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

[Joe Shearer]

Some threads are depressing, for various reasons.

This one is one such because of the lack of knowledge of the participants.

 

[faithfulguy]

What a pity a few thousand historians did not get your instructions in time.

These historian know that history is used to shape the future. So they create history for the purpose to uniting the nation of India. Though the intension is commendable, the facts states otherwise. Which is that the Indian subcontinent was composed of multiple states through out the era of written history. The nation was India was created by the British to unify their invasion and occupation.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

These historian know that history is used to shape the future. So they create history for the purpose to uniting the nation of India. Though the intension is commendable, the facts states otherwise. Which is that the Indian subcontinent was composed of multiple states through out the era of written history. The nation was India was created by the British to unify their invasion and occupation.

Try to learn about the words 'bharatvarsha','mahabharata',uttarapatha[north india],dakshinapatha[south india] and aryabarta before ur insignificant rant.The indic identity is far older and stronger than your limited biased mind can concieve.

 

[faithfulguy]

Try to learn about the words 'bharatvarsha','mahabharata',uttarapatha[north india],dakshinapatha[south india] and aryabarta before ur insignificant rant.The indic identity is far older and stronger than your limited biased mind can concieve.

Its an identity of a religion or culture, but not of a nation. Before the reformation, western Europe has an identity of one universal church. But does that identity constitute a nation. So its a religious or regional identity, such as an Arab, Turkish or Iranian people. Now you are going to argue that Turkish or Iranian people are people of Iran or Turkey. But look it up what those terms in relate to the people means before come back and debate with me.

 

[Alfa-Fighter]

Its an identity of a religion or culture, but not of a nation. Before the reformation, western Europe has an identity of one universal church. But does that identity constitute a nation. So its a religious or regional identity, such as an Arab, Turkish or Iranian people. Now you are going to argue that Turkish or Iranian people are people of Iran or Turkey. But look it up what those terms in relate to the people means before come back and debate with me.

Do you what is bharat is? go back to history, a time which was existed before your ancestors ever came to know their existence i.e. Han or christians.

Bharat was country which runs from HImalayas to Afghanistan to Malaysia (present time) which exist, but due to limited knowledge of present human so called intelligent human being unable to find it because they are too old for their knowledge.

Bharat is the country which existed before british were born or Han was born in this earth. but because some people born so late they only know who are british are, but fact is countries exist before also.

before british came in India, india is rule by concept of King (Small) and Super King (Big king) big controls the small kings

 

[Joe Shearer]

These historian know that history is used to shape the future. So they create history for the purpose to uniting the nation of India. Though the intension is commendable, the facts states otherwise. Which is that the Indian subcontinent was composed of multiple states through out the era of written history. The nation was India was created by the British to unify their invasion and occupation.

History, as is known now for centuries, can never be used to shape the future. It supports, as a social science may, analysis. It does not support, as social sciences usually do not, prediction.

Ignorance of these and other such fundamentals must inevitably lead to the kind of propaganda line that your post displays.

I feel sorry for you. Your obvious superficial knowledge of the bare outlines of Indian history show through, glaringly. If you were earnest and sincere, not so obviously an attention-seeking young mischief-maker, you might have asked for some texts on the subject, that might have cleared up some of the evident confusion in your thinking. As it is, it seems best to leave you to make these airy fairy remarks without wasting any more time on them.

PS: As an ameliorative, you may consider that your Indian counterparts are not very much better off. An example is the inept mail at #95. Perhaps it is best for you to enjoy each other's company. You will have lots of ignorance to exchange.

 

[faithfulguy]

History, as is known now for centuries, can never be used to shape the future. It supports, as a social science may, analysis. It does not support, as social sciences usually do not, prediction.

Ignorance of these and other such fundamentals must inevitably lead to the kind of propaganda line that your post displays.

I feel sorry for you. Your obvious superficial knowledge of the bare outlines of Indian history show through, glaringly. If you were earnest and sincere, not so obviously an attention-seeking young mischief-maker, you might have asked for some texts on the subject, that might have cleared up some of the evident confusion in your thinking. As it is, it seems best to leave you to make these airy fairy remarks without wasting any more time on them.

PS: As an ameliorative, you may consider that your Indian counterparts are not very much better off. An example is the inept mail at #95. Perhaps it is best for you to enjoy each other's company. You will have lots of ignorance to exchange.

If you feel that there are any lack of facts in my statement. Point them out. Otherwise, your personal attacks will make you no different from your countryman that posted #95.

If you disagree with the facts, that is another story. No need to personally attack me. I thought that you are one of the more reasonable Indians in here. But you are really correcting me today.

 

[Joe Shearer]

If you feel that there are any lack of facts in my statement. Point them out. Otherwise, your personal attacks will make you no different from your countryman that posted #95.

If you disagree with the facts, that is another story. No need to personally attack me. I thought that you are one of the more reasonable Indians in here. But you are really correcting me today.

