China slammed India FM's claims

[moha199]

Muslims were in India for 700 years before the British saved them from the reconquest by the native Indians of the land.

The Mughals were thoroughly decayed. The Sikhs had the empire over most of what is called Pakistan now including the tribal areas. Marathas and Jats were pushing forth almost everywhere. In spite of the odd attack and destruction by the likes of Abdali, the tide was turning decisively everywhere. It could possibly have been a repeat of Spain where not a trace of the alien invaders was left soon after their rule was repelled.

In that sense, the British rule was a blessing for those alien invaders.

Anyway foreign rule doesn't change the reality of a country. Even if it was ruled by invading Muslims, the country was still there and always will be.

According to your history which is only sold in India i guess. You sound like a radical Indian who has been brain washed totally. Mr there are two sides of stories so kindly read the other side too lmao

 

[Vinod2070]

no u invaded them
their kings wanted to join with pakistan and then u invaded them

Juangarh and Hyderabad had overwhelming Hindu populations. There was no question of their going to Pakistan for any reason. The small police operations ensured that.

The way Pakistan tried to "hadap" these majority Hindu provinces justifies India not letting go of Kashmir. The Kashmir king did sign the IOA after being attacked by the kabaili tribals and the Pakistan army thus creating the provocation.

FYI, Mr. Jinnah was given the option of retaining Kashmir in lieu of leaving out his claims on Junagarh and Hyderabad (which was deep within India and overwhelmingly Hindu, surrounded by Indian territory on all sides thus not fulfilling the basic criteria of contiguous land of the two countries.).

He refused because he thought that all three will fall in Pakistan's plate and the dice turned the other way.

 

[Vinod2070]

According to your history which is only sold in India i guess. You sound like a radical Indian who has been brain washed totally. Mr there are two sides of stories so kindly read the other side too lmao

Thanks for the enlightening post. I will do the needful.

 

[Vinod2070]

India invaded TIBETwhich is a part of china in 1950s,we can not foget.All we claims should be true.....

So India invaded Tibet and still it is the Chinese troops that the Tibetans are resisting. I don't remember Indian troops ever crossing the McMahon line, the same line that you accept with Myanmar!

 

[s90]

Juangarh and Hyderabad had overwhelming Hindu populations. There was no question of their going to Pakistan for any reason. The small police operations ensured that.

The way Pakistan tried to "hadap" these majority Hindu provinces justifies India not letting go of Kashmir. The Kashmir king did sign the IOA after being attacked by the kabaili tribals and the Pakistan army thus creating the provocation.

FYI, Mr. Jinnah was given the option of retaining Kashmir in lieu of leaving out his claims on Junagarh and Hyderabad (which was deep within India and overwhelmingly Hindu, surrounded by Indian territory on all sides thus not fulfilling the basic criteria of contiguous land of the two countries.).

He refused because he thought that all three will fall in Pakistan's plate and the dice turned the other way.

Apply same principle for Junagarh and Hyderabad as Indians did for Indian-held Kashmir

 

[Vinod2070]

Apply same principle for Junagarh and Hyderabad as Indians did for Indian-held Kashmir

If Pakistan tried to get both Hindu and Muslim majority provinces, there was no question of any principles in the game.

It became a game of realpolitik and the better player won.

 

[gpit]

It was positioning the troops on the McMahon line, the legal boundary between India and Tibet.

Looks we are using different dictionary.

If you want to position where you are, why should you forward the troops? If you've never been there, how can you declare that is yours?

China accepts the same line as border with Myanmar AFAIK.

This is a mutual agreement with Myanmar government as a result of negotiations of gives and takes.

Chou Enlai mentioned that McMahon line might be acceptable on Sino-India boarder but one had to know where exactly the line was, because India, funny enough at that time, drew the boundary willfully, as if it were British colonist of 100+ year ago. Yet, your great democratic elected Nehru said No and my map was your map.

Thus he deserves the pinch of 1962. He is well served due to his and his politicians’ stupidity... but it is unfortunate for ordinary India and Chinese people.

