China provokes again, troops enter Indian territory in Ladakh

[Fattyacids]

British never negotiated with China for Tibet-India border, stop telling us fake Chinese history.

Manchus were able to conquer China because Ming general Wu Sangui collaborated with Manchus and he is seen as a traitor by Chinese people for collaborating with foreigners just like traitor Mir Jafar in case of India.

Your brainless concoction of history again, why must you embarrass your countrymen? You think they are fools like you? China was in the Simla accord with British in 1914!!!!

 

[JOEY TRIBIANI]

india k sath phir say lol ho gya
indian armed forces ko china nay pir say day dia =

 

[INDIC]

Your brainless concoction of history again, why must you embarrass your countrymen? You think they are fools like you? China was in the Simla accord with British in 1914!!!!

How many time do I need to explain, China was there to decide Tibet-China border. Only British India and Lamas of Tibet were negotiating border India-Tibet border. I have no interest in your fake Chinese history.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

kid open ur eyes
u posted this pic

nd c the difference between the following pics

nuf said...fag! troll go help ur country......it needs u not ur trolling!!
apna ghar sambhalta nai hmko bolne aae
and at the end of the day... we hav our country intact with max %age of jammu nd kashmir....and u have
guys like u are the reason many sane pakistanis are ignored nd abused!
ur country can do better or even best only if people like u not intent to win only internet wars!!

Big talk comin from a (blind) "faggot" himself ...chose to ignore pics... Also tell us what "Islamic Flag" is? u dimwit jackass...

 

[INDIC]

In ancient times, which empire is not imperialist? Every territory is conquered, not given.
When the last emperor abdicated the throne in 1911, all its territory transferred to the new republic. This is legally blindly. China is the legal successor of Qing dynasty. All Qing emperors claimed the "mandate of heaven" as every other chinese emperor did since 221 BC. The governing system is chinese, the official are mostly Han Chinese, the language is Chinese, the culture is Chinese.....But the same cannot be said about Mughals and British. You can simply verify what I said by looking up Asian history books.

Outer Mongolia is recognized by China as independent. So there's no dispute about it. It was a result of deal made between China and Russia who was eyeing to take Mongolia.

Again telling us the same thing with lots of fake materials.

Qin Empire of 221BC divided into 18 states within 6 years even with the so called Mandate of Heaven. While Tibet was already out of Qing Dynasty's control in last decades of 1800s and they were virtually free until annexation by PRC in 1950.

 

[Victory]

@DESERT FIGHTER @danish_vij spare this thread

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

@DESERT FIGHTER @danish_vij spare this thread

Lalay ask ur frnds not to bring in Kashmir... !!

 

[Indischer]

In ancient times, which empire is not imperialist? Every territory is conquered, not given.
When the last emperor abdicated the throne in 1911, all its territory transferred to the new republic. This is legally blindly. China is the legal successor of Qing dynasty. All Qing emperors claimed the "mandate of heaven" as every other chinese emperor did since 221 BC. The governing system is chinese, the official are mostly Han Chinese, the language is Chinese, the culture is Chinese.....But the same cannot be said about Mughals and British. You can simply verify what I said by looking up Asian history books.

Outer Mongolia is recognized by China as independent. So there's no dispute about it. It was a result of deal made between China and Russia who was eyeing to take Mongolia.

Precisely the reason why India feels compelled to protect the borders handed to it by the British Indian Empire. The modern Republic of India has followed the same administrative and military model laid down by the British Indian Empire. English is still the Official Language.

And please check out the history of modern Mongolia. It was established as an Independent country after Chinese forces were driven out in a war. So, why hasn't China thought of reclaiming Mongolia if they were beaten in a war?
Btw, wasn't the Qing dynasty itself started by the Jurchen , who aren't ethnic Han?

 

[Lux de Veritas]

This Indic has no idea about history, and keep ranting China and India has no border. Just look at Shimla accord.

The Simla agreement was attended by Britain, Tibet and China. Now, from this information, two questions present themselves - If Tibet was sovereign, why was China invited at the conference at all? Why didn't the British negotiate directly with Tibet?

The answer is that, as stated above, Britain recognised Tibet to be under Chinese suzerainty. Hence, any bilateral agreement that Britain signed with Tibet (without Chinese agreement) would be illegal. (But ironically, that is exactly what the British did)

Precisely the reason why India feels compelled to protect the borders handed to it by the British Indian Empire. The modern Republic of India has followed the same administrative and military model laid down by the British Indian Empire. English is still the Official Language.