And am I not doing precisely that? Correcting your flaws item by item? For the general mistakes that you have made, about India being a nation only after the British made it one, about it being a geographical expression, about the nature of Indian civilisation, think about what it involves. It involves walking you through huge libraries of learning and information. Do you really think this possible on the staccato question and answer mode of an internet forum of this sort? What is left but to decry the superficiality of the approach that you have adopted, in taking only some transient features, latching on to them and building a wholly unsound argument on them?

I am one of the reasonable Indians here. But I am faced with an unreasonable set of arguments, which compresses about 6,000 years of history into a paragraph. So I attacked the approach and the possible motives for that approach, with no alternative left.

What do you want me to do? Explain the whole of Indian history, and together with that, the sociological and anthropological ramifications, and the cultural overlays? Are you capable of sitting through that?

Decide what you want and what you should ask for, in realistic terms, before feeling quite so sorry for yourself.

 

[faithfulguy]

And am I not doing precisely that? Correcting your flaws item by item? For the general mistakes that you have made, about India being a nation only after the British made it one, about it being a geographical expression, about the nature of Indian civilisation, think about what it involves. It involves walking you through huge libraries of learning and information. Do you really think this possible on the staccato question and answer mode of an internet forum of this sort? What is left but to decry the superficiality of the approach that you have adopted, in taking only some transient features, latching on to them and building a wholly unsound argument on them?

I am one of the reasonable Indians here. But I am faced with an unreasonable set of arguments, which compresses about 6,000 years of history into a paragraph. So I attacked the approach and the possible motives for that approach, with no alternative left.

What do you want me to do? Explain the whole of Indian history, and together with that, the sociological and anthropological ramifications, and the cultural overlays? Are you capable of sitting through that?

Decide what you want and what you should ask for, in realistic terms, before feeling quite so sorry for yourself.

You just highlighted the flaws when you make your statement, such as

"about India being a nation only after the British made it one, about it being a geographical expression, about the nature of Indian civilisation, think about what it involves."

Lets take the first one. Its reasonable to say that India as a single political entity after British unification of India. Prior to the British, the one empire to claim to rule over India were the Mughals. And they were an invader as well. Though there were small and large kingdoms, small and large empires, that existed through out most of history of South Asia, none of them ever claimed to rule over the kingdom called India, defined a "traditional" boundary and proclaim that all others within that boundary as traitors. South Asia prior to the British existed as many states fighting against each other and against invaders from North West, as all Indian invader came from the North West.

About India being a geographical expression, its no longer so. But prior to the British control, the term "India" is similar to Arabia, Persia and Meso America. These are not kingdoms, but geographical expressions. When I use the term Persia, we are talking about the whole Persian people, which include the Pushtans, Ajabajianis and Iranian, not just the people of Iran today. So in this sense, we can say that India prior to British control was a geographical expression. But its a name of a country today.

About Indian civilization, there was the Indus valley civilization, the Indian civilization after Aryan invasion and the comingling of Muslims invader and their rule over India. So India civilization today include the creation of Taj Mahal, which was the creation of a muslim Mughal emperor. But the term civilization does not equate to nation. I would say that there have always been a distinct Indian civilization throughout its history. But even if so, it does not equals to a historical Indian kingdom through out history.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

You just highlighted the flaws when you make your statement, such as

"about India being a nation only after the British made it one, about it being a geographical expression, about the nature of Indian civilisation, think about what it involves."

Lets take the first one. Its reasonable to say that India as a single political entity after British unification of India. Prior to the British, the one empire to claim to rule over India were the Mughals. And they were an invader as well. Though there were small and large kingdoms, small and large empires, that existed through out most of history of South Asia, none of them ever claimed to rule over the kingdom called India, defined a "traditional" boundary and proclaim that all others within that boundary as traitors. South Asia prior to the British existed as many states fighting against each other and against invaders from North West, as all Indian invader came from the North West.

About India being a geographical expression, its no longer so. But prior to the British control, the term "India" is similar to Arabia, Persia and Meso America. These are not kingdoms, but geographical expressions. When I use the term Persia, we are talking about the whole Persian people, which include the Pushtans, Ajabajianis and Iranian, not just the people of Iran today. So in this sense, we can say that India prior to British control was a geographical expression. But its a name of a country today.

About Indian civilization, there was the Indus valley civilization, the Indian civilization after Aryan invasion and the comingling of Muslims invader and their rule over India. So India civilization today include the creation of Taj Mahal, which was the creation of a muslim Mughal emperor. But the term civilization does not equate to nation. I would say that there have always been a distinct Indian civilization throughout its history. But even if so, it does not equals to a historical Indian kingdom through out history.

Pathetic cherrypicking as usual ,india was united first under mauryas for over 150 yrs.Under guptas too.
The concept of indian subcontinent as one nation is found is the term bharatvarsha,in the epic mahabharat[or great india].
The term uttarapath was known from vedic times denoting north india and dakshinapath for south india.
The emperors like harshavardhana who united N.india under their rule were titled 'sakal-uttarapathanatha'[lord of north india],pulakeshin 2,rajendra chola were often titled dakshinapathapati[lord of south india].

