. Hongwu claimed that Chinese victory followed by the "clean up" by the Soviets lead to the defeat of the Japanese. Not true considering it was the japanese bombing by Americans that halted any further aggression in China. I can't comment with authority on this point without refreshing my memory, but I do remember this as something slightly different.
> 
> My argument here is, China may have won the battle against the Japanese, but NOT the war. feel free to diagree You got me here, pardner; I'm totally foxed.
> 
> 3. Comparing Chinese losses to Japanese losses speaks a very different story. Rarely in history has a victor suffered more losses than its counterpart. This is a truly disturbing thought. You couldn't possibly guess why, could you?
> 
> Anyways. I have no interest in further escalating this. Your lot seems quite perturbed by my words.
> 
> Consider this my POV and move on. You're free to interpret history as per your ideas and thinking. I obviously choose a different path.





CardSharp said:


> Start another thread if you want to talk about it.



@Peshwa

Not fair, in my opinion. Your original statement, which I accept at face value as intended to depict fact and not intended to denigrate or be offensive (you yourself having said the right things about the way in which the Chinese people suffered during the war), did hit a raw nerve. When I first read it, my instinct was to duck. And it did have the desired effect of making every Chinese poster think that it was a condescending comment intended to put down the efforts of the Chinese soldier during these linked wars.

If you want to make a genuine historical point, you really ought to do your research and launch a new thread. But it should be objective, and it should account for the fact that the PLA, within a short span from the end of the two wars, was able to chase the Allies around and around the mulberry bush. Obviously that battle-readiness must have come from somewhere; where?

Secondly, I hope you start the thread, because I personally have two radically different points of view about the KMT and about the PLA. On the one hand, we had a leader about whom it was said that "when left alone, he would immediately proceed to disappear over the nearest horizon," and on the other, we had a genuine military genius, one of the finest of the twentieth century, in my opinion comparable with any of the tank-meisters or combined ops wizards that the Europeans had, and matched in Asia only by the Japanese themselves, criminal though they were, and by General Giap. I know that it is extremely unlikely that we will get a chance to talk about that war which built today's PLA, but if such a thing happened, how fine it would be! for all of us.

It is sad that that part of the discussion took on overtones of nationalist rivalry, because it was in military history terms such an amazing period. For those who have read Mao 'On War', we cannot think of the Sino-Japanese War with pity and sympathy on the one hand, and with reverence for the military principles, so radically different from the European, yet so similar, bordering on the identical, on closer examination.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gubbi

CardSharp said:


> Gubbi I'd like to hear what you think about these two points affecting the talks.


By the beginning of 1960s, India already had two wars. The First Kashmir conflict being precipitated by Pakistani military incursions into what was then an independent princely state of Jammu and Kashmir and then again in 1961 with the liberation of Goa.

J&K was a problem. The Maharaja had signed the instrument of accession giving India control over whole of J&K. Ground realities were different - with Pakistan controlling 1/3rd of the state and the matter being discussed in UN. I think India was more concerned with consolidating borders with Pakistan, considering the painful and horrific partition of 1947. 

Secondly, with Nehru's NAM, the thinking was that no-one would attack us (Pakistan being an exception). Added to this was the "Hindi-Chini bahi-bhai" slogan. But as Joe had mentioned somewhere, IIRC, Nehru's forward policy precipitated the conflict of 1962. I do not understand the logic of that policy. 

I guess it had to do with the limited success of stopping Pakistan occupying Kashmir totally and the surprising military success of Goa's liberation. I think, the authorities were basking in the glory of military successes and thought a repeat performance was possible.

But then again, they surely were not so naive that they thought a war with China would be as easy as that one with Portugal. Goa was a cake walk, with Portugal not being able to do anything. Probably there was something else in their mindset which I hope Joe would better explain.

As for lack of foresight in seeing India's rise, I believe it had to do with this NAM movement. Nehru had the foresight to establish excellent centers of education - IITs and Public Sector units which formed the backbone of Indian economy along with agriculture. However with socialist policies, and this NAM, the governments of the time didnt envision the changes that would be thrust upon India leading to its opening up the economy in early 1990s. This new found economic might resulted in a more powerful military and an increasing number of audience who paid attention to what India had to say.


> In my personal opinion this obstacle still exists.


Maybe. But the fact that diplomats are actively engaging the Chinese moves suggests that this obstacle is being slowly done away with. The then socialist mindset of Indian diplomats is now being replaced with the 'western' capitalist mindset. I wouldnt be surprised if Indian diplomats manage to wring out concessions from the Chinese in the near future.


> The Hawks don't all come out of the PLA. Refer to post #256 http://www.defence.pk/forums/1449983-post256.html


Agreed. But unlike many other countries', you rarely hear the voice of a junior Indian General. Almost all statements are made by the Chief and that too approved by his/her civilian superiors. Ultimately there is thorough civilian control over the armed forces.


> Unfortunately I think it doesn't matter who is in charge, the window on the Chinese side is closing, not least because the new more politically conscious middle class is unlikely to allow the government to give away land, they see as Chinese land. The major concessions made to the other 9 bordering countries during the early days of the Republic were possible because the Chinese people were not as politically minded (the way we think about politics).


How much does China's middle class have a say in Govt policies? Even if they are politically aware?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## huzihaidao12

http://www.chinashakestheworldbook.com/TextFrameset.htm


CHAPTER III 

BIRTH OF AN ARMY

13. Famine, Locusts and Overturned Idols 


In August 1945, when the Russian Red Army invaded Manchuria, the Border Region launched its long-prepared counteroffensive. The plan of the high command of the 8th Route Army was to recover all the important cities of North China and to recapture the Tungpu, Chengtai, Peiping-Suiyuan, Peiping-Hankow and Tientsin-Pukow railways. The first objectives of General Liu Po-cheng's troops, however, were much more limited. They planned to take Taiyuan, Kaifeng, Tuncheng and Shibchiachuang. Thus, they would gain control of Shansi Province and the most strategic points on the Peiping-Hankow and Lunghai railways.

&#12288;&#12288;With the slogan "push forward to the Japs," General Liu Po-cheng's regular units now moved on the cities while the guerrillas remained behind to mop up. Within a short time, 127 middle- and small-size cities were recovered.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Peshwa said:


> Deleted my earlier comment.
> 
> CD...I read your post to me. I agree this can be a sensitive topic. I apologize if I have hurt anyones feelings.



Don't worry about it. 

I was just getting a bit frustrated that this same topic kept being brought up in all sorts of threads.

I know that you meant no offense Peshwa, I've seen your previous posts, and I know that you are a very reasonable poster. So if you want one of us to start a thread analyzing the second Sino-Japanese war, I think that will certainly be possible.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CardSharp

gubbi said:


> How much does China's middle class have a say in Govt policies? Even if they are politically aware?



Last point first I guess, since it's the one easily answered and the answer is a lot. Do not mistaken an undemocratic with a government not concerned with the people's sentiments. The CCP is perched on a tightrope, in order to quell discontent and stay popular, I bet dollars to peanuts that the CCP is fairly obsessed with public opinion. Think about it, for a government that is so obessed with control of the media, do you think that they will just ignore popular ground swells of opinion that could possible to a source of anger?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Joe Shearer

Chinese-Dragon said:


> If you have a problem with Mr Hongwu then feel free to send him a private message, and argue over the point he made. However he didn't actually say that Japan was defeated SOLELY by the Chinese at any point, and Cardsharp has explained the rest.
> 
> I do take offense at you saying that firstly Chinese were not the victors in the second Sino-Japanese war (BS), and further that we somehow lacked merit.
> 
> Like I said in the other thread about Japanese war atrocities, I don't expect any Indians to sympathize with us, and I have only seen them mentioning it when they are trying to "get at us" for one reason or another.



This is addressed to all my Chinese friends and brothers, and to some extent, it is on behalf of other Indians who are not trolls and fanboys.

I am horrified at this suggestion that Indians lack sympathy with the Chinese people with regard to the unspeakable suffering that they underwent during the Sino-Japanese War. I am also not at all sure that Indians who mention this war mention it with much knowledge of what awful tragedies actually took place. *Anyone who has a reasonable knowledge of those years and those events and who uses it to provide debating points is completely unfit for human company*. It is my sincere belief that many, if not most Indians are in fact unfamiliar with the events in this war; it is this ignorance, I am sure, which sometimes leads to a slighting, insensitive and wholly brutal attitude to these tragic events. Any other possibility or interpretation is nightmarish, unthinkable.

I call on all Indians who are reading this to read up on the history of the Sino-Japanese war, even from short articles in Wikipedia, and to understand the origins of the present in Chinese society. This will prevent forever any slighting reference to those dreadful events, and will avoid any inadvertent offense to our friends and brothers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CardSharp

Joe Shearer said:


> This is addressed to all my Chinese friends and brothers, and to some extent, it is on behalf of other Indians who are not trolls and fanboys.
> 
> I am horrified at this suggestion that Indians lack sympathy with the Chinese people with regard to the unspeakable suffering that they underwent during the Sino-Japanese War. I am also not at all sure that Indians who mention this war mention it with much knowledge of what awful tragedies actually took place. *Anyone who has a reasonable knowledge of those years and those events and who uses it to provide debating points is completely unfit for human company*. It is my sincere belief that many, if not most Indians are in fact unfamiliar with the events in this war; it is this ignorance, I am sure, which sometimes leads to a slighting, insensitive and wholly brutal attitude to these tragic events. Any other possibility or interpretation is nightmarish, unthinkable.
> 
> I call on all Indians who are reading this to read up on the history of the Sino-Japanese war, even from short articles in Wikipedia, and to understand the origins of the present in Chinese society. This will prevent forever any slighting reference to those dreadful events, and will avoid any inadvertent offense to our friends and brothers.



Yep, the two Sino-Japanese wars were seminal moments in Chinese history.