 

[Vinod2070]

Looks we are using different dictionary.

If you want to position where you are, why should you forward the troops? If you've never been there, how can you declare that is yours?

This is a mutual agreement with Myanmar government as a result of negotiations of gives and takes.

Chou Enlai mentioned that McMahon line might be acceptable on Sino-India boarder but one had to know where exactly the line was, because India, funny enough at that time, drew the boundary willfully, as if it were British colonist of 100+ year ago. Yet, your great democratic elected Nehru said No and my map was your map.

Thus he deserves the pinch of 1961. He is well served due to his and his politicians’ stupidity...

I am not sure if the location of the line itself was not clear. I would think the maps should have been clear and detailed enough.

It will be good if you can substantiate that it was not the case.

but it is unfortunate for ordinary India and Chinese people.

I agree with this. Indian and Chinese people have no animosity at all.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If Pakistan tried to get both Hindu and Muslim majority provinces, there was no question of any principles in the game.

It became a game of realpolitik and the better player won.

Given possible 'disputed status' to those states, as in kashmir, the issue would have gone to a 'plebiscite'. India never gave that option a chance because of militarily invading/intervening.

It wasn't about 'real politic', it was about might. In the non-contiguous states, where Pakistan could not effectively intervene militarily to protect her rights, Indian hegemony and violation of the partition rules prevailed. Where Pakistan could effectively intervene militarily (Kashmir) India was blocked from occupying the entire State.

If it had been about 'real politic' then it would have been a contest over hearts and minds, of the people and the rulers, and various ways to get them to deliver decision favorable to ones nation,

In fact this is a continued rebuttal of your assertion that India did not act militarily against another entity, since it did so in those princely states, along with EP.

 

[Vinod2070]

AM, tell me why Pakistan was justified in wanting to get Hyderabad and Junagarh and India not in wanting to get Kashmir?

 

[gpit]

How so?. China has harmed India more than any country.

What has India gained by vilifying China except that it gets excuses to push spending more on militaries instead of needy civil areas? You might argue that it can solidify India by finding a common enemy and thus reducing communal friction. But wouldn’t it be too expansive and therefore too harmful, by considering that China is the most important neighbor of India?

Thus, modern India is more harmed by Nehru and his expansionist policy followers.

It can well be sensed that since 1962 when Nehru’s petulant “forward policy” finally went bankrupt, ridiculous anti-china propagandas have flooded over the vast land of democratic Bharat, and have never been let up for a single day. Vilification of China has become endemic among some India political elite and media, infested with blatant lies, fake news, asinine exaggerations, and maniac delusions. It is worrisome to notice that, in terms of the delusion, there are a lot of similarity between now and pre-1962. All those are more often than not reflected by some internet literate Indians. Myopic democratic politicians have utilized this tendency to distract domestic criticism or to make attacks on their opponents by fanning up patriotism in a wrong way and harvested hefty short-term and, many times, personal gains at the expanse of the future of vast mid- and lower classes of Indians, and of India country as whole.

Regrettably, many failed to realize the significance of geopolitical contents, especially in the long run, between China and India.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM, tell me why Pakistan was justified in wanting to get Hyderabad and Junagarh and India not in wanting to get Kashmir?

Provided the rules of partition were adhered to - i.e a plebiscite was conducted when the acceding territory was in dispute, I see no reason why Pakistan's claim on Junagadh and Hyderabad was unjustified.

In the event of a contest by India and Pakistan, a plebiscite would have been held in all three states, and that would have determined the final outcome. In fact a plebiscite was supposed to be held in Hyderabad and/or Junagadh (promised by India) but as in Kashmir, never held. Though I think it is safe to conclude that the decision would have gone in India's direction anyway, given the demographic composition and geographical situation of those states.

 

[daredevil]

What has India gained by vilifying China except that it gets excuses to push spending more on militaries instead of needy civil areas? You might argue that it can solidify India by finding a common enemy and thus reducing communal friction. But wouldn’t it be too expansive and therefore too harmful, by considering that China is the most important neighbor of India?

