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

[Guynextdoor2]

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

Your problem- in today's world people don't 'COMMAND' each other genius. Unlike in the days of the Qin, the fact that there will be differences in stands is assumed true even before negos start. The idea will be to resolve it through give and take. In general it is possible with India and Japan, who view each other as good friends.

 

[faithfulguy]

China indeed has had a long line of dynasties,but claim of chinese members that only egypt and china had identities and rest are just modern creations is hogwash and reflects lack of understanding and respect for other nations and civilizations.Not unusual in 'middle kingdom'/sinocentrism propagandists.

Not true, countries like Japan, England, Korea, France and Russia also have a national identity for a long time. The Indian national identity was created by the British.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

That is not true. The modern European states evolve out of medieval Europe. The English, French, Dutch, Spanish and later German and Italian kingdom were created because of nationalism in Europe. If its not for British unification of India, the various Indian states such as Hyderabad, Mysore, Bengal, and Sikh kingdom would evolve to become nation states in their own right.

There was no germany till 1871,Does that mean german identity didn't exist.
No italy till 1859,does that mean 'italian' meant nothing?
Completely foolish.If there is political power to unite areas with similar culture/identity it can create a nation state.
Indic identity is very old despite colonial attempts to suppress it.
After independence many thought we would break apart with our diversity,but we only gotten stronger.

 

[Genesis]

Your problem- in today's world people don't 'COMMAND' each other genius. Unlike in the days of the Qin, the fact that there will be differences in stands is assumed true even before negos start. The idea will be to resolve it through give and take. In general it is possible with India and Japan, who view each other as good friends.

military needs a chain of command, three armies, how the supplies is to be divided, how effective each is, what it can and cannot do, it's positions, it's willingness to take the brunt of the beating, it's willingness to let the trophy go (as in taking of the key cities) and all these needs a strong chain of command.

Even in one country's army these things are sometimes at odds, and much more so for an alliances of countries who let's face it have very little in common and in fact hatred for some while some are looked down by others.

As to give and take, let's say in a battle India was the main force and loses like 1000 men, while the other's loses way less and maybe no loses, your politicians will take heat at home and his seat in jeopardy, you think he would continue to risk his seat by allowing Indians to charge head first?

You be lucky if India doesn't retreat. This is assuming fought not on Indian soil. This is not saying India is weak, but just that the willingness to sacrifice for others when the relationship is minimal at best. Would your politicians risk everything they have for other nations?

@AUSTERLITZ

You know the other title of Holy Roman Emperor is King of the Germans right? Germany was started by Henry the Fowler. ITaly was Rome, sure there were chaos, but there were kings, like the Lambard Kings and what not throughout history. Duke of Tuscany, Duke of Spoleto, duke of this and that. Napoleon named his son King of Rome. While the man who dethroned the last Western Roman emperor was king of the Italy. Also Holy Roman Emperor was also King of the Romans. Guess where that is.

Though yes, India was a nation long before the british came along. Not an expert but I have heard of dynasties in India at the time of Alexander the great and after and before.

 

[faithfulguy]

military needs a chain of command, three armies, how the supplies is to be divided, how effective each is, what it can and cannot do, it's positions, it's willingness to take the brunt of the beating, it's willingness to let the trophy go (as in taking of the key cities) and all these needs a strong chain of command.

Even in one country's army these things are sometimes at odds, and much more so for an alliances of countries who let's face it have very little in common and in fact hatred for some while some are looked down by others.

As to give and take, let's say in a battle India was the main force and loses like 1000 men, while the other's loses way less and maybe no loses, your politicians will take heat at home and his seat in jeopardy, you think he would continue to risk his seat by allowing Indians to charge head first?

You be lucky if India doesn't retreat. This is assuming fought not on Indian soil. This is not saying India is weak, but just that the willingness to sacrifice for others when the relationship is minimal at best. Would your politicians risk everything they have for other nations?

@AUSTERLITZ

You know the other title of Holy Roman Emperor is King of the Germans right? Germany was started by Henry the Fowler. ITaly was Rome, sure there were chaos, but there were kings, like the Lambard Kings and what not throughout history. Duke of Tuscany, Duke of Spoleto, duke of this and that. Napoleon named his son King of Rome. While the man who dethroned the last Western Roman emperor was king of the Italy. Also Holy Roman Emperor was also King of the Romans. Guess where that is.

Though yes, India was a nation long before the british came along. Not an expert but I have heard of dynasties in India at the time of Alexander the great and after and before.

There were empires in India, just like empires western Europe. Western Empire is not a country, despite EU citizens tried to form one. India become a country only after British unification of India.