----------



## Peshwa

> Originally Posted by Peshwa
> May I remind you of my initial statement:
> 
> 1. Similar to France the eastern Chinese seaboard and Indo China was overrun by the Japanese. Unlike France which completely fell following which the allies jumped in, China had the help of allies well before the country fell to Japan which was an outcome that the allies feared was feasable causing them to jump in.Just curiousity; do you not feel that any credit was due to the Chinese forces for surviving the Japanese onslaught, so much more relentless and sanguinary than the Germans fighting the French? Surely if they had not resisted, and the country had fallen, we wouldn't have any cause to jump in.
> More a case of jumping out, considering that in that case, the Japanese would have outflanked the British on the left flank, across the Sino-Burmese border?
> 
> I have mentioned that I have great respect for the Chinese to stand up to such brutality!
> I think the greatest strength of the Chinese is their mind (something I can attest to in real life as well). I commend the fact that the Chinese forces were able to keep their morale so high even through the witness of massacres, being under equipped and under trained and having close to a million defectors who helped the Japanese...
> 
> No one can take that away from them...
> 
> 2. The instrument of surrender was not a result of the Chinese victory. Hongwu claimed that Chinese victory followed by the "clean up" by the Soviets lead to the defeat of the Japanese. Not true considering it was the japanese bombing by Americans that halted any further aggression in China. I can't comment with authority on this point without refreshing my memory, but I do remember this as something slightly different.
> 
> I was alluding to the point that the surrender of Japanese started with the Americans under McArthur....It was McArthur who instructed the IJA to surrender to the Chinese
> 
> My argument here is, China may have won the battle against the Japanese, but NOT the war. feel free to diagree You got me here, pardner; I'm totally foxed.
> 
> By the end of war, the Japanese forces had been thinned out having to face multiple enemies in the conflict. The Chinese on the other hand were able to concentrate their forces on IJA only. The decisive blow, the one that led to the collapse of the Japanese was the bombing of H and N. Hence I credit the demise of Japanese imperialism to the Americans. IMO, China did have some victories against the IJA, but cannot be credited with winning the war...hence the battle, not the war. America was the "sleeping giant" whose awakening opened the pandora's box for the axis powers.
> 
> 3. Comparing Chinese losses to Japanese losses speaks a very different story. Rarely in history has a victor suffered more losses than its counterpart. This is a truly disturbing thought. You couldn't possibly guess why, could you?
> 
> How insensitive do you think I am Joe? when speaking of losses, I meant purely in military terms. NOT civilian! I wouldnt be able to live with myself if I lauded civilian atrocities in a war.
> 
> Anyways. I have no interest in further escalating this. Your lot seems quite perturbed by my words.
> 
> Consider this my POV and move on. You're free to interpret history as per your ideas and thinking. I obviously choose a different path.



I hope this helps explain my thinking.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## huzihaidao12

I accept your explanation, your attitude has proved this point, nothing.


----------



## huzihaidao12

In my opinion, if you say China did not win in Japan alone, I agree, but it also means that the United States, the Soviet Union did not win in Japan alone, this is the victory of the Allies, I agree, but you can not say that China has not made victory for Japan, if China did not win, the United States did not win, who win?


----------



## Peshwa

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Don't worry about it.
> 
> I was just getting a bit frustrated that this same topic kept being brought up in all sorts of threads.
> 
> I* know that you meant no offense Peshwa, I've seen your previous posts, and I know that you are a very reasonable poster. So if you want one of us to start a thread analyzing the second Sino-Japanese war, I think that will certainly be possible*.



That would be much appreciated CD. This is a part of the learning process for Indian and Chinese members. 

I promise you two things...
1. Familiarize myself with the thread on the Japanese atrocities in China. Although I have read about it, but it seems the thread you mention presents more details that I may have overlooked. 

2. To contribute to the thread on the Second Sino-Japanese War with the points I have mentioned with sufficient sources going into detail of my POV. I am very interested in this topic which can present as a great learning experience abt WW2. I look forward to this thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Peshwa

Joe Shearer said:


> @Peshwa
> 
> 
> 
> Not fair, in my opinion. Your original statement, which I accept at face value as intended to depict fact and not intended to denigrate or be offensive (you yourself having said the right things about the way in which the Chinese people suffered during the war), did hit a raw nerve. When I first read it, my instinct was to duck. And it did have the desired effect of making every Chinese poster think that it was a condescending comment intended to put down the efforts of the Chinese soldier during these linked wars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose I should have put a bit more thought into making that first statement so as not to offend our Chinese friends.
> I agree with your statement wholeheartedly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to make a genuine historical point, you really ought to do your research and launch a new thread. But it should be objective, and it should account for the fact that the PLA, within a short span from the end of the two wars, was able to chase the Allies around and around the mulberry bush. Obviously that battle-readiness must have come from somewhere; where?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think CD has mentioned the need for the same. I will collaborate with him to start this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, I hope you start the thread, because I personally have *two radically different points of view about the KMT and about the PLA.* On the one hand, we had a leader about whom it was said that "when left alone, he would immediately proceed to disappear over the nearest horizon," and on the other, we had a genuine military genius, one of the finest of the twentieth century, in my opinion comparable with any of the tank-meisters or combined ops wizards that the Europeans had, and matched in Asia only by the Japanese themselves, criminal though they were, and by General Giap. I know that it is extremely unlikely that we will get a chance to talk about that war which built today's PLA, but if such a thing happened, how fine it would be! for all of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting. I think there is much I can learn from your POV
> 
> I also would like to bring forth my arguments with greater detail and sources so the Chinese members can understand my line of thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad that that part of the discussion took on overtones of nationalist rivalry, because it was in military history terms such an amazing period. For those who have read Mao 'On War', we cannot think of the Sino-Japanese War with pity and sympathy on the one hand, and with reverence for the military principles, so radically different from the European, yet so similar, bordering on the identical, on closer examination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunate and I do take responsibility for the words I wrote. Of course I will be more careful in the future...especially when commenting on such a sensitive topic.
> 
> PS: Your PM option is disabled is it?
Click to expand...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gubbi

CardSharp said:


> Last point first I guess, since it's the one easily answered and the answer is a lot. Do not mistaken an undemocratic with a government not concerned with the people's sentiments.


Even if it matters, how does it translate to a real opposition of the governments policy? AFAIK, China's growth is powered by its government decisions, not by popular "vote" - if I may. People's sentiments dont exactly affect with what the Chinese government sees fit. So if the govt decides that a few concessions can satisfy its outlook, how do the concerns of common people affect the decision making process?


> The CCP is perched on a tightrope, in order to quell discontent and stay popular, I bet dollars to peanuts that the CCP is fairly obsessed with public opinion. Think about it, for a government that is so obessed with control of the media, do you think that they will just ignore popular ground swells of opinion that could possible to a source of anger?


Ground swells of popular opinions arent exactly a problem for the Chinese government now, is it? When the govt controls media, it very well controls the information which people get and can very well manipulate or put a spin to any decisions it takes. Then why do you think that the opinions would be any cause for concern to the govt?


----------



## Peshwa

huzihaidao12 said:


> In my opinion, if you say China did not win in Japan alone, I agree, but it also means that the United States, the Soviet Union did not win in Japan alone, this is the victory of the Allies, I agree, but you can not say that China has not made victory for Japan, if China did not win, the United States did not win, who win?



Huzihaidao....

The Chinese were no doubt instrumental in defeat of the Japanese. I have nowhere slighted the contribution of the Chinese resistance. But I am of the opinion that the main blow to imperial Japan (attributing their defeat) was delivered by the US and not China. 

Defeat of Japan and ending the war (at least in Asia), I credit to the US actions. But as Allies, Russia, UK and China get credit as well.

Nevertheless, as suggested, lets gather and debate about these points on a new thread solely for the Sino-Japanese war.


----------



## huzihaidao12

Peshwa said:


> Huzihaidao....
> 
> The Chinese were no doubt instrumental in defeat of the Japanese. I have nowhere slighted the contribution of the Chinese resistance. But I am of the opinion that the main blow to imperial Japan (attributing their defeat) was delivered by the US and not China.
> 
> Defeat of Japan and ending the war (at least in Asia), I credit to the US actions. But as Allies, Russia, UK and China get credit as well.
> 
> Nevertheless, as suggested, lets gather and debate about these points on a new thread solely for the Sino-Japanese war.



Can only say that China undertakes most of the Japanese army, in full-time, if not the battlefield of China, Japan will get the resources what he wants, will not have any obstruction in Southeast Asia, it will have a large number of Japanese troops in front of U.S. troops, In this situation, if the United States can be victorious, at least he is difficult to say.


----------



## CardSharp

gubbi said:


> Even if it matters, how does it translate to a real opposition of the governments policy? AFAIK, China's growth is powered by its government decisions, not by popular "vote" - if I may. People's sentiments dont exactly affect with what the Chinese government sees fit. So if the govt decides that a few concessions can satisfy its outlook, how do the concerns of common people affect the decision making process?
> 
> Ground swells of popular opinions arent exactly a problem for the Chinese government now, is it? When the govt controls media, it very well controls the information which people get and can very well manipulate or put a spin to any decisions it takes. Then why do you think that the opinions would be any cause for concern to the govt?



I'm just going to leave this lest we fall into the same old mode of arguing.


----------



## huzihaidao12

In fact, the Japanese army in 1945 had been suppressed by PLA. Even without the U.S., China to solve it.


----------



## CardSharp

huzihaidao12 said:


> In fact, the Japanese army in 1945 had been suppressed by PLA. Even without the U.S., China to solve it.



Another point to look at is the Chinese civil war that was happening side by side with the Sino-Japanese war. Whatever success the Japanese had in China during the war was in no small part due to the KMT, the then ruling government's was unwilling to fight the Japanese. 

_Chiang Kai-shek was quoted: "the Japanese are a disease of the skin, the Communists are a disease of the heart".
_
After the battle of Midway, Chiang knew the Japanese were done and horded his resources and men for the civil war he knew he was going to have to fight after the Japanese. He only dribbled enough Chinese units into the fight to appease the United States and keep the supplies and money coming, but really by then he made up his mind that he was going to wait the Japanese out. 

It is doubtful that Japanese could have had so many successes against a united and well led China.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CardSharp

Also ironically, this plan backfired on Chiang. While his troops were seen to have stood aside and watched the massacring of the Chinese people, the communists and the PLA actively enaged in a guerrilla war against the Japanese, thus gaining much popular support after the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gubbi

CardSharp said:


> I'm just going to leave this lest we fall into the same old mode of arguing.



You mistake me. I am not getting into an argument, I am genuinely interested how the Chinese govt functions.


----------



## CardSharp

gubbi said:


> You mistake me. I am not getting into an argument, I am genuinely interested how the Chinese govt functions.



Well first off you should look at it from a party opposition POV. More later.


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

gubbi said:


> You mistake me. I am not getting into an argument, I am genuinely interested how the Chinese govt functions.



