China’s border row with India has misfired, says regional security expert

[faithfulguy]

the modern country is a very european concept imo. the region called india, pak ,bd was bound together by various dharmic beliefs (buddhism being one of them). so south asia originally had a dharmic philosophy which kind of loosely brought people on the same plane. then after muslimes invaded a lot of thngs changed and so did political structure. after british came western concept was introduced. I am sure it s the same with china as well, in the sense there would not have been a country called china but only kingdoms???

No, China history composed of various empires rule by various families. Each family would form a dynasty. In 200sBC, the first emperor united China and since then, all and every ruler who claim to be emperor would label others as traitors and rebels. You can see the effect of this in relationship between China and Taiwan as each regard others as rebels and claims each others territory. As a result, China has been mostly unified in the last 2000+ past years and has a national identify. Only a few hundred year since then has there been more than 1 dominate government that controls the whole country.

 

[jetti]

No, China history composed of various empires rule by various families. Each family would form a dynasty. In 200sBC, the first emperor united China and since then, all and every ruler who claim to be emperor would label others as traitors and rebels. You can see the effect of this in relationship between China and Taiwan as each regard others as rebels and claims each others territory. As a result, China has been mostly unified in the last 2000+ past years and has a national identify. Only a few hundred year since then has there been more than 1 dominate government that controls the whole country.

but then I have heard that china has many ethnicities and languages.(exclude tibet, xinjiang ) How does that tie in with one nation.

 

[Nisha]

Thanks for agreeing with me. Its just refreshing for an Indian to agree with me on this. Most Indians believe that India has always been one country throughout its history. The small kingdoms are just an aberration and a small part of India's history. Its difficult for me to share basic fact as I'm not India and they feel insulted when I share the truth.

Nobody states India was unified in its entire history. But Indians gets riled up when certain ppl love to say the British were responsible for uniting India first. That is wrong. It was unified under Ashoka for a century and it stretched from Afghantistan to the Northeast. Our differences my seem like a hurdle but once we get over it, it is actually an advantage in its own right. Look at Cambodia, Thailand and Burma....look at the influences of Hinduism and Buddhism from India on their nations. At some point they were paying tribute to Indian kings. Some areas were conquered by Cholas.


But your are correct. Till the British came, India was very divided and that made it very easy for foreign invaders to establish a foothold. Teacherous and conniving Kings/Princes would stab each other in the back for temporary power, only to be invaded later on by the very same ppl whom they sided with. Many overlook how the Sikhs and especially the Marathas came very close to uniting all of India. But atlas, it was not to be. The British came at the perfect time and seized the critical moment to divide and conquer. Timing is everything in war.

 

[faithfulguy]

Nobody states India was unified in its entire history. But Indians gets riled up when certain ppl love to say the British were responsible for uniting India first. That is wrong. It was unified under Ashoka for a century and it stretched from Afghantistan to the Northeast. Our differences my seem like a hurdle but once we get over it, it is actually an advantage in its own right. Look at Cambodia, Thailand and Burma....look at the influences of Hinduism and Buddhism from India on their nations. At some point they were paying tribute to Indian kings. Some areas were conquered by Cholas.


But your are correct. Till the British came, India was very divided and that made it very easy for foreign invaders to establish a foothold. Teacherous and conniving Kings/Princes would stab each other in the back for temporary power, only to be invaded later on by the very same ppl whom they sided with. Many overlook how the Sikhs and especially the Marathas came very close to uniting all of India. But atlas, it was not to be. The British came at the perfect time and seized the critical moment to divide and conquer. Timing is everything in war.

I don't agree the notion that India was divided as India never existed prior to the British invasion. There is also no concept of "foreign" vs "domestic" as this imply that there is a kingdom or empire called India.

As for who come close to united all India before the British came over, it would be Mughals. The Mughals emperor actually claimed to be the emperor of the whole Hindustan. Did the Mughals regard countries such as Maratha or Sikhs rebels?

 

[AADHAAR]

I don't agree the notion that India was divided as India never existed prior to the British invasion. There is also no concept of "foreign" vs "domestic" as this imply that there is a kingdom or empire called India.

As for who come close to united all India before the British came over, it would be Mughals. The Mughals emperor actually claimed to be the emperor of the whole Hindustan. Did the Mughals regard countries such as Maratha or Sikhs rebels?

Obviously your knowelege of history is barely skin deep.