Thus, modern India is more harmed by Nehru and his expansionist policy followers.

It can well be sensed that since 1962 when Nehru’s petulant “forward policy” finally went bankrupt, ridiculous anti-china propagandas have flooded over the vast land of democratic Bharat, and have never been let up for a single day. Vilification of China has become endemic among some India political elite and media, infested with blatant lies, fake news, asinine exaggerations, and maniac delusions. It is worrisome to notice that, in terms of the delusion, there are a lot of similarity between now and pre-1962. All those are more often than not reflected by some internet literate Indians. Myopic democratic politicians have utilized this tendency to distract domestic criticism or to make attacks on their opponents by fanning up patriotism in a wrong way and harvested hefty short-term and, many times, personal gains at the expanse of the future of vast mid- and lower classes of Indians, and of India country as whole.

Regrettably, many failed to realize the significance of geopolitical contents, especially in the long run, between China and India.

Yes, Nehru's asinine idea of Forward Policy led to 1962 war, but the india's defeat is due to following 3 main reasons

Erroneous assessment by the political leadership that China will not react to India's 'Forward Policy' in NEFA region and Ladakh.

Ill-equipped and ill prepared Indian army.

China's unfounded perception of Indian designs to seize Tibet.

Now coming to post-1962 war, India has not vilified China without any unfounded reasons. The reasons being, supply of nuclear weapons know-how, missile technology to our neighbors and string of pearls strategy to encircle India with hostile neighbors by China. More recently, its not so subtle attempts to scuttle the NSG agreement. All these points toward China being a big threat to India's security.

And no, India doesn't need the china scare-mongering by our politicians to keep its flock together.

 

[Vinod2070]

Provided the rules of partition were adhered to - i.e a plebiscite was conducted when the acceding territory was in dispute, I see no reason why Pakistan's claim on Junagadh and Hyderabad was unjustified.

In the event of a contest by India and Pakistan, a plebiscite would have been held in all three states, and that would have determined the final outcome. In fact a plebiscite was supposed to be held in Hyderabad and/or Junagadh (promised by India) but as in Kashmir, never held. Though I think it is safe to conclude that the decision would have gone in India's direction anyway, given the demographic composition and geographical situation of those states.

If you think Mr. Jinnah was intending to hold a plebiscite in Hyderabad and Junagarh and the few Hindu Rajasthan states that he was convincing their princes to make them join Pakistan by offering some "lucrative" deal, I am left speechless.

There is no chance in hell that would have happened. Mr. Jinnah even wanted Punjab and Bengal to be not divided based on some strange logic. If we see what happened in Pakistan later (no minorities left), one is dumbfounded to think of the human tragedy that would have happened if that demand had been acceded to!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If you think Mr. Jinnah was intending to hold a plebiscite in Hyderabad and Junagarh and the few Hindu Rajasthan states that he was convincing their princes to make them join Pakistan by offering some "lucrative" deal, I am left speechless.

There is no chance in hell that would have happened. Mr. Jinnah even wanted Punjab and Bengal to be not divided based on some strange logic. If we see what happened in Pakistan later (no minorities left), one is dumbfounded to think of the human tragedy that would have happened if that demand had been acceded to!

Unsubstantiated speculation on whether Jinnah would have held a plebiscite or not. I can say Gandhi was planning to rape minors all day long in his ashram - what validity does that claim have unless I Can back it up - ditto with your pointless speculation on what Jinnah would or would not have done.

On the question of undivided Punjab and Bengal - the idea was that the two provinces should go to Pakistan since they were culturally and territorially UNITED entities, and therefore they would be included whole into Pakistan.

You keep repeating that canard of 'what happened to minorities' when you still haven't been able to show how Pakistan's (West Pakistan) minority population has changed disproportionately since 1947, when you take out the migrants due to the partition itself, compared to similar minority immigration out of India.