OK I'll answer it.

Public opinion is very important to the CPC. Which is why "controlling inflation" has been such a big deal recently in China, and why the Chinese government arguably overreacted to the credit crunch by pumping in more money than was necessary.

According to the international polls (Pew Global Research Center, etc), the Chinese government has the highest level of support out of all governments in the world. Do you think that is an accident? Certainly not.

Chinese satisfied with government - Washington Times

Below is one example of how public opinion can quickly change public policy.

Green Dam Youth Escort - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, the old Chinese concept referred to as the "Mandate of Heaven", gives authority to rulers, only if they are just rulers. If a ruler is considered to be unjust by the people, then they lose the moral authority to rule.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

It is simply not practical to rule a country the size of China unless you have support from the people.

The Pew Global Research poll that I linked in my previous post, shows 86% of Chinese trust the government, far ahead of the second place runner up Australia which scored only 60%.

The 2010 Edelman Trust Barometer shows that 88% of Chinese trust the government. There is a thread on this running in the China defence section.

NOW *imagine*... the numbers were reversed, and close to ninety percent of the people were unhappy with the government. There is no way they could survive, not even with a battalion of tanks on every street corner.


----------



## Peshwa

huzihaidao12 said:


> Can only say that China undertakes most of the Japanese army, in full-time, if not the battlefield of China, Japan will get the resources what he wants, will not have any obstruction in Southeast Asia, it will have a large number of Japanese troops in front of U.S. troops, In this situation, if the United States can be victorious, at least he is difficult to say.



Huzihaido....I didnt quite grasp what you meant to say here.

Did you mean that China was defending Indo-China and Chinese mainland simultaneously? And had China not done this, Japan would have had access to the resources it needed to keep the Americans at bay? This would have made things hard for Americans?


----------



## ksgokul

CardSharp said:


> Unfortunately I think it doesn't matter who is in charge, the window on the Chinese side is closing, not least because the new more politically conscious middle class is unlikely to allow the government to give away land, they see as Chinese land. The major concessions made to the other 9 bordering countries during the early days of the Republic were possible because the Chinese people were not as politically minded (the way we think about politics).



Sir,
Somehow i feel that having a more democratic voice in China is a plus for India. While you may be true, politically minded middle class may not like to give away the lands under the control of China, they wouldn't worry about something that is not under their control right now. At least it has happened in India. Unless people in China are so attached to AP like Taiwan. 
People won't like a government going on war mode too. Bad thing would be to have a bad dictator at the helm of offers. Chinese people have a lot at stake for the world remaining peaceful and so are indians

Thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

ksgokul said:


> Sir,
> Somehow i feel that having a more democratic voice in China is a plus for India. While you may be true, politically minded middle class may not like to give away the lands under the control of China, they wouldn't worry about something that is not under their control right now. At least it has happened in India. Unless people in China are so attached to AP like Taiwan.
> People won't like a government going on war mode too. Bad thing would be to have a bad dictator at the helm of offers. Chinese people have a lot at stake for the world remaining peaceful and so are indians
> 
> Thanks.



I disagree actually.

I think a democratic China would be MORE nationalist than it is now.

The CPC often attempts to reduce nationalist sentiment, which it sees as something that could cause political instability.

At best, the Chinese position regarding India would be exactly the same as it is now. What do you think the average Chinese person would say about the fact that India has been hosting our largest separatist group (the Tibetan government "in exile") for over 50 years?


----------



## CardSharp

ksgokul said:


> Sir,
> Somehow i feel that having a more democratic voice in China is a plus for India. While you may be true, politically minded middle class may not like to give away the lands under the control of China, they wouldn't worry about something that is not under their control right now. At least it has happened in India. Unless people in China are so attached to AP like Taiwan.
> People won't like a government going on war mode too. Bad thing would be to have a bad dictator at the helm of offers. Chinese people have a lot at stake for the world remaining peaceful and so are indians
> 
> Thanks.



I agree to a point but you may have a distorted picture of a democratic China would look like. I would venture to say a democratic China in the future would be just as nationalistic and I'm sure many other Chinese here would agree. The PRC more or less tries to sit on nationalism and play down events that might cause a runaway nationalistic tendency. A democratic China full of demagogues and fire-breathers will attempt no such thing. Rather than modulating nationalism they like hack politicians everywhere will likely exploit it. 

No people are immune to this, this includes the Chinese. 

Yours is an interest view because it really reflects something many westerners especially Americans hold dear. ie Democracy is what makes us great, so everyone else must want what we have. and the corollary if people adopted democracy they would think more like us and hold the same values. This I don't think is really true. 

To give you an example, much of the US planning in the Iraq war hinged on Americans being welcomes as liberators and that if Americans installed a democracy, Iraqis would abandon their values to embrace Americans one. Most would probably agree this was a mistaken approach.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ZhengHe

If India doesn't let this go then it will be 1962 all over again.

I really wish there could be peaceful development between India and China but if India keeps fanning the flames then they will get burned, again, and this time they will not recover.


----------



## logic

Re: India tells China: Kashmir is to us what Tibet, Taiwan are to you???

What
In Pakistan we do not understand such complicated and long statements we only know one thing.

WE SUPPORT ONE CHINA POLICY.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CardSharp

ZhengHe said:


> If India doesn't let this go then it will be 1962 all over again.
> 
> I really wish there could be peaceful development between India and China but if India keeps fanning the flames then they will get burned, again, and this time they will not recover.



*This isn't the situation today. You would do well to read up on what happened in 1962. Here's a well written account of what happened. 
*



Dear Sir,

It is regrettable that the vast majority of us Indians have been kept in the dark, and ill-served both by our government and by our intellectuals with regard to the differences with China. Perhaps a good way to address these issues would be to start with your enclosed article, and to comment it suitably.



> Indian public opinion has been almost entirely molded for decades by apologists for Nehru and his many failings. The most pervasive myth of all, which will have to be debunked if India and China are to move towards long term good-neighborly relations, is that of Chinese perfidy. For no reason at all, out of sheer greed of Indian territory, the Chinese betrayed a peace-loving brotherly country that had even antagonized the mighty United States by pleading Beijing's cause for a place on the United Nations Security Council


This only is the beginning of the deception. The facts are that for decades, more than a century, the nearby imperial powers, Czarist Russia and Imperial Britain, had acknowledged China's suzerainty over Tibet. The facts are that China had not been consulted either during the establishment of the line in the west, nor during the establishment of the line in the east. Of the two, the demarcation in the east was the worse of the two, and consisted of an arbitrary line drawn by Mr. MacMahon on the map, representing the watershed of the Himalayan ridges. He did this against the instructions of the British government in India. But let us go on.


> Noted analyst Brahma Chellaney articulates this traditional view in a recent article: "In fact, Nehru, the architect of the Hindi-Chini bhai bhai [Indians and Chinese are brothers] festivity, had gone out of his way to propitiate communist China, accepting even the Chinese annexation of Tibet in a 1954 agreement without settling the Indo-Tibetan border. So betrayed was Nehru by Mao's war that he had this to say on the day the Chinese invaded: 'Perhaps there are not many instances in history where one country has gone out of her way to be friendly and cooperative with the government and people of another country and to plead their cause in the councils of the world, and then that country returns evil for good'."
> 
> Noorani, though, disagrees with the view that Nehru was duped. He says, "Nehru was distrustful of China from the very outset; he substituted old Indian maps with a new one in 1954 and ruled out any compromise. He was a hardliner, but his opponents were chauvinistic."



Brahm Chellaney's account reads like bad propaganda, and is bad propaganda. Nehru accepted Chinese occupation of Tibet; he did not confirm the boundary with China, not because China offered no opportunity, but because he sought more than China was offering.

On the other hand, Noorani assessed the situation correctly and described Nehru's activities in greater frankness.



> Noorani describes the course of events prior to the war, "China did not protest when on February 12, 1951, Major R Khating took over Tawang, evicting Tibetan administrators. The entire area south of the McMahon Line was now in Indian control. The famed Nehru-Patel [Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, independent India's first home minister] correspondence in November 1950 centered on the McMahon Line. Neither was interested in Aksai Chin and for good reason.
> 
> "Patel's ministry of states had published White Papers on the states in July 1948 and February 1950. Official maps were attached to both. The 1948 map did not even extend the yellow color wash to the entire state of J&K [Jammu and Kashmir]. In 1948 and 1950, Kashmir's northern and eastern boundaries - as also that stretching from Kashmir to Nepal - were explicitly shown as 'undefined', in contrast to the clear depiction of the McMahon Line in the east. This was the true position in law and in fact. Changes in maps by either side cannot alter the position.



Both these facts are correct and well-established.

The position on the west had not been established clearly. The position on the east, the McMahon Line, was drawn arbitrarily by McMahon, with the hapless Tibetans consenting, but without the consent of the Chinese representative in Lhasa.

The McMahon Line sought to establish the line south of the watershed, but very largely deviated from this principle; it actually was in places NORTH of the watershed.



> Nehru must have been aware of both the unknown situation in the West as well as the cartographic aggression by the British Empire in the East. It is impossible that he should have done what he did without knowledge of the situation on the ground.
> "Nehru's cable to N Raghavan, India's ambassador to China, on December 10, 1952, provides a glimpse of his policy: 'Our attitude towards the Chinese government should always be a combination of friendliness and firmness. If we show weakness, advantage will be taken of this immediately. In regard to this entire frontier we have to maintain an attitude of firmness. Indeed, there is nothing to discuss there and we have made that previously clear to the Chinese government'. He could not have been unaware of his own maps.



The underlying belligerence that was a part of Nehru's posiion is clear from the extract above.


> "On April 29, 1954, India and China signed the famous Panchsheel [five-point] agreement on trade with Tibet. On June 18, 1954, Nehru sent a note on Tibet and China to the secretary-general of the MEA [Ministry of External Affairs], the foreign secretary and joint secretary. 'No country can ultimately rely upon the permanent goodwill or bona fides of another country. It is conceivable that our relations with China might worsen'. That very month a new official map was published claiming a firm line in the western sector as well.



This (the publication of the official map with a firm boundary in the west, in unilateral supersession of the previous correct position) is factual, and was a falsehood by Nehru and the External Affairs Ministry. 