And please check out the history of modern Mongolia. It was established as an Independent country after Chinese forces were driven out in a war. So, why hasn't China thought of reclaiming Mongolia if they were beaten in a war?
Btw, wasn't the Qing dynasty itself started by the Jurchen , who aren't ethnic Han?

The Chinese has claims over Qing's territory just like India felt she inherited British India. You are making a contradicting example by claiming Indians need to protect her borders handed by British and yet denying the same principal to China.

 

[INDIC]

This Indic has no idea about history, and keep ranting China and India has no border. Just look at Shimla accord.

The Simla agreement was attended by Britain, Tibet and China. Now, from this information, two questions present themselves - If Tibet was sovereign, why was China invited at the conference at all? Why didn't the British negotiate directly with Tibet?

The answer is that, as stated above, Britain recognised Tibet to be under Chinese suzerainty. Hence, any bilateral agreement that Britain signed with Tibet (without Chinese agreement) would be illegal. (But ironically, that is exactly what the British did)



The Chinese has claims over Qing's territory just like India felt she inherited British India. You are making a contradicting example by claiming Indians need to protect her borders handed by British and yet denying the same principal to China.

Tell us why was Tibet a signatory, no provinces or princely state of British India was a signatory for India Tibet border.

 

[Fattyacids]

Precisely the reason why India feels compelled to protect the borders handed to it by the British Indian Empire. The modern Republic of India has followed the same administrative and military model laid down by the British Indian Empire. English is still the Official Language.

And please check out the history of modern Mongolia. It was established as an Independent country after Chinese forces were driven out in a war. So, why hasn't China thought of reclaiming Mongolia if they were beaten in a war?
Btw, wasn't the Qing dynasty itself started by the Jurchen , who aren't ethnic Han?

Not quite true, British created not just India, but 170 over princely states. Some joined India willingly, some were galloped by India either thru force or coercion. Where as Qing abdicated the entire empire.

Jurchen allied with Han Chinese to take the Ming emperor's throne. That was why they could marched to Beijing without a fight. Jurchen aren't exactly foreigner, they were not sinictized, but they share many similarities with us, even their flag is a picture of chinese dragon. But more importantly is the fact that they claimed mandate of heaven, in effect, becoming chinese emperor. The administration were Chinese, they adopted everything chinese.

Didn't I say, China recognized Out Mongolia as independent after a deal was reached with the Russia. if it was recognized by China, there's no ground for us to take it back? Tibet is totally different story.

 

[Lux de Veritas]

I do not know what are you trying to express by pulling in princely states of British India that has nothing to do with this issue.

China did sent Ivan Chen to Shimla and he refused to sign it, while British and Tibetan went ahead. Their actions has grave consequences because it means China does not recognize the treaty.

The only think India can proof validity of Shimla Accord is try to show there is an independent Tibet at that time. Unfortunately, British has decided not to back India up.

In 2008, a historic statement was released by the British Foreign Office which would have far reaching consequences. The British government discarded the Simla agreement as an anachronism and a colonial legacy - a "position [the British] took based on the geo-politics of the time". The British pulled away the only leg India had to stand on.

The statement says,

".......our position is unusual for one reason of history that has been imported into the present: the anachronism of our formal position on whether Tibet is part of China, and whether in fact we harbour continued designs to see the break up of China. We do not."
"Our ability to get our points across has sometimes been clouded by the position the UK took at the start of the 20th century on the status of Tibet, a position based on the geo-politics of the time. Our recognition of China's "special position" in Tibet developed from the outdated concept of suzerainty. "

(A New York Times article about this statement, entitled, 'Did Britain just sell Tibet?' (as if Britain owned it!) accused the British of 'rewriting history' in exchange for China's support during the financial crisis!)

Effectively, what Britain in fact was saying was that Tibet is a part of China and is not sovereign - which was the position of almost all countries by that time, including EU nations and the US. It even apologized for not having done so earlier. However, what is important in that statement is that the British seem to have completely discarded the Simla agreement - on which the whole of India's negotiating stance is based. Consequently, if we start with the assumption that the Simla agreement was illegal as Tibet had no right to conclude treaties separately, then we arrive at what the Chinese position has been all along!

 

[INDIC]

Maharaja of Kashmir or British governor of Assam were not the signatory while deciding India-Tibet border while Tibet was a signatory and China presence was only for deciding Tibet-China border.

 

[Lux de Veritas]

Maharaja of Kashmir or British governor of Assam were not the signatory while deciding India-Tibet border while Tibet was a signatory and China presence was only for deciding Tibet-China border.

I do not get why you are trying to say. Please express it clearly. How does these prince got to do with China's sovereignty in Tibet?

 

[INDIC]

I wrote everything that is needed.