 

[Nisha]

There were empires in India, just like empires western Europe. Western Empire is not a country, despite EU citizens tried to form one. India become a country only after British unification of India.

Again I am proving you wrong. Ashoka unified and ruled India that was much bigger than today. Get your facts straight.

 

[timetravel]

Mandate of Heaven - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

God is not involved in the Chinese mandate of heaven. You do not need to contact HIM.

The perception of the continuous lineage of the Chinese nation is maintained by viewing the chaotic period between change of dynasty where there are many kings/warlords as a transitional period.

The modern equivalent view would be a revolution or civil war.

hogwash.... mandate of heaven is just a philosophy created by some ruler... any King or warload can create his own philospohy...

Mandate of Hitler

Mandate of Ghengis Khan etc etc.

if Ghengiz Khan issued a Mandate saying whole of China is part of Mongolia, will that mean Mongols will rule over the Hans today? A philosophy has no value. its just ones own wish or belief.

keeping aside wishful philospohy of some king, But the actual fact is different and it is that warloads/kings ruled China and that means China was not a single country....

obviously when different kings fight for the pie, they would end up with bigger and smaller kingdoms depending upon who manages to win....

it shows China was never a country.... but different warloads and kings fought to control whatever portion they can.... in such circumstances you could never call it a country...

other wise going by your definition whole of Africa is one country...

Contrary to this India was always a country. That is why we call 1947 as partition of India.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

We are going round in circles.
Better get back to topic.But as usual faithfulguy started his 'agenda' on national identity and ruined thread.

 

[Joe Shearer]

And when the hasha rulers ruled north India, do they regard all other rulers within all India as rebels that must be absorbed. If not, than your post again prove my point that india was a geographical expression. So all the rulers that controlled a big portion of today's India is no different than Charlemagne, Napoleon or even Hitler conquered a big portion of Europe. They were doing it for themselves or their own kingdoms, but not for the country of India or Europe respectively.

They did.

Their ability to absorb the others differed from age to age.

Further, the administrative arrangements were unilinear. We still retained the administrative systems of the Guptas 1200 years after they had departed.

I repeat, it is foolish to try and compress these issues within the few paragraphs allowed in this kind of forum. Learning from such, also from glib and fluent but necessarily limited magazine articles is not a good basis for anything other than an entertaining Sunday afternoon read. Acquiring a knowledge of ancient and mediaeval India this way is difficult. Sincere study is a better alternative.

 

[Joe Shearer]

There were empires in India, just like empires western Europe. Western Empire is not a country, despite EU citizens tried to form one. India become a country only after British unification of India.

On this topic, too, you are woefully deficient. You seem not to have any understanding of the radical alteration in western (=European) political thinking after the Treaty of Westphalia.

It is surprising that you simultaneously display such fundamental ignorance and complain about being slighted. The two go together.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

Good article..way to go for a muti nation security pact..the bully needs to be thrown back in to his hood

Lol cry on each other's shoulder about China won't make India more secure, if China wage war on India...are you expecting Japan to rescue you? Nyet.

 

[President]

Lol cry on each other's shoulder about China won't make India more secure, if China wage war on India...are you expecting Japan to rescue you? Nyet.

when you wage war..then you will see who is with you and who is not likewise for India..

Not true, countries like Japan, England, Korea, France and Russia also have a national identity for a long time. The Indian national identity was created by the British.

Indians make up India how can British create an Idenitity..if there are no Indians living in India how will you define it

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

when you wage war..then you will see who is with you and who is not likewise for India..

Do we need anyone to be on our side to deal with India as 1962...LMAO and oh yes...I forgot India sent S.o.S seeking for help from U.S.S.R and U.S.A during that time...then in this case why bother to form a coalition or security pact? crying for help in much more effective...don't you think?

 

[RangerPK]

I am sorry mate your knowledge on Indian history is Poor..... Before British there was no india....So the question of sovereignty doesnt araise.....

My statement on indian leadership was clear..... Ie... There was indirect pressure on india even before this boarder dispute to have a partnership with those countries whom you called "Princy states".... But india had a very clear stand.....

India was a name given to the British colony in the subcontinent, it was artificially created by the British. British have left but their colonial legacy in the subcontinent still lingers on known as India. Many nations fell victim to India, Kashmir is just one fatelity of it.

I hope there comes a peaceful day when this curse on subcontinent known as India remains no more, and the states of subcontinent become free again.

 

[RangerPK]

Again I am proving you wrong. Ashoka unified and ruled India that was much bigger than today. Get your facts straight.

Ashoka didn't unify anything, all he did was wage bloody wars on innocent people and their governing bodies. That so called empire of his was short lived and soon disappeared after he passed away. Our region of Pakistan was one his victims.