> "On July 1, 1954, Nehru issued a directive: 'All our old maps dealing with this frontier should be carefully examined and, where necessary, withdrawn. New maps should be printed showing our northern and north-eastern frontier without any reference to any line. These new maps should also not state there is any undemarcated territory. This frontier should be considered a firm and definite one which is not open to discussion with anybody'. India was thus set on a collision course with China.
> 
> "Nehru's demarche to Zhou Enlai on December 14, 1958, centered on the McMahon Line and on China's maps. He did not mention Aksai Chin or China's road through it. It was Zhou who raised that in his reply of January 23, 1959, while promising 'to take a more or less realistic attitude towards the McMahon Line'. Nehru's rejoinder of March 22, 1959, cited a treaty of 1842 on Ladakh and claimed 'the area now claimed by China has always been depicted as part of India on official maps'. This foreclosed compromise.




Here, for those who have not caught the allusion, it is necessary to recall that in 1841, General Zorawar Singh, the outstanding general of the Dogra Maharaja of Kashmir, had swept through Ladakh, conquered it (it was then a dependent principality of Tibet, itself a dependent on suzerain China) and mounted a sharp attack on Tibet. This attack failed; he was killed, his troops repelled and in a precursor of 62, they were thrust pell-mell back into Ladakh. There they made a stand and were able to beat off the Tibetan forces. The resultant peace treaty of 1842 was between the Dogra forces and the Tibetan general. 


This is from memory and may need minor correction. 


> "Zhou proposed a meeting 'so as to reach some agreement of principles as a guidance to concrete discussions and a settlement of the boundary question. Without such a guidance there is a danger that concrete discussions of the boundary question by the two sides may bog down in endless and fruitless debates'. Nehru replied: 'How can we, Mr Prime Minister, reach an agreement on principles when there is such complete disagreement about the facts?'





This, after he had cooked up the facts, both in the west and in the east.


> "In Delhi in April, 1960, Zhou offered an 'overall settlement' based on two 'principles' - recognition of the McMahon Line in the east and the Karakoram watershed in the west. Nehru was politically too weak to accept it. He set up a joint group of officials to examine the 'evidence'."


It is not clear what political weakness this reference is about. Otherwise the rest of the facts are correct.


> It is a sign of the times that a major Indian website rediff.com carries a special three-part report on the genesis of the 1962 war by former Times of London correspondent Neville Maxwell, the only journalist to have had access to a secret Indian army report on the debacle. The Indian army had commissioned Lieutenant-General Henderson Brooks and Brigadier P S Bhagat to study the debacle. With the well-known Indian obsession with secrecy, their report has not yet been made public. Maxwell has made an in-depth study of the subject and is the author of India's China War (1970), widely available on the Internet.
> 
> Introducing his article, he says, "Indians will be shocked to discover that, when China crushed India in 1962, the fault lay at India, or more specifically, at Jawaharlal Nehru and his clique's doorsteps. It was a hopelessly ill-prepared Indian army that provoked China on orders emanating from Delhi, and paid the price for its misadventure in men, money and national humiliation."
> 
> On the origins of war, its summary is indeed shocking to Indians nourished on the Nehruvian myths. It needs to be quoted in some detail: "In the Indian political perspective, war with China was deemed unthinkable and, through the 1950s, New Delhi's defense planning and expenditure expressed that confidence. By the early 1950s, however, the Indian government, which is to say Nehru and his acolyte officials, had shaped and adopted a policy whose implementation would make armed conflict with China not only 'thinkable' but inevitable.
> 
> "From the first days of India's independence, it was appreciated that the Sino-Indian borders had been left undefined by the departing British and that territorial disputes with China were part of India's inheritance. China's other neighbors faced similar problems and, over the succeeding decades of the century, almost all of those were to settle their borders satisfactorily through the normal process of diplomatic negotiation with Beijing.
> 
> "The Nehru government decided upon the opposite approach. India would, through its own research, determine the appropriate alignments of the Sino-Indian borders, extend its administration to make those good on the ground and then refuse to negotiate the result. Barring the inconceivable - that Beijing would allow India to impose China's borders unilaterally and annex territory at will - Nehru's policy thus willed conflict without foreseeing it.
> 
> "Through the 1950s, that policy generated friction along the borders and so bred and steadily increased distrust, growing into hostility, between the neighbors. By 1958, Beijing was urgently calling for a standstill agreement to prevent patrol clashes and negotiations to agree on boundary alignments. India refused any standstill agreement, since it would be an impediment to intended advances and insisted that there was nothing to negotiate, the Sino-Indian borders being already settled on the alignments claimed by India, through blind historical process. Then it began accusing China of committing 'aggression' by refusing to surrender to Indian claims.
> 
> "From 1961, the Indian attempt to establish an armed presence in all the territory it claimed and then extrude the Chinese was being exerted by the army, and Beijing was warning that if India did not desist from its expansionist thrust, the Chinese forces would have to hit back. On October 12, 1962, Nehru proclaimed India's intention to drive the Chinese out of areas India claimed. That bravado had by then been forced upon him by public expectations which his charges of 'Chinese aggression' had aroused, but Beijing took it as in effect a declaration of war. The unfortunate Indian troops on the frontline, under orders to sweep superior Chinese forces out of their impregnable, dominating positions, instantly appreciated the implications: 'If Nehru had declared his intention to attack, then the Chinese were not going to wait to be attacked'.
> 
> "On October 20, the Chinese launched a preemptive offensive all along the borders, overwhelming the feeble - but, in this first instance, determined - resistance of the Indian troops and advancing some distance in the eastern sector. On October 24, Beijing offered a ceasefire and Chinese withdrawal on the condition that India agree to open negotiations: Nehru refused the offer even before the text was officially received. Both sides built up over the next three weeks, and the Indians launched a local counterattack on November 15, arousing in India fresh expectations of total victory.
> 
> "The Chinese then renewed their offensive. Now many units of the once-crack Indian 4th Division dissolved into rout without giving battle and, by November 20, there was no organized Indian resistance anywhere in the disputed territories. On that day, Beijing announced a unilateral ceasefire and intention to withdraw its forces: Nehru, this time, tacitly accepted."
Click to expand...


The Henderson-Brooks Report was not written by two amateurs; it was written by a very senior general, a veteran of WWII, and by the darling of the Army, the VC winner, the bravest of the brave, Prem Bhagat. 

It was a damning indictment. 

Reading it, even today, is for a patriotic Indian with a fierce pride in the Indian Army, and the Navy and Air Force, like undergoing a public whipping.


> A Lieutenant Commander of the US Navy, James Barnard Calvin, summarizes the war in his 1984 study "The China-India Border War (1962)": "In the war that began with skirmishes in the summer of 1962, the significant fighting occurred in October and November, 1962, along three widely separated fronts. In virtually every battle the Chinese forces either outmaneuvered or overpowered the unprepared Indians. In less than six weeks of bloody fighting, the Chinese completely drove Indian forces back behind Chinese claim lines. After achieving their limited strategic objectives, the Chinese dramatically declared ceasefire on November 21, 1962. Following the ceasefire, China kept most of their claim in Aksai Chin but gave India virtually all of India's claim in the North East Frontier Agency [NEFA, now Arunachal Pradesh] - about 70 percent of the disputed land."





They actually withdrew to the McMahon Line, *even when it was north of the watershed*.


> China returned to India occupied and still "disputed" Indian territory in the northeast even after Nehru had bid goodbye to the people of Assam in an afternoon radio broadcast. Clearly this war was not about territory, though India did lose territory it had come to consider as its own.




As a student of military history, i have gone through the accounts on the Chinese side and the Indian side carefully. Contrary to the accounts of brute force Chinese massed attacks on small groups of isolated Indians who fought to the last with unmatched valour, the picture that emerges is that of the last of the Mao-led wars in history. It showed all the hallmarks of the military style prescribed by Mao in his textbook on Military Warfare, "On Guerrilla Warfare". 

There was no frontal massed attack. 

Typically, the Chinese drove regiments, even brigades through defiles and ravines, and outflanked or attacked from the rear totally unprepared Indian positions. They attacked at night, and captured bunkers in a linear sequence* that ensured that they always had a local superiority, although overall the numbers were nowhere so disparate as to dictate a military disaster. They used noisy and alarming tactics, bugles, loud-hailers and concerted shouts, to alarm and upset a rattled, befuddled enemy fighting without good leadership, in exposed positions.

* This reminded me so much of the enfilading tactics of Frederick the Great that I read and re-read the comparative passages several times. It was true; this was classic concentration of force on a thin section of the line, its overwhelming, and then on to the next thin section.

Put very bluntly, NEFA 62 was not Thermopylae; it was Cannae.

The Indians did not move; the Chinese moved, moved, moved all the time.



> What exactly did India lose? During the 30-day border conflict, in two phases over October and November, 1,383 Indian soldiers were killed, 1,696 went missing and 3,968 were captured. There are no figures of Chinese casualties. Six months later, by May 25, all the captured Indians had been released. In the icy heights of Ladakh - called the western sector - where, even Nehru acknowledged in parliament later, "not a blade of grass grew", India had to give up some 38,000 square kilometers of territory. In the eastern sector in Arunachal Pradesh, China continues to claim some 90,000 square kilometers of territory, at the heart of which lies the disputed Tawang swathe of land.




It is time to deal with another myth. 

We are told that our troops were badly-clothed, badly-armed and badly-positioned. True, but the Chinese were not better clothed. These attacks were made, in wet weather, in October and November. There are authentic reports of serious and significant Chinese deaths due to exposure to the weather. They struggled against local conditions as much as the Indians.



> Coming across these facts of history, most Indians reject them outright as biased accounts. Some do think, however, that *it is important to find out the truth. *If India and China have to normalize their relations, they must solve their border disputes. *This is only possible if Indians leaders are backed by a democratic consensus. In order for this consensus to evolve, Indians must know the truth of the war. No better beginning can be made than the official publication of the Indian army's own account in the Henderson-Brooks report*.
> 
> Another important input could be the publication of the official history of the war, written by a high-powered editorial team at the behest of then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, a quarter century after the war. This remains classified, although another committee was appointed to see if it could be released to the public.
> 
> India must understand that the absence of objective and authentic accounts is doing the country no good; it is merely reinforcing the trauma of defeat and failure that Indians have undergone for 40 long years, apart from making normal relations with an important neighbor difficult to achieve.


Why, oh why, does a Chinese analyst have to post this?

I would like to console myself with one thought.

