China, Pakistan to boost Military Cooperation.

[Raphael]

Then the thread title should reflect the same

Who cares, it's ultimately a stylistic choice. The thread about India's collapsing economy uses the title of an early article on the plunging rupee.

Nepal, in a way, is military protectorate of India. Indian Army maintains seven Gorkha regiments consisting of troops recruited mostly from Nepal. So Nepal doesn't have the independence to have defence relations with other countries.

No it's not, and this is a truly misinformed and delusional worldview. Protectorates more or less don't exist anymore, they were a humiliating imperialist construct in which de facto sovereignty is revoked.

If Nepal were really a military protectorate:
1. India would have troops stationed in the country.
2. Nepal would not be permitted to tilt closer to China than India, as stands the status quo.
3. Most damning of all, India would likely have annexed the country decades ago, a la Sikkim.

The fact that India recruits for Gorkha regiments may speak of the country's enduring poverty, that desperate youths have to prostitute themselves out as mercenaries and fight under a foreign flag, but says nothing of the sovereignty of their homeland.

 

[Jade]

Who cares, it's ultimately a stylistic choice. The thread about India's collapsing economy uses the title of an early article on the plunging rupee.



No it's not, and this is a truly misinformed and delusional worldview. Protectorates more or less don't exist anymore, they were a humiliating imperialist construct in which de facto sovereignty is revoked.

If Nepal were really a military protectorate:
1. India would have troops stationed in the country.
2. Nepal would not be permitted to tilt closer to China than India, as stands the status quo.
3. Most damning of all, India would likely have annexed the country decades ago, a la Sikkim.

The fact that India recruits for Gorkha regiments may speak of the country's enduring poverty, that desperate youths have to prostitute themselves out as mercenaries and fight under a foreign flag, but says nothing of the sovereignty of their homeland.

It may be ultimately a stylistic choice for you, but putting title 'China' and fill information on India may not be acceptable to other. Remember titles are there for a purpose

As far as Nepal is considered, why is there a need for stationing troops when both our militaries are intertwined. In fact the Chief of armed forces of Nepal is recognized a de-facto official of Indian armed forces and as this arrangement is going on since last 65 years, your comments on poverty, prostitution doesn't hold. Also sovereignty has nothing to do with being a protectorate.

 

[Raphael]

It may be ultimately a stylistic choice for you, but putting title 'China' and fill information on India may not be acceptable to other. Remember titles are there for a purpose

There has been no information on India. We established this before.

As far as Nepal is considered, why is there a need for stationing troops when both our militaries are intertwined. In fact the Chief of armed forces of Nepal is recognized a de-facto official of Indian armed forces and as this arrangement is going on since last 65 years, your comments on poverty, prostitution doesn't hold. Also sovereignty has nothing to do with being a protectorate.

You can't make stuff up. The Nepalese Army is not a branch of of the Indian Army. The fact that they have their own independent military shows that they are not a protectorate - protectorates are not permitted control of their own military affairs. Frankly I don't believe that their Chief of Army Staff is a de facto official in the Indian armed forces, provide a source if you don't mind. And yes, sovereignty has everything to do with being a protectorate, protectorates are de facto not sovereign.

 

[Lightningbolt]

There has been no information on India. We established this before.



You can't make stuff up. The Nepalese Army is not a branch of of the Indian Army. The fact that they have their own independent military shows that they are not a protectorate - protectorates are not permitted control of their own military affairs. Frankly I don't believe that their Chief of Army Staff is a de facto official in the Indian armed forces, provide a source if you don't mind. And yes, sovereignty has everything to do with being a protectorate, protectorates are de facto not sovereign.

Making up things is a Indian trait.
Things like 'India will overtake China economically'
Or 'indigenous' Indian weapons

The fact is we are building our economic, financial, military, political and cultural relationship with Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldivdes, Nepal and Bhutan.
All of India's neighbours want a counterweight to India, and we provide exactly that by keeping the Indian regime firmly in check.
Now that the Indian economy has collapsed, our job has been made alot easier.