China slammed India FM's claims

[su-47]

sir remember that was give and take not one side

That was in '65. In '71 Indian army had won and were well inside bangladesh, and the pakistani military was weak on the western border, with india possessing a tremendous advantage. we could have occupied parts of west pakistan, and east pakistan, but we withdrew troops after Niazi surrendered.

 

[jeypore]

In the past China was also claiming Sikkim and eventually they back down and know consider it part of India. It is a eventual future that China will have to do the same to AP.

Personally I believe that China is only playing tag of war to keep India on it's toes. China knows very well that they will not get AP.

 

[Ali.009]

Bahhhh, half of the indian 'state' is controversial and disputed. I wonder how long this country can go like this.

 

[Humanoid]

Bahhhh, half of the indian 'state' is controversial and disputed. I wonder how long this country can go like this.

he he .. you are on a high.... ... isnt it strange that India still continues to exist .. and insallah will inspire your future generations to ask the same question that you are asking now....

 

[daredevil]

Bahhhh, half of the indian 'state' is controversial and disputed. I wonder how long this country can go like this.

Keep on dreaming that India will break into pieces. That will not happen in our life time.

 

[Kumar]

Bahhhh, half of the indian 'state' is controversial and disputed. I wonder how long this country can go like this.

Its called Unity in Diversity.

Just wait and watch which country will go first!!!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Not true. India has not attacked a single country after 1947.

Blatantly wrong - The hostilities of 1971 were all India, as was the decision to use covert operations and train rebels to destabilize East Pakistan as early as 1968.

As for 'not keeping any land', the illegal occupation and annexation of J&K was probably deemed enough by the GoI.

 

[Black Stone]

In the past China was also claiming Sikkim and eventually they back down and know consider it part of India. It is a eventual future that China will have to do the same to AP.

No, the reason why the Chinese consider Sikkim as part of India is because they wanted India to tango and consider Tibet as part of China. So it is more of a deal.

They would not apply the same logic to Arunachal Pradesh because they don't have any other land deal/recognition that require India to tango too.

Personally I believe that China is only playing tag of war to keep India on it's toes. China knows very well that they will not get AP.

That may be true, but the Chinese consider Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet and will not drop the claim unless there is a deal in the future that requires India to tango.

For me, I personally think the Chinese want this issue to be their card in future deals with India.

 

[third eye]

Blatantly wrong - The hostilities of 1971 were all India, as was the decision to use covert operations and train rebels to destabilize East Pakistan as early as 1968.

As for 'not keeping any land', the illegal occupation and annexation of J&K was probably deemed enough by the GoI.

A cue was taken from what Ayub did in '65 to J&K. Why does it hurt whenthe same medicine is applied on the " doctor ' ?

As rgds your second line...this issue has been flogged so many times on this forum that its not worth commenting upon simply coz nothing on the ground shall ever change.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

A cue was taken from what Ayub did in '65 to J&K. Why does it hurt whenthe same medicine is applied on the " doctor ' ?

As rgds your second line...this issue has been flogged so many times on this forum that its not worth commenting upon simply coz nothing on the ground shall ever change.

The two are not analogous - Kashmir was disputed territory, and India unilaterally decided to walk away from its obligations to hold a plebiscite under the conditions of the Instrument of Accession, as well as its commitment to hold a referendum under the UNSC resolutions. Pakistan's actions in 1965 were taken in that context.

East Pakistan was sovereign, undisputed Pakistani territory, and therefore there was no justification for India's covert actions to destabilize it, other than to damage Pakistan out of hate and a nonacceptance of its existence.

Secondly, my pointing out Indian hostilities leading to up to 1971 was to invalidate Vinod's claim that 'India had never attacked a nation after 1947' - that claim is blatantly wrong, as I pointed out.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

he he .. you are on a high.... ... isnt it strange that India still continues to exist .. and insallah will inspire your future generations to ask the same question that you are asking now....

With all due respect, Indian forums, and Indian posters on non-Indian forums, have pretty much been full of the same dire predictions about Pakistan's demise, with unrestrained glee I may add, for years now.

 

[jeypore]

No, the reason why the Chinese consider Sikkim as part of India is because they wanted India to tango and consider Tibet as part of China. So it is more of a deal.

That was already given where China was controlling Tibet and India was controlling Sikkim. All they did sign was you consider Tibet to be part of China and Sikkim will be part of India. There was no deal besides how you guy's need to perceive from know on.

That may be true, but the Chinese consider Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet and will not drop the claim unless there is a deal in the future that requires India to tango.

The problem is that China does not control Arunachal Pradesh. They can claim anything they want. The only way they will get Arunachal Pradesh is attacking Inida, which will start war. Which I believe China will not start, hense they are just doing this to keep India on there toes and distracted.

And if you study China really well, they are appling the same strategy towards Taiwan regarding America. They just keep claiming it, but they know to get it they have to start a War.

 

[Captain03]

But only one difference, Kashmir is still with India. We are not asking for ***. So there is no similarity in between these two. So, your point is wrong.

kashmir is not in india and neither do kashmiris want to be in india and the recent protests can prove that

 

[Captain03]

Bahhhh, half of the indian 'state' is controversial and disputed. I wonder how long this country can go like this.

kashmir was never an indian state and will never be
us kashmiris will never allow that

 

[Captain03]

Not true. India has not attacked a single country after 1947.

We did not even try to occupy Bangladesh when our armies were already in Dhaka. Didn't attack any of our smaller neighbors.

Our wars have been only with Pakistan and China and reasons for that are well known. We have not kept an inch of land of Pakistan from any of those wars too.

u havent kept an inch of land?
what about hydrabad, junagadh, gurdaspur, and kashmir?
and not attacked a single country? nonsense