This was a classic Maoist campaign. Mao is acknowledged as an outstanding military genius, quite apart from his outstanding grip over politics. The old master was up against a nouveau-riche barrister who had never practised, was brought up in the lap of luxury, and had appointed the grotesque Krishna Menon as the Defence Minister. Menon, with his penchant for doing the wrong thing at the wrong time, encouraged the ambitious B. M. Kaul to weaken the authority of the then COAS, General Thapar (Karan Thapar's father, if I'm not mistaken) and to arrogate power. 

Kaul, in turn, lined up a stellar constellation: the bluff, blunt Lionel Pratap (Bogey) Sen, his COS, the sinister Monty Palit, and some hapless field officers to serve as his official cover. 

Was this a contest? 

[THIS SECTION OFF TOPIC: ONLY INDIANS TO READ THIS SECTION PLEASE]

Look at what happened twenty years later. A sharp contrast.

In 1982 and before and after, during the Chinese conflicts with Vietnam, when Deng was Chief, and everybody took their cue from him, we saw a different story. The invincible PLA had its nose bloodied by a hard-fighting Vietnamese Army which put up its traditional rugged, indefatigable resistance to their old foes, their historical enemy. It was a lesson to the PLA, even more of a lesson to the Indian Army. 

I am frankly writing this to take away some of the pain and humiliation of the sacrifice of IV Indian Div and its gallant soldiers, who died as political pawns of Nehru, Krishna Menon and Kaul, and because their own professional leadership did not turn around and kick these people in the seats of their churidars.

[END OF SECTION OFF-TOPIC]

Sadly,


Written by Joe Shearer. 

http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/65762-all-indian-members-here-question-2.html#post1000089

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Developereo

Personally, I have noticed that Indians are becoming more openly jingoistic and confrontational. Not just online, but also in real life. People I have known for decades have become more fiercely nationalistic. And this happened before 26/11. It has more to do with India's growing economic/diplomatic/military power. In a democracy dancing to the tune of a sensationalist media, this is a dangerous trend.

I don't discuss politics with my Chinese friends in real life, so I can't speak if a similar change is happening in the Chinese psyche.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DesiGuy

logic said:


> Re: India tells China: Kashmir is to us what Tibet, Taiwan are to you???
> 
> What
> In Pakistan we do not understand such complicated and long statements we only know one thing.
> 
> WE SUPPORT *ONE CHINA POLICY*.





You mean "one child Policy?? 


Actually, i too support that!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jayron

Sohni Dharti said:


> Personally, I have noticed that Indians are becoming more openly jingoistic and confrontational. Not just online, but also in real life. People I have known for decades have become more fiercely nationalistic. And this happened before 26/11. It has more to do with India's growing economic/diplomatic/military power. In a democracy dancing to the tune of a sensationalist media, this is a dangerous trend.
> 
> I don't discuss politics with my Chinese friends in real life, so I can't speak if a similar change is happening in the Chinese psyche.



I agree with most of what you have said. Though irritating and some times offensive to people from other nations, I am not sure if it is necessarily a dangerous trend. This sense of nationhood has actually helped keep a country as diverse as India intact. Though ideally, I would like my people to be more modest , respectful and above all realistic!


----------



## Joe Shearer

ksgokul said:


> Sir,
> Somehow i feel that having a more democratic voice in China is a plus for India. While you may be true, politically minded middle class may not like to give away the lands under the control of China, they wouldn't worry about something that is not under their control right now. At least it has happened in India. Unless people in China are so attached to AP like Taiwan.
> People won't like a government going on war mode too. Bad thing would be to have a bad dictator at the helm of offers. Chinese people have a lot at stake for the world remaining peaceful and so are indians
> 
> Thanks.





Chinese-Dragon said:


> I disagree actually.
> 
> I think a democratic China would be MORE nationalist than it is now.
> 
> The CPC often attempts to reduce nationalist sentiment, which it sees as something that could cause political instability.
> 
> At best, the Chinese position regarding India would be exactly the same as it is now. What do you think the average Chinese person would say about the fact that India has been hosting our largest separatist group (the Tibetan government "in exile") for over 50 years?





CardSharp said:


> I agree to a point but you may have a distorted picture of a democratic China would look like. I would venture to say a democratic China in the future would be just as nationalistic and I'm sure many other Chinese here would agree. The PRC more or less tries to sit on nationalism and play down events that might cause a runaway nationalistic tendency. A democratic China full of demagogues and fire-breathers will attempt no such thing. Rather than modulating nationalism they like hack politicians everywhere will likely exploit it.
> 
> No people are immune to this, this includes the Chinese.
> 
> Yours is an interest view because it really reflects something many westerners especially Americans hold dear. ie Democracy is what makes us great, so everyone else must want what we have. and the corollary if people adopted democracy they would think more like us and hold the same values. This I don't think is really true.
> 
> To give you an example, much of the US planning in the Iraq war hinged on Americans being welcomes as liberators and that if Americans installed a democracy, Iraqis would abandon their values to embrace Americans one. Most would probably agree this was a mistaken approach.



This is truly an interesting angle that Gubbi has opened up for consideration: will a liberal democratic China, as opposed to a people's democratic China, be more or less nationalistic, hence more or less attached to its specific national interests arising out of the heightened nationalistic feeling? 

Indian commentators here - Gubbi (by inference) and K S Gokul directly - have commenced from a position that democracy is a good thing, and therefore democracy in China is a good thing, and a good thing cannot at the same time be a bad thing, so every aspect of a country that is a democracy must therefore be interpreted and extrapolated into a good thing. In other words, a liberal democratic China's foreign policy also will be a good thing, and border relations will improve. Regrettably, this depends on two logical fallacies, maybe even three.

First, it is not entirely clear that a liberal democracy is entirely a good thing, as we tend to assume during arguments with those who themselves do not belong to liberal democracies (in this context, please note that PRC is being considered as a people's democracy, where the will and the interests of the people are interpreted and guided by a dictatorship, the dictatorship of the proletariat). If we see the example of the US, liberal democracy, with its significant concentration on human rights and on the rights of minorities, tends to overlook the influence of economics on the system. Rather sadly, it is necessary to acknowledge that liberal democracies do not understand materialism and have never understood materialism; although this sounds like an abstruse philosophical point, it is probably at the base of every major difference in policy and in attitude between a people's democracy and a liberal democracy. To revert, in the US, for instance, the preference of the political system to either ignore the inequities of the wholly uncontrolled free market system, the Anglo-Saxon version, not the European version, of course, leads to unbridled excesses and to frequent and recurring scandals. As a result, the pressures and the compulsions of the capitalist factor have an inevitable influence on the decision-making of the state - a conclusion that had been reached by two bearded German philosophers in the middle of the 19th century itself.

Second, assuming for a moment that liberal democracy leads to good things in general, leaving the economic argument and materialism aside for the moment, we find that one of the good things that arise is the distortion in the structure of superficial emotions and values, such as nationalist feeling, which is not based on the class structure, but on ideologies made possible only by the domination of a class structure that favours nationalism as a method of expressing itself and representing its interests, nationally and internationally. While certain aspects of pre-socialist state structures are international in character, the influence of international capital and of internationalist capitalists, for instance, other aspects are in the grip of the nationalist bourgeoisie. These aspects include superficialities like the pomp and panoply of pre-socialist states (although the distorted conditions of 'socialism in one state' introduced equivalent pomp and panoply in an ugly manner into socialist or people's democratic states), such as an anthem, a flag, deliberately exaggerated devotion and patriotic excesses, jingoism in short, and various aspects of the state that serve to keep citizens from thinking about why other countries have to be dominated or subjugated, other people of different ethnic composition have to be dominated or subjugated, wars have to be fought, concessions have to be acquired and defended, by force if necessary, citizens rewarded for showing patriotic feeling and sacrificing themselves and their families for the interests of the state at war, and the like.

So nationalist feeling, including exaggerated nationalist feeling, is part of the reversion to liberal democracy that many Indians and many Europeans and North Americans also apparently hope to see in China. 

Third, if this nationalist feeling comes in, and it already has, with the weakening of the socialist impulses in the original People's Republic and after the easing of socialist rigour under Deng Xiaoping, there may be unforeseen consequences for India, for instance, also, in even more brutal and undiluted form, for Japan and perhaps Vietnam, in less brutal but still vigorously assertive form for most of east and south-east asia. Instead of welcoming the orderly nature and eminently predictable nature of people's democracy, these neighbours have been aping the US line without even a slight thought towards the inevitable consequences.

India has little to gain and much to lose by the gradual assimilation of the original people's democracy that was China by the one-state socialism that is emerging, no doubt with a pluralism to be allowed very gradually and with as much regulation and care as the government of Singapore has taken towards its pluralist democratic elements.

This, in essence, without the political analysis that the present comment contains, is what Chinese-Dragon and CardSharp are trying to explain to people: 
A liberal democracy in China is not necessarily good for its neighbours;
Nationalist feeling due to liberal democracy will be sharper and more focussed than today;
This nationalist feeling will lead to pressure on the political leadership to take an increasingly aggressive stand on all matters relating to the nation-state, and in fact, to expand the nation-state to the maximum. None of which is good for India.

If possible, other aspects may be taken up, depending on what demand there is for such discussions, after a necessary break to visit the hospital and to perform mundane domestic chores.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CardSharp

^^^^^
This is what I would have wrote if I had your silver tongue.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## huzihaidao12

Peshwa said:


> Huzihaido....I didnt quite grasp what you meant to say here.
> 
> Did you mean that China was defending Indo-China and Chinese mainland simultaneously? And had China not done this, Japan would have had access to the resources it needed to keep the Americans at bay? This would have made things hard for Americans?



I want to say, if there is no Chinese Theater, the United States and its allies can not win. China has not the United States, it is still able to get the victory, but will be more difficult, but the KMT and the CCP will have a stronger unity.

Let PASS, here focused on the original theme.


----------



## ksgokul

Chinese-Dragon said:


> I disagree actually.
> 
> I think a democratic China would be MORE nationalist than it is now.
> 
> The CPC often attempts to reduce nationalist sentiment, which it sees as something that could cause political instability.
> 
> At best, the Chinese position regarding India would be exactly the same as it is now. What do you think the average Chinese person would say about the fact that India has been hosting our largest separatist group (the Tibetan government "in exile") for over 50 years?





