What's new

Chinese incursion during Xi Jinping’s visit a mystery, Air chief Arup Raha says

This is the same shrewd diplomacy with which they managed to usurp Scarborough shoals ,Spartlay islands from Phillipines ...

See, one thing, the SCS is open conflict. There Chinese dont do diplomacy like that. Like there premiere is visiting, making investment, cultural exchange and his Army doing incursion.

In SCS Chinese stated there demand. and said there will be no concession. But on LAC matter they are not stating there demands. There are lots of ambiguity in that matter.
 
.
That's the problem - you do not understand .
They are no longer interested in solving boundary problem . If at all it will be on their terms .

they are merely trying to push the limits to ensure that whenever boundary talks comes to the table - they will negotiate it with position of strength .

they are not interested in status quo .

They think economically and militarily they are strong enough to force their position on their opponents .

That is the strategy with which they are working in their neighborhood .



BINGO! Exactly, they have never been interested in resolving this border issue. They have agreed to talks that have gone on for decades, but their ulterior motive is undenialable. They were simoly waiting for their military and economy to come online......
 
.
See, one thing, the SCS is open conflict. There Chinese dont do diplomacy like that. Like there premiere is visiting, making investment, cultural exchange and his Army doing incursion.

In SCS Chinese stated there demand. and said there will be no concession. But on LAC matter they are not stating there demands. There are lots of ambiguity in that matter.

Do read Mr brahma Chellany's article ...

It's informative and insightful

China's border belligerence | The Japan Times


China’s border belligerence
by Brahma Chellaney
Article history


In recent years, the People’s Liberation Army has been taking advantage of its rising political clout to provoke localized skirmishes and standoffs with India by breaching the two countries’ long and disputed Himalayan frontier. The PLA’s recent intensification of such border violations cast a cloud over President Xi Jinping’s visit to India this month, holding important implications for the future of the bilateral relationship.
In fact, such provocations have often preceded visits to India by Chinese leaders. Indeed, it was just before President Hu Jintao’s 2006 visit that China resurrected its claim to India’s large northeastern state of Arunachal Pradesh.
Likewise, prior to Premier Wen Jiabao’s trip to India in 2010, China began issuing visas on loose sheets of paper stapled into the passports of Kashmir residents applying to enter China — an indirect challenge to India’s sovereignty.
China abruptly shortened the length of its border with India by rescinding its recognition of the 1,597-km line separating Indian Kashmir from Chinese-held Kashmir. And Premier Li Keqiang’s visit last May followed a deep PLA incursion into India’s Ladakh region, seemingly intended to convey China’s anger over India’s belated efforts to fortify its border defenses.
China is at it again, including near the convergence point of China, India and Pakistan — the same place last year’s PLA encroachment triggered a three-week military standoff. This pattern suggests that the central objective of Chinese leaders’ visits to India is not to advance cooperation on a shared agenda but to reinforce China’s own interests, beginning with its territorial claims. Even China’s highly lucrative and fast-growing trade with India has not curbed its rising territorial assertiveness.
By contrast, Indian prime ministers since Jawaharlal Nehru have traveled to China to express goodwill and deliver strategic gifts. But India has often ended up losing out in bilateral deals.
Particularly egregious was Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s 2003 surrender of India’s Tibet card. Vajpayee went so far as to use, for the first time, the legal term “recognize” to accept what China calls the Tibet Autonomous Region as “part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China.” That opened the way for China to claim Arunachal Pradesh as “South Tibet” and reinforced China’s view of territorial issues: Whatever area it occupies is its territory, and whatever territorial claims it makes must be settled on the basis of “mutual accommodation and understanding.”
Vajpayee’s blunder compounded Nehru’s 1954 mistake in implicitly accepting, in the Panchsheel Treaty, China’s annexation of Tibet, without securing (or even seeking) recognition of the then-existing Indo-Tibetan border. In fact, under the treaty, India forfeited all of the extraterritorial rights and privileges in Tibet that it had inherited from imperial Britain.
As agreed in the pact, India withdrew its “military escorts” from Tibet, and conceded to the Chinese government, at a “reasonable” price, the postal, telegraph and public telephone services operated by the Indian government in the “Tibet region of China.” For its part, China repeatedly violated the eight-year pact, ultimately mounting the trans-Himalayan invasion of 1962.
In short, China used the Panchsheel Treaty to outwit India. Yet, just this summer, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s new government sent Vice President Hamid Ansari to Beijing to participate in the treaty’s 60th anniversary celebrations. Ansari was accompanied by Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, who signed an agreement allowing China — without any quid pro quo — to establish industrial parks in India.
This will exacerbate existing imbalances in the bilateral trade relationship — China currently exports to India three times more than it imports from the country, with most of these imports being raw materials — thereby exposing India to increased strategic pressure and serving China’s interest in preventing India’s rise as a peer competitor. The fact that the spotlight is now on China’s Tibet-linked claim to Arunachal Pradesh, rather than on Tibet’s status, underscores China’s dominance in setting the bilateral agenda. Given India’s dependence on water flows from Tibet, it could end up paying a heavy price.
Embarrassed by China’s relentless border violations — according to Indian Minister of State for Home Affairs Kiren Rijiju, there were 334 in the first 216 days of this year — India has recently drawn a specious distinction between “transgressions” and “intrusions” that enables it to list all of the breaches simply as transgressions. But wordplay will get India nowhere.
A reminder of that came at July’s BRICS summit of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, when, yet again, China emerged ahead of India. The BRICS’ New Development Bank, it was announced, will be headquartered in Shanghai, not New Delhi; India’s consolation prize was that an Indian will serve as the bank’s first president.
Under pressure from an unyielding and revanchist China, India urgently needs to craft a prudent and carefully calibrated counter-strategy.
For starters, India could rescind its recognition of Chinese sovereignty over Tibet, while applying economic pressure through trade, as China has done to Japan and the Philippines when they have challenged its territorial claims. By hinging China’s market access on progress in resolving political, territorial and water disputes, India can prevent China from fortifying its leverage.
India must be willing to respond to Chinese incursions by sending troops into strategic Chinese-held territory, to raise the stakes for Chinese border violations, thereby oosting deterrence.
Finally India must consider carefully the pretense of partnership with China that it is forming through trade and BRICS agreements — at least until a more balanced bilateral relationship emerges. After all, neither booming trade nor membership in the BRICS club offers protection from bullying.
Brahma Chellaney, professor of strategic studies at the New Delhi-based Center for Policy Research, is the author of “Asian Juggernaut” and “Water, Peace, and War: Confronting the Global Water Crisis.” © 2014 Project Syndicate
 