History of India extends to more than 4500 years ago ..and it was British who came looking for India when the land route to India was blocked by Arabs. In fact, when Vasco da Gama came searching for India (and succeeded in 1498 AD), mughals didn't even exist !

The british East India company was set up in 1600 AD. And you need a british doctor to treat your brain, if you believe that India was born in 1600 AD.

 

[acid rain]

This "expert" is either stupid or just blind.

Back in the warring states in China. 7 states exist. One is the eventual ruling state, Qin. The other six attempted an Alliance to bring down Qin through an masterful politician called Su Qin.

The Alliance on paper was stronger, but each individually was much weaker. The Qin politician used his diplomacy skills to dissolve the alliance and paved the way to eventual unification by Qin.

He used the common mistrust, the weakness of the weaker states, and used bribes, and other means to stop a few other nations. The Alliance collapsed before it even did anything meaningful.

The 6 states, were much like Europe in the sense they had much in common, as well as differences. The proposed alliance by this author has nothing, and much like BRICS, there power, interest and everything else has pretty much nothing in common, and even worse, some of these countries are developed or soon to be developed like SK, Japan and Australia, while some are pretty low on the food chain.

Moral of the story, unlike Nato where US is the undisputed leader and has command over all Allied forces, there isn't and won't be a command structure that would work in a India Japan + whatever.

India won't listen to Japanese command, and I know the Japanese won't listen to Indians, Vietnam and Philippines also won't listen to another's command, while Australia and Indonesia has at least some bad feelings, from my understanding.

With out an effective Chain of command, a mistrust between the countries, economic interests with China as well as countries friendly with China, European and American interests with China and other countries.

All these things are things that would doom any alliance against China. All China has to do is offer unification for South Korea, negotiate with Vietnam and Philippines on a common ground (they won't really want to go to war with China so the end result is irrelevent, all it needs is to delay or stop them from taking action) and the way US China trade is going, US will do all it could to hold back Japan.

India, let's face it won't move alone, Australia loves Chinese Yuan, while Indonesia, Malaysia somehow seems indifferent to the SCS issue.

No there won't be an Anti China Alliance

These are not old times, alliances and collaborations dont happen only on the war field. Most collaborations nowadays are multifaceted.

 

[neehar]

India was actually taken over, it's sovereignty threatened, did the Princely states, bind together? No I'm afraid, it takes far more than Threats to bind nations together. It takes leaders and people who are willing to be team players.

It's a lot harder than it sounds, you been in teams I assume?

if ur talking about 17th century then u probably should know that our unity despite our differences brought our freedom.and besides people wont remain same do they.we learnt from our mistakes.and if china fails to do so it suffers.india might not be a great friend to its neighbors but china has enemies on all sides.if it still continues in its expansionist policy based on some historical maps then u'll have to face the consequences..china has enough enemies and sure it dnt want india in their league.

He said India’s role would be to restrain China “from dreaming its new-fangled dream in a manner that conflict breaks out in the region”. He described mainland China’s dream as a “dynamic expansion model” fuelled by fast economic growth and a desire to push beyond its core interests in Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang – and into India’s Arunachal Pradesh province, most of the South China Sea, and the Diaoyu islands, which Japan calls the Senkakus.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...s-regional-security-expert.html#ixzz2WipG8dre

The so called dynamic expansion of China mainly focus on India’s Arunachal Pradesh and Senkaku and other little sea islands just existing to be ignored.

yeah and about say 80% of scs and a few other islands in it.

 

[neehar]

LOL India should not trust in Yankees, America changes side very frequently. Once China become superpower , America will started taking side of China, even may offer China lets go we together rule the world.

we never did...but china moves with same aggressive expansionist policy then to protect themselves its neighbors dont have any other option i guess .existence is more important than everything else

 

[neehar]

see you avoided my question, can these countries work as well as the Allies did in WW2 if there isn't a country such as US taking the lead?

BTW even with the leadership it still had much problems that the Nazis and Japanese didn't have. The Burma campaign is a perfect example of how US, China, and British command not only failed to work together, but also took steps to undermine each other.

The Japanese elite troops in Burma at that time is more real threat to all party than China is today or am I mistaken?

they sure can work with shared responsibilities for a common cause of survival..its not hard to imagine when existence is at stake do u think egos come in the way?? like india would cutoff chinese oil routes in IOR and man up the borders so that ur half forces stay in our border ready to defend ur western border while japan,u.s and other nations take care of the eastern border which has..u just need a motive.if china provides it then sure u'll find things move accordingly.and china dont want india in that alliance.there is a reason china pulled of its troops in the latest stand off at ladakh when india annonced that it would attend the trilateral meeting with u.s and japan..china knows thats a diplomatic warning and it moved aptly according to the situation by amicably solving the problem

 

[jetti]

I don't agree the notion that India was divided as India never existed prior to the British invasion. There is also no concept of "foreign" vs "domestic" as this imply that there is a kingdom or empire called India.