CardSharp said:


> I agree to a point but you may have a distorted picture of a democratic China would look like. I would venture to say a democratic China in the future would be just as nationalistic and I'm sure many other Chinese here would agree. The PRC more or less tries to sit on nationalism and play down events that might cause a runaway nationalistic tendency. A democratic China full of demagogues and fire-breathers will attempt no such thing. Rather than modulating nationalism they like hack politicians everywhere will likely exploit it.
> 
> No people are immune to this, this includes the Chinese.
> 
> Yours is an interest view because it really reflects something many westerners especially Americans hold dear. ie Democracy is what makes us great, so everyone else must want what we have. and the corollary if people adopted democracy they would think more like us and hold the same values. This I don't think is really true.
> 
> To give you an example, much of the US planning in the Iraq war hinged on Americans being welcomes as liberators and that if Americans installed a democracy, Iraqis would abandon their values to embrace Americans one. Most would probably agree this was a mistaken approach.



Sir,
Thanks for the insight. But i would just add how i think about the scenario.
a) By Democracy, i mean a democracy for Tibetians too. I just want to be extra careful to mention that they have a representation in your democracy( not by any means a separate country ). So that representation will definitely not be having so much of negative energy towards India. The majority chinese would like to work with the minorities to solve issues and not dominate and suppress them.
b) When you form a democracy, i would say that one of the first actions would be to bring back the Tibetian refugees. They would like to go back, as that is their homeland and they have a representation inside it. India would love to solve the problem once and for all. For China, that would solve all the criticisms. 
May be i am missing the point somewhere. Since my history knowledge is not as extensive as yours are, may be i am seeing the design patterns in a different way. So please tolerate any ignorance. Since i am working in a tight project, i am not able to spend much time in this forum. 

Thanks.


----------



## ksgokul

Sir, 
Please find my replies.



Joe Shearer said:


> Indian commentators here - Gubbi (by inference) and K S Gokul directly - have commenced from a position that democracy is a good thing, and therefore democracy in China is a good thing, and a good thing cannot at the same time be a bad thing, so every aspect of a country that is a democracy must therefore be interpreted and extrapolated into a good thing. In other words, a liberal democratic China's foreign policy also will be a good thing, and border relations will improve. Regrettably, this depends on two logical fallacies, maybe even three.



I think one of the main problems, i believe for the rest of the world is the non-transparency that exists in China. That creates the fear. Even most of the people in the Chinese side are getting offended by the press articles on our side( thinking that it is the government that's actually publishing these articles ) and indian members are thinking that whatever published in china are being done by the government. 



> Third, if this nationalist feeling comes in, and it already has, with the weakening of the socialist impulses in the original People's Republic and after the easing of socialist rigour under Deng Xiaoping, there may be unforeseen consequences for India, for instance, also, in even more brutal and undiluted form, for Japan and perhaps Vietnam, in less brutal but still vigorously assertive form for most of east and south-east asia. Instead of welcoming the orderly nature and eminently predictable nature of people's democracy, these neighbours have been aping the US line without even a slight thought towards the inevitable consequences..



Here i am slightly not able to understand. There are so many democracies which have originated in the past. Do they have that kind of pattern in history? Sir, By no means i am trying to be assertive. I am just trying to be inquisitive. Ottaman empire broke into a democracy. Imperialist Japan became a democracy. But there were no problems for the neighbors. 

I believe, we are preferring the US now, because China has grown more assertive with the transparency index remaining low(particularly on its defence doctrine). I don't think people had trouble accepting US as super power( when the transition happened after second world war ).

Thanks...


----------



## CardSharp

ksgokul said:


> Sir,
> Thanks for the insight. But i would just add how i think about the scenario.
> a) By Democracy, i mean a democracy for Tibetians too. I just want to be extra careful to mention that they have a representation in your democracy( not by any means a separate country ). So that representation will definitely not be having so much of negative energy towards India. The majority chinese would like to work with the minorities to solve issues and not dominate and suppress them.
> b) When you form a democracy, i would say that one of the first actions would be to bring back the Tibetian refugees. They would like to go back, as that is their homeland and they have a representation inside it. India would love to solve the problem once and for all. For China, that would solve all the criticisms.
> May be i am missing the point somewhere. Since my history knowledge is not as extensive as yours are, may be i am seeing the design patterns in a different way. So please tolerate any ignorance. Since i am working in a tight project, i am not able to spend much time in this forum.
> 
> Thanks.



There are 3 million Tibetans, there are 1200 million Han Chinese, if when it comes to a representative democracy, Tibetan opinion would count exactly for naught. Banish from your mind the idea Tibetan opinion would affect Sino-Indian relations whatever their inclinations. 

Might be harsh but tis the truth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dabong1

I dont recall the chinese leader asking the UN to intervene in tibet or taiwan and promising a vote to the people like the indian leader did in kashmir.


----------



## anniyan

Atleast v can trust pakistani's than chinese.....chinese started there game in pakistan...slowly militarizing pakistan with their stuff....one day they will say taiwan, arunachal pradesh n *pakistan* too belong to china n they will show some map before india-pakistan partition.....

I always see pakistan members pulling china always into the forum when v discuss about india and pakistan military stuff comparing india and china-pakistan military strength but i dnt see an indian member comparing india-russia with pakistan-china in military

Last but nt least if china was your close ally thy could have invested in pakistan billions of dollar...helped you guys to develop the economy...starting new industries.....but many chinese companies are rolling around india to start new industries.....thy need a market to sell their military stuff so thy need you.

My dear pakistan friends start thinking...no offence....

*I always trust India-Pakistan friendship now and ever.....*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CardSharp

ksgokul said:


> Here i am slightly not able to understand. There are so many democracies which have originated in the past. Do they have that kind of pattern in history? Sir, By no means i am trying to be assertive. I am just trying to be inquisitive. Ottaman empire broke into a democracy. Imperialist Japan became a democracy. But there were no problems for the neighbors.
> 
> I believe, we are preferring the US now, because China has grown more assertive with the transparency index remaining low(particularly on its defence doctrine). I don't think people had trouble accepting US as super power( when the transition happened after second world war ).
> 
> Thanks...




Socialism in China and the CCP was founded as a reaction (amongst other things) towards foreign incursion and what the Chinese saw as aggressive tendencies from colonial and imperial powers. As such, one of the tenets of the PRC, was a promise to resist imperialist power and never become one ourselves. This was the reason trotted out during the Korean war (the war of resisting American imperialism), the Vietnam war, and was still often mentioned even later. 

As communist ideals weaken and China undergoes a transformation from a "people's democracy" as Joe put it to a "liberal democracy", the aversion to imperialism and expansionist aggression might be left by the road side. As such there will only be left the public's resistances to war based on whatever other grounds.


This I think is the irony that Joe touched upon when he said



> Instead of welcoming the orderly nature and eminently predictable nature of people's democracy, these neighbours have been aping the US line without even a slight thought towards the inevitable consequences



It is well for some people to decry communism and cheer democracy but to do so without understanding and a bit of careful reflection is foolhardy. Nevertheless I expect the Chinese people to act rationally and calmly whatever comes in the future. (we know first hand the dangers of unbridled righteousness and ideological fervour, read the great proletarians cultural revolution)

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## CardSharp

ksgokul said:


> Here i am slightly not able to understand. There are so many democracies which have originated in the past. Do they have that kind of pattern in history? Sir, By no means i am trying to be assertive. I am just trying to be inquisitive. Ottaman empire broke into a democracy. Imperialist Japan became a democracy. But there were no problems for the neighbors.
> 
> I believe, we are preferring the US now, because China has grown more assertive with the transparency index remaining low(particularly on its defence doctrine). I don't think people had trouble accepting US as super power( when the transition happened after second world war ).
> 
> Thanks...



Also just in the two examples you raise of two countries (Turkey, Japan) who transitioned from empires to democracies, I'd like to point that their transition was anything but peaceful. Turkey's came about after the first world war and Japan's came about after the second world war (and it's not like Japan had a choice, given they were told to by the US military, and the first draft of their Constitution was drafted by US army officers)

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ksgokul

CardSharp said:


> Also just in the two examples you raise of two countries (Turkey, Japan) who transitioned from empires to democracies, I'd like to point that their transition was anything but peaceful. Turkey's came about after the first world war and Japan's came about after the second world war (and it's not like Japan had a choice, given they were told to by the US military, and the first draft of their Constitution was drafted by US army officers)



Sir,
I could understand your explanation on Tibet, but here i still have trouble on understanding this. From my previous understanding, i am taking away the point that minorities (say Tibetians, Uighurs etc may not get representations, as they are minuscule ).
But when a democracy is formed with representations from Han chinese of 120 million, are you saying that
a) they would prefer confrontations to solve border conflicts
b) Diplomats and the government won't have any other options other than to act according to them.

One more request would be to consider me as someone eager to learn than as someone arguing? Please don't feel irritated if you feel the questions are amateurish and provide me pointers/guidelines if i have to read before asking something.

Thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

ksgokul said:


> I believe, we are preferring the US now, because China has grown more assertive with the transparency index remaining low(particularly on its defence doctrine). I don't think people had trouble accepting US as super power( when the transition happened after second world war ).
> 
> Thanks...



How many countries has the USA "invaded" in the past ten years? Iraq, Afghanistan... threatening to invade Iran and North Korea...

How many countries has China "invaded" in the past ten years? None.

If China was America, India would be in serious trouble. Do you really want us to follow in their footsteps, and simply invade those we have a problem with?

Quote: "Be careful what you wish for."

Applies to both China and India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Paan Singh

Chinese-Dragon said:


> How many countries has the USA "invaded" in the past ten years? Iraq, Afghanistan... threatening to invade Iran and North Korea...
> 
> How many countries has China "invaded" in the past ten years? None.
> 
> If China was America, India would be in serious trouble. Do you really want us to follow in their footsteps, and simply invade those we have a problem with?
> 
> Quote: "Be careful what you wish for."
> 
> Applies to both China and India.



hello chinese dragon,

how r u and ur innocent trolling??
i mean how is business going on here?

with regards


----------



## ksgokul

Chinese-Dragon said:


> How many countries has the USA "invaded" in the past ten years? Iraq, Afghanistan... threatening to invade Iran and North Korea...
> 
> How many countries has China "invaded" in the past ten years? None.
> 
> If China was America, India would be in serious trouble. Do you really want us to follow in their footsteps, and simply invade those we have a problem with?
> 
> Quote: "Be careful what you wish for."
> 
> Applies to both China and India.