Emperors like mahapadma nanda or chandragupta maurya,samudragupta that held sway over whole of subcontinent took the title 'ekraat'[One emperor over all].You have very little knowledge or understanding of ndian history or culture and are ranting with a clear agenda as is the norm.

As for persia,again unknowledged rant...persia was a distinct identity from time of cyrus.
If that is your definition then china is a modern creation as well.It was ruled by manchu qings till 20th century.

 

[JSCh]

Why do people go through the trouble of revising history?

They did it in order to use history to serve contemporary political ends.

You see this happen all the time in history and everyday today as well.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You just highlighted the flaws when you make your statement, such as

"about India being a nation only after the British made it one, about it being a geographical expression, about the nature of Indian civilisation, think about what it involves."

Lets take the first one. Its reasonable to say that India as a single political entity after British unification of India. Prior to the British, the one empire to claim to rule over India were the Mughals. And they were an invader as well. Though there were small and large kingdoms, small and large empires, that existed through out most of history of South Asia, none of them ever claimed to rule over the kingdom called India, defined a "traditional" boundary and proclaim that all others within that boundary as traitors. South Asia prior to the British existed as many states fighting against each other and against invaders from North West, as all Indian invader came from the North West.

About India being a geographical expression, its no longer so. But prior to the British control, the term "India" is similar to Arabia, Persia and Meso America. These are not kingdoms, but geographical expressions. When I use the term Persia, we are talking about the whole Persian people, which include the Pushtans, Ajabajianis and Iranian, not just the people of Iran today. So in this sense, we can say that India prior to British control was a geographical expression. But its a name of a country today.

About Indian civilization, there was the Indus valley civilization, the Indian civilization after Aryan invasion and the comingling of Muslims invader and their rule over India. So India civilization today include the creation of Taj Mahal, which was the creation of a muslim Mughal emperor. But the term civilization does not equate to nation. I would say that there have always been a distinct Indian civilization throughout its history. But even if so, it does not equals to a historical Indian kingdom through out history.

I highlighted the facile errors that superficially informed people make. You subscribed instantly to every one of them. Now join the dots.

Why do people go through the trouble of revising history?

They did it in order to use history to serve contemporary political ends.

You see this happen all the time in history and everyday today as well.

I suggest a quick visit to the dictionary to look up the esoteric word historiography. It might put a more meaningful face to what you have, no doubt with reason, described as the use of history "to serve contemporary political ends." Not every historian sits down and says, "Now what do we do about falling ratings for our government? I know! Let's re-write our history texts!" It is a tad more complex than that.

 

[Developereo]

To bring the discussion back to Ladakh, consider this http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...not-cross-red-lines-india-11.html#post4438597

Slowly, it all falls into place.

The recent Indian "pivot" to East Asia, in line with repeated US urging and against China, is intended to pacify the US just enough -- and to keep it hooked -- so that Indian interests are safeguarded by the US in Afghanistan.

The Ladakh incursion was, of course, deliberately provoked by the Indian government, as I indicated elsewhere, and to corral Indian public opinion for an anti-China move.

You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours...

The Ladakh episode was not a chance event; it was deliberately engineered by the GoI which knew perfectly well the Chinese reaction to any buildups.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

The Ladakh episode was not a chance event; it was deliberately engineered by the GoI which knew perfectly well the Chinese reaction to any buildups.

This is actually true, they even said it themselves:

Indian troops suspend patrols at Chumar - Times Of India

NEW DELHI: Apart from dismantling a SET of strategically-located bunkers at Chumar as part of an arrangement to end the standoff at Depsang Bulge in eastern Ladakh, the Indian troops seem to have suspended patrols to the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Chumar, at least for now. Senior officials briefed by personnel on the ground said the Army has discontinued the round-the-clock patrolling it was undertaking in the area for the last few months.

They were the ones who broke our tacit agreement by setting up entire sets of bunkers and starting aggressive patrolling on the LAC.

And when they backed down, they destroyed the entire set of strategic bunkers, as well as halting all infrastructure building in the region, and cancelling troop patrols.

 

[Developereo]

They were the ones who broke our tacit agreement by setting up entire sets of bunkers and starting aggressive patrolling on the LAC.

What many people, including the Chinese, fail to appreciate is that the 'free media' is a misnomer, both in the West and in India.

In domestic matters, the 'free media' will hold the government's feet to the fire but, on matter of foreign policy, the media is an important part of the government's toolset, either through manipulation or tacit agreement. The media guys need to maintain a decent working relationship with government officials so both sides work together when 'national security' is at stake.

The 'free media' is used by the government, through 'leaks' or direct statements, to field trial balloons to gauge public reaction to policy decisions, and to mould public opinion if necessary.

If anything goes wrong, the government can deny involvement and put up their hands saying "hey, don't blame us, it's just the free media at work; it's part of democracy".

It's a far more clever way to run things, and to control the populace, than through state-controlled media.