The problems between India and China are more than just some fist fight over territotory or indoctrination or perspective. It goes to the very heart of how each country views itself.
a) CHina has always considered itself a sigle entity contuniously existing throughout the ages for thousands of years. Emipres/ Governments/ Ideologies change but the land is one, is always the same (growing & expanding) country. So areas which once paid tribute/ accepted the suzeerainty of the any chinese govt in the past is effectively chinese- no matter how distant in history that event may have been
b) India is a product of a more recent. May have existed as a civilization but as a geographical entity we welded our country through 'acquisitions'. So giving concessions on territory just becuase a few hundred years ago they accepted your paramountcy doesn't make sense
The territories in dispute now are Populated and India will never make a compromise on populated territories.
Dear Friend Cardsharp,
This interesting post by 'Guynextdoor' is an appropriate point at which to address you.
There are in fact three aspects of this relationship; all need to be understood, thereafter acted upon (praxis is important) before practical results will emerge.
There is first the
emotional history; ethnographers call this myth.
You have brilliantly (on another thread) brought out this element, as it relates to the case of China and India, into the cold light of day for examination. It was a valuable insight. This determines how we think of ourselves, and how we view others.
There is second the
actual history; this is usually not known, and participants only refer to it in the stupidest, coarsest terms. Which is a pity. While history does not 'instruct' the human race, it does offer us a picture of the past, and of what may have happened, in the most authenticated account possible, according to strict rules of evidence, which includes stating when these rules of evidence are breached.
In the case of China and India, the recent relationship between China and India has been discussed; the earlier history of the relationship between Tibet and India, and of the relationship between China and Tibet have never been discussed.
There is finally the political and diplomatic situation on the ground. This is influenced and formed, to some extent by the first two factors. We can always identify it and consider sensible ways of proposing solutions that the establishment of each country concerned might actually adopt, if it was inclined to.
In the case of India and China, this is the simplest part of the whole puzzle, and the answers are clear and happily solvable. All that gets in the way today is largely the effect of the myth.
I should like an opportunity some day to dwell on point two purely for your intellectual satisfaction.
With warm regards,