Because in the past 10 years, China was not the super power and the transition has just begun( i mean the kind of super power with ASAT and J-20). I believe statistics don't count, when China gets the power. As you have said its "fear". During the cold war era, more countries feared about USSR, because it was a iron curtain. US would stop the war, if the majority in US feels that the war should be stopped. Again that's what i can think of.

Thanks.


----------



## Manas

dabong1 said:


> I dont recall the chinese leader asking the UN to intervene in tibet or taiwan and promising a vote to the people like the indian leader did in kashmir.



Thank ur god, Thats the difference between the Chinese and indian approach .

In kashmir the most hardliner leader syed ali shah Gilani fighting for break up Kashmir from India is *getting pension from the govt*, free cancer treatment in indian hospitals and Govt's security as protection ....

whereas the the most moderate voice His holiness Dalai Lama fighting for just autonomy of Tibet for instead of complete independence from china was driven out of china and has been living in exile in India for last 50 years.


----------



## ksgokul

Self delete


----------



## Manas

ksgokul said:


> I believe that is an advantage you get with a high percent of homogeneous people( i meant the Han Chinese ) in a nation's population. May be the chinese members can clarify whether i am right.
> 
> Thanks.



No,I think the difference in approach lies in the fact the we are Gandian democracy and china is a communist country goes by the ideology of by Mao .


----------



## Contract Killer

Manas said:


> In kashmir the most hardliner leader syed ali shah Gilani fighting for break up Kashmir from India is *getting pension from the govt*, free cancer treatment in indian hospitals and *Govt's security as protection ....*



Just because of this security protection he abuses our Democratic system and holds Stone pelting rallies.

On the other hand.............. Not a single drop of tear for the two sister got killed today

Shame on people like him............


----------



## Joe Shearer

Manas said:


> No,I think the difference in approach lies in the fact the we are Gandian democracy and china is a communist country goes by the ideology of by Mao .



Interesting, except that there is no such thing as a Gandhian democracy. India is a liberal democracy, period. China is a communist country, but communist countries define themselves as people's democracies, states which have predictable, specified relations between people and ruling party, ruling party and state administration and people and state administration.

The ideology of Mao is no longer a dominant ideology in PRC.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LaBong

> How many countries has the USA "invaded" in the past ten years? Iraq, Afghanistan... threatening to invade Iran and North Korea...
> 
> How many countries has China "invaded" in the past ten years? None.



It's simply because India do not face an existential threat from US. US wasn't particularly loved in India even 2 decades back and still we have people in here who see imperialistic nefarious design at every US move. 

Also IT and Call Centres.

I do not see much difference between China and US, one is bully of today and one striving to become one. But you don't want to share room with a bully, do you?


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Abir said:


> It's simply because India do not face an existential threat from US. US wasn't particularly loved in India even 2 decades back and still we have people in here who see imperialistic nefarious design at every US move.
> 
> Also IT and Call Centres.



I am just pointing out the irony of the often wished desire of many Indians, that China should become a democracy, and this will somehow make India "safer".

When in fact, the CPC itself is actually the one who is keeping a lid on nationalist sentiments, and preventing them from boiling over.

America is a powerful democracy, and invades the nations that it disagrees with. What is stopping China from doing the same if we were to take up the mantle of democracy? How difficult would it be, for ultra-nationalist groups to rile up the average Chinese person on the street against India, considering our history of relations?

You guys will really miss the CPC, if it ever gets to that point where we become a mini-America.



Abir said:


> I do not see much difference between China and US, one is bully of today and one striving to become one. But you don't want to share room with a bully, do you?



Ask your neighbours: Pakistan, China, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, etc. who the "bully" in the region is. It is all about perception.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Sohni Dharti said:


> Personally, I have noticed that Indians are becoming more openly jingoistic and confrontational. Not just online, but also in real life. People I have known for decades have become more fiercely nationalistic. And this happened before 26/11. It has more to do with India's growing economic/diplomatic/military power. In a democracy dancing to the tune of a sensationalist media, this is a dangerous trend.
> 
> I don't discuss politics with my Chinese friends in real life, so I can't speak if a similar change is happening in the Chinese psyche.





jayron said:


> I agree with most of what you have said. Though irritating and some times offensive to people from other nations, I am not sure if it is necessarily a dangerous trend. This sense of nationhood has actually helped keep a country as diverse as India intact. Though ideally, I would like my people to be more modest , respectful and above all realistic!



Sometimes there are utter gems which pass unnoticed or uncommented, largely because they seem so obvious that nobody stops to ask what is going on under the hood.

This observation, that Indians are getting more nationalistic, is one such. I would like to venture my own interpretation of this phenomenon.

We must remember that the last time in history that Indians felt their 'Indianness' so deeply was during the Independence movement. During this movement, Indians let themselves be felt and seen in public as firmly determined people; Independence was a goal of epic proportions, and Indians understood they were fighting a battle, a warllke campaign without a single weapon in evidence. 

While a comparison with the torture that China went through would be silly, because the two cases are so dissimilar, what happened in India was in many ways unique in world history. Subsequently, dozens of similar events have taken place, on different scales at different levels, but they all took their cue from this extraordinary campaign within south Asia.

At the time of independence, then, there were two entirely different moods prevailing. One was epiphanic, the other sombre and funereal. 

_An epiphany (from the ancient Greek &#7952;&#960;&#953;&#966;&#940;&#957;&#949;&#953;&#945;, epiphaneia, "manifestation, striking appearance") is the sudden realization or comprehension of the (larger) essence or meaning of something. The term is used in either a philosophical or literal sense to signify that the claimant has "found the last piece of the puzzle and now sees the whole picture," or has new information or experience, often insignificant by itself, that illuminates a deeper or numinous foundational frame of reference._

There was real reason to be epiphanic in 1947. The whole puzzle had suddenly solved itself, a million struggles in a million dusty streets, the strange interlude of the INA, half-rebel and half-deluded traitor, the war-weariness of the British, the determination of the British working-class to throw off the yokes of their upper-class masters, even if it meant casting away their empire.... It seemed larger than life, every Indian acted and spoke and behaved with a kind of feeling that he or she was individually in the eye of history.

On the other hand, there was incurable sadness. The country had been vivisected; hundreds of thousands were dead, butchered by gangs the leader had been killed in cold blood by the RSS; the leaders were people whose leadership was untested at best.

These feelings didn't last for ever. India soon settled down to years of grinding poverty and dullness, to what can most kindly be described as a bureaucratic socialism, where our progress or lack of it was recounted in murderous prose, which was itself a weapon of mass destruction, printed on toilet paper, with colour covers with the different colours each slightly overlapping the others; where a films division propaganda short inspired the masses before they could see some Hollywood film that the whole world had seen several years before - let's not go on, it's too gruesome to relate the tale.

In these years, we were taught to distrust Indian talent and capability even by our own government. Any initiative that was not inspired by a metastasising bureaucracy was probably either a corrupt practice, punishable with the severest sections of the CrPC, or a foreign attempt at subverting the republic and bringing it to heel once again.

I doubt that either of you who have made these remarks were travellers abroad in the days when _we were allowed £5 and $10 - not per day, for the entire trip abroad._Some of our best and brightest students landed up in foreign countries with that sum and nothing more. It was in those days that we learnt to despise ourselves, to understand that we were truly shameful and unworthy of respect, that not only had our industrialisation and urban development failed, but our military also lay in ruins, the same military that saved the skin of the 8th Army and of the 14th Army, was now unable to stand in the path of a vigorous and determined attacker, although it made no bones about tackling an allied force with the same regiments in its order of battle.

Try to imagine, then, what excitement prevailed when the economy, indeed, the country opened up to the outside world. Try, also, the sudden, heady feeling with the release of sufficient foreign currency.

I would invite comment on this response before moving on.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LaBong

Chinese-Dragon said:


> I am just pointing out the irony of the often wished desire of many Indians, that China should become a democracy, and this will somehow make India "safer".
> 
> When in fact, the CPC itself is actually the one who is keeping a lid on nationalist sentiments, and preventing them from boiling over.
> 
> America is a powerful democracy, and invades the nations that it disagrees with. What is stopping China from doing the same if we were to take up the mantle of democracy? How difficult would it be, for ultra-nationalist groups to rile up the average Chinese person on the street against India, considering our history of relations?
> 
> You guys will really miss the CPC, if it ever gets to that point where we become a mini-America.



I think I misunderstood the context, my post was a reply to the question that why do Indians prefer US over China. 

Honestly, be it democracy or autocracy, foreign policy is not dictated by ordinary people. Also I'm having difficulty to imagine ordinary people protesting in large number for want of declaring war on another country. They usually do that when petrol is overpriced or their screwed up version of religion isn't implemented. 

Anyway, a democrat China wouldn't be any different than a communist China to India, yeah you will lose the support of Communist Party of India but I don't think you will miss that as our communists don't invest in Sanghhai stock exchange. 



> Ask your neighbours: Pakistan, China, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, etc. who the "bully" in the region is. It is all about perception.



Perception it is, when did I deny that?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CardSharp

Don't need to call me sir lol



ksgokul said:


> Sir,
> I could understand your explanation on Tibet, but here i still have trouble on understanding this. From my previous understanding, i am taking away the point that minorities (say Tibetians, Uighurs etc may not get representations, as they are minuscule ).
> But when a democracy is formed with representations from Han chinese of 120 million, are you saying that
> a) they would prefer confrontations to solve border conflicts
> b) Diplomats and the government won't have any other options other than to act according to them.



I didn't mean to say that minority won't be represented, just that in a representative democracy, 0.2 percent of the population will not be a decisive force in policy. The local administration in Tibet and Xinjiang are always either Tibetan or Uighur/Hui respectively




ksgokul said:


> But when a democracy is formed with representations from Han chinese of 120 million, are you saying that
> a) they would prefer confrontations to solve border conflicts
> b) Diplomats and the government won't have any other options other than to act according to them.



a) I doubt it, war is not good for business. Also I'm not sure how many people in China knows about the history of border or the war in 1962. I'm just afraid domestic politicians in a election will manipulate international issues. Have you seen "wag the dog"? if so something like that. 
b) Of course they do, but they will have less maneuvering room if votes directly decide if they will a job. 




ksgokul said:


> Sir,
> *One more request would be to consider me as someone eager to learn than as someone arguing?* Please don't feel irritated if you feel the questions are amateurish and provide me pointers/guidelines if i have to read before asking something.
> 
> Thanks.