As for who come close to united all India before the British came over, it would be Mughals. The Mughals emperor actually claimed to be the emperor of the whole Hindustan. Did the Mughals regard countries such as Maratha or Sikhs rebels?

as i have mentioned earlier the Mauryan empire which lasted for quite a long period was as big as mughal if not bigger

 

[faithfulguy]

as i have mentioned earlier the Mauryan empire which lasted for quite a long period was as big as mughal if not bigger

It was only 150 years when they were close to the size of India. And that was in about 300BC. India was composed of kingdoms of various sizes until Mughals almost united it. And the British finally united India.

 

[faithfulguy]

Obviously your knowelege of history is barely skin deep.

History of India extends to more than 4500 years ago ..and it was British who came looking for India when the land route to India was blocked by Arabs. In fact, when Vasco da Gama came searching for India (and succeeded in 1498 AD), mughals didn't even exist !

The british East India company was set up in 1600 AD. And you need a british doctor to treat your brain, if you believe that India was born in 1600 AD.

The history of India is 4500 years old is like history of middle east is 4500 years old. its a history of a geographical area, not the history of a country.

The country of India was created by the British. And India was not created until 1800s, so I would be wrong and early by over 200 years to say that India was born in the 1600AD> your insults just show your lack of understanding of history. India as a geographical region have been around since the beginning of history, but India as a country was created by the British in 1800s.

 

[jetti]

It was only 150 years when they were close to the size of India. And that was in about 300BC. India was composed of kingdoms of various sizes until Mughals almost united it. And the British finally united India.

agree on that ...

on your comment on mughal declaring himself emperor of hindustan, i should point out that south india which is a landmass as big as pakistan was not a part of mughal empire. (hyderabad was)hindustan was a general landmass from todays Pak to Bangladesh in the E-W corridor and from Kashmir to Deccan (around maharashtra/ hyderabad) in the N-S axis.
I think the British had the largest area (although there were many kingdoms they were effectively under the British)

 

[senkakudefender]

First thing China has to learn to behave like a world leader than a 3rd rate communist thug. India hates alignment but if you see IN is anyway very powerful and a massive threat to China combine with Japan navy and you got a fighter force more modernized and larger than PLAN without involving USA. I believe China has brought this upon itself. Today we are building nuke subs aircraft carriers stealth destroyers tomorrow we'll deploy them in vast no.

Second on the economic front you guys are having export problems and your stranglehold over rare earth metals is being challenged very seriously. By 2018 your growth will come to below 5 % (Check Link) and then you need as many friendly trading partners. When the most likely countries of ASEAN that would have filled this role are being enemies , who are you going to turn to? Pakistan, N Korea?

World runs on peace and as history has shown expansionists have had uncomfortable demises.

China's 2020 economic growth to fall below 5%: economist

 

[AADHAAR]

The history of India is 4500 years old is like history of middle east is 4500 years old. its a history of a geographical area, not the history of a country.

The country of India was created by the British. And India was not created until 1800s, so I would be wrong and early by over 200 years to say that India was born in the 1600AD> your insults just show your lack of understanding of history. India as a geographical region have been around since the beginning of history, but India as a country was created by the British in 1800s.

Wrong again .... the current Republic of India was created in 1947, not in 1800s !!!

(And PRC was actually created 2 years later, in 1949... USA as a "country" with current form of goverment existed before both Republic of India and People's Republic of China).

It is the civilisations which existed through the ancient times, not "nation states".

And off course, in geographical terms as used in history, any reference to India implicitly includes the geographical area now under the countries of Pakistan and Bangladesh.

The oldest surviving religion in the world (Hinduism) has roots going as back as the Indus Valley Civilisation which worshipped Shiva. Rig Vega was written more than 1500 years before Christ was born, and more than 2200 years before Mohammad.

Just by having artificial borders created on land, don't wipe out the shared history of India (and the current Pakistan and Bangladesh).

Type of goverments keep changing ... but that alone is insufficient to wipe out historical legacy of civilisations.

Anyway, its not my job to keep educating ignoramuses like yourself on forums like this. Please feel free to remain so.