Of course and I should thank you for asking the questions, it usually takes a quorum of people willing to put aside their pride to get an honest discussion going. You are definitely welcome.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## CardSharp

ksgokul said:


> Because in the past 10 years, China was not the super power and the transition has just begun( i mean the kind of super power with ASAT and J-20). I believe statistics don't count, when China gets the power. As you have said its "fear". During the cold war era, more countries feared about USSR, because it was a iron curtain. US would stop the war, if the majority in US feels that the war should be stopped. Again that's what i can think of.
> 
> Thanks.



This is where Joe and I disagree I think. Joe as the good student of history amongst us, thinks that given China's dynastic history, its inevitable momentum will carry it ever westward. 







Whereas I personally think, China of this era is interested in its people, its wellbeing, and its security only. This is something that we haven't quite hashed out but I think we'll get to it one of these days.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CardSharp

I just noticed we've been relocated.


----------



## Developereo

jayron said:


> This sense of nationhood has actually helped keep a country as diverse as India intact.



True. The trouble starts when nationalism gets exploited by inept politicians to divert attention from difficult problems.



Joe Shearer said:


> This observation, that Indians are getting more nationalistic, is one such. I would like to venture my own interpretation of this phenomenon.



That's a fair assessment and there is justifiable pride in India's achievements. However, the high level of nationalism in the youth, I suspect, is fueled by the media. That's not necessaily bad: it provides a wellspring of entrepreneurial energy. However, as I replied to jayron above, nationalism is a dangerous tiger that can quickly get out of control in the hands of charismatic and dangerous demagogs. One such example was the needlessly provocative flag hoisting drama on Republic day.


----------



## dabong1

Manas said:


> Thank ur god, Thats the difference between the Chinese and indian approach .



The chinese dont promise a referendum and then not give one.........Thats the difference.




Manas said:


> In kashmir the most hardliner leader syed ali shah Gilani fighting for break up Kashmir from India is *getting pension from the govt*, free cancer treatment in indian hospitals and Govt's security as protection ....



So you want him to pay his taxes but give nothing in return?




Manas said:


> whereas the the most moderate voice His holiness Dalai Lama fighting for just autonomy of Tibet for instead of complete independence from china was driven out of china and has been living in exile in India for last 50 years.



Your talking about the CIA backed Dalai Lama who ruled with a feudal system that gave nothing to the people and now is used as political card against the chinese?


----------



## Joe Shearer

CardSharp said:


> This is where Joe and I disagree I think. Joe as the good student of history amongst us, thinks that given China's dynastic history, its inevitable momentum will carry it ever westward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas I personally think, China of this era is interested in its people, its wellbeing, and its security only. This is something that we haven't quite hashed out but I think we'll get to it one of these days.



Actually, our seeming disagreement is based on a misunderstanding.

I have been of the opinion that as far as the expansion of Imperial China was concerned, it was driven by the need for security on the borders, and was completed by the T'ang Dynasty. Thereafter the ebb and flow of power seems to have become quite unpredictable, and bore no signs of any other ambition or sovereign object.

The annexation of Xinjiang and Tibet in mid-20th century times were two very special political cases; with the subsequent annexation of Hong Kong, it is not clear that there are other such necessary actions still due.

I believe, in fact, that during the course of the next fifty years, there may be some opposite pressures due to the demographic hollowing of China that is predicted by experts. So it is wildly unlikely to see a need for the PLA to be posted in Tezpur, except for punitive purposes, at the end of yet another war, fought on lines which may be suspected but are not yet clear.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Prism said:


> hello chinese dragon,
> 
> how r u and ur innocent trolling??
> i mean how is business going on here?
> 
> with regards



I am curious to know why this post was felt necessary. Considering the high level of posts made by Chinese Dragon, their dignity and balance, it is not clear what provoked this comment. Could you explain this, please?


----------



## Joe Shearer

CardSharp said:


> I just noticed we've been relocated.



Just two posts prior, of course.

Personally, while the administration of this forum must always retain the privilege of being able to decide these groupings according to their interpretation of the topic, this particular re-location was ill-considered and based on a wholly superficial analysis.

We are not really into Kashmir on this thread, but into Indo-Chinese relations. 

It was far more logical in its original place.

However, as guests, we can only note the fact, nod in acquiescence, and continue our deliberations.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KS

Joe Shearer said:


> Sometimes there are utter gems which pass unnoticed or uncommented, largely because they seem so obvious that nobody stops to ask what is going on under the hood.
> 
> This observation, that Indians are getting more nationalistic, is one such. I would like to venture my own interpretation of this phenomenon.
> 
> We must remember that the last time in history that Indians felt their 'Indianness' so deeply was during the Independence movement. During this movement, Indians let themselves be felt and seen in public as firmly determined people; Independence was a goal of epic proportions, and Indians understood they were fighting a battle, a warllke campaign without a single weapon in evidence.
> 
> While a comparison with the torture that China went through would be silly, because the two cases are so dissimilar, what happened in India was in many ways unique in world history. Subsequently, dozens of similar events have taken place, on different scales at different levels, but they all took their cue from this extraordinary campaign within south Asia.
> 
> At the time of independence, then, there were two entirely different moods prevailing. One was epiphanic, the other sombre and funereal.
> 
> _An epiphany (from the ancient Greek &#7952;&#960;&#953;&#966;&#940;&#957;&#949;&#953;&#945;, epiphaneia, "manifestation, striking appearance") is the sudden realization or comprehension of the (larger) essence or meaning of something. The term is used in either a philosophical or literal sense to signify that the claimant has "found the last piece of the puzzle and now sees the whole picture," or has new information or experience, often insignificant by itself, that illuminates a deeper or numinous foundational frame of reference._
> 
> There was real reason to be epiphanic in 1947. The whole puzzle had suddenly solved itself, a million struggles in a million dusty streets, the strange interlude of the INA, *half-rebel and half-deluded traitor,* the war-weariness of the British, the determination of the British working-class to throw off the yokes of their upper-class masters, even if it meant casting away their empire.... It seemed larger than life, every Indian acted and spoke and behaved with a kind of feeling that he or she was individually in the eye of history.
> 
> On the other hand, there was incurable sadness. The country had been vivisected; hundreds of thousands were dead, butchered by gangs the leader had been killed in cold blood by the RSS; the leaders were people whose leadership was untested at best.
> 
> These feelings didn't last for ever. India soon settled down to years of grinding poverty and dullness, to what can most kindly be described as a bureaucratic socialism, where our progress or lack of it was recounted in murderous prose, which was itself a weapon of mass destruction, printed on toilet paper, with colour covers with the different colours each slightly overlapping the others; where a films division propaganda short inspired the masses before they could see some Hollywood film that the whole world had seen several years before - let's not go on, it's too gruesome to relate the tale.
> 
> In these years, we were taught to distrust Indian talent and capability even by our own government. Any initiative that was not inspired by a metastasising bureaucracy was probably either a corrupt practice, punishable with the severest sections of the CrPC, or a foreign attempt at subverting the republic and bringing it to heel once again.
> 
> I doubt that either of you who have made these remarks were travellers abroad in the days when _we were allowed £5 and $10 - not per day, for the entire trip abroad._Some of our best and brightest students landed up in foreign countries with that sum and nothing more. It was in those days that we learnt to despise ourselves, to understand that we were truly shameful and unworthy of respect, that not only had our industrialisation and urban development failed, but our military also lay in ruins, the same military that saved the skin of the 8th Army and of the 14th Army, was now unable to stand in the path of a vigorous and determined attacker, although it made no bones about tackling an allied force with the same regiments in its order of battle.
> 
> Try to imagine, then, what excitement prevailed when the economy, indeed, the country opened up to the outside world. Try, also, the sudden, heady feeling with the release of sufficient foreign currency.
> 
> I would invite comment on this response before moving on.



This is a reference to whom ? Netaji ?

BTW I am still waiting for the reference material for the Movement of Dravidians to the subcontinent from Indonesian archipelago.


----------



## CardSharp

Joe Shearer said:


> Actually, our seeming disagreement is based on a misunderstanding.
> 
> I have been of the opinion that as far as the expansion of Imperial China was concerned, it was driven by the need for security on the borders, and was completed by the T'ang Dynasty. Thereafter the ebb and flow of power seems to have become quite unpredictable, and bore no signs of any other ambition or sovereign object.
> 
> The annexation of Xinjiang and Tibet in mid-20th century times were two very special political cases; with the subsequent annexation of Hong Kong, it is not clear that there are other such necessary actions still due.
> 
> I believe, in fact, that during the course of the next fifty years, there may be some opposite pressures due to the demographic hollowing of China that is predicted by experts. So it is wildly unlikely to see a need for the PLA to be posted in Tezpur, except for punitive purposes, at the end of yet another war, fought on lines which may be suspected but are not yet clear.




One more reason to thank comrade Deng. The hard part will come not when China is on the ascent but when China sees itself as arrived. If the same old stasis and complacency sets in, there will be another 400 year decline (but those are the problems of another generation) 

What will really be interesting is China's international posture when it has reached its apogee. China really hasn't had an international foreign policy in its imperial history. Back then it was a naive attitude of, I am the emperor, there are no equals to me or my empire, show me fealty. (part of why the imperial system failed). 

China's foreign policy today is centered on the very pragmatic goal of assuring China's welfare and rise but it still largely divorced from a world vision and any indication how China will use its powers to shape the world in the future. America when it saw itself as the sole superpower, declared the end of history and had a very clear view of what the world should look like, but I just can't see that China even has such a view. 

I wonder what your thoughts are with regards to China's foreign policy stance in the next hundred years. 


Joe Shearer said:


> Just two posts prior, of course.
> 
> Personally, while the administration of this forum must always retain the privilege of being able to decide these groupings according to their interpretation of the topic, this particular re-location was ill-considered and based on a wholly superficial analysis.
> 
> We are not really into Kashmir on this thread, but into Indo-Chinese relations.
> 
> It was far more logical in its original place.
> 
> However, as guests, we can only note the fact, nod in acquiescence, and continue our deliberations.



A careful reading of the title alone should been enough keep the thread where it was, but again as you say we are guests.


----------



## Joe Shearer

A place saver note, in order to keep this thread in my list after the renewal of the forum get-up.


----------