.
That is the issue - we have not understood so far exact reasons for such misadventures .
may be they are testing Indian response . may be they want to test indian resolve to maintain peace and how much beating we will take to ensure peace .

may be they want to enlarge the extent of their claims .

there are many possibilities ...

we have no clue ...that's the most shocking thing ...
Yup, we have no clue. Atleast when we talk to our friend Pak, we know there intentions. God knows what the Chinese intentions are. If they want to claim AP, then say it.

But matter of fact is that, they are not doing incursions in AP, but in Ladakh, which means they want status quo as resolved solution, if I understand them correctly.
 
.
That's the problem - you do not understand .
They are no longer interested in solving boundary problem . If at all it will be on their terms .

they are merely trying to push the limits to ensure that whenever boundary talks comes to the table - they will negotiate it with position of strength .

they are not interested in status quo .

They think economically and militarily they are strong enough to force their position on their opponents .

That is the strategy with which they are working in their neighborhood .

I agree completely. Indians must simply come to terms with the point you have raised & react accordingly. Enough with the woolly headedness. The Chinese are not & probably never will be our friends. Contrary to what so many Indians think, the Chinese don't think it is an asian century or an India-China century, they will not settle for anything less than a China century & will deal with any & all pretenders accordingly. China is an important country for India & must be dealt with as such. What we don't need however, is to be muddle headed about the relationship.
 
.
See, one thing, the SCS is open conflict. There Chinese dont do diplomacy like that. Like there premiere is visiting, making investment, cultural exchange and his Army doing incursion.

In SCS Chinese stated there demand. and said there will be no concession. But on LAC matter they are not stating there demands. There are lots of ambiguity in that matter.

also read

China’s salami-slice strategy | Stagecraft and Statecraft


China’s salami-slice strategy
Posted on July 26, 2013 by Chellaney
BY BRAHMA CHELLANEY
The Japan Times
, July 26, 2013
2a49494f45ce913281f83b77f706a7a5.jpg

China’s furtive, incremental encroachments into neighboring countries’ borderlands — propelled by its relative power advantage — have emerged as a key destabilizing element in the Asian security landscape. While China’s navy and a part of its air force focus on asserting revanchist territorial and maritime claims in the South and East China Seas, its army has been active in the mountainous borderlands with India, trying to alter the line of control bit by bit.
Beijing’s favored frontier strategy to change the territorial and maritime status quo is apparently anchored in “salami slicing.” This involves making a steady progression of small actions, none of which serves as a casus belli by itself, yet which over time lead cumulatively to a strategic transformation in China’s favor.
By relying on quiet salami slicing rather than on overt aggression, China’s strategy aims to seriously limit the options of the targeted countries by confounding their deterrence plans and making it difficult for them to devise proportionate or effective counteractions.
This, in part, is because the strategy — while bearing all the hallmarks of modern Chinese brinksmanship, such as a reliance on surprise and a disregard for the risks of wider military escalation — seeks to ensure the initiative remains with China.
Changing the territorial status quo has been the unfinished business of the People’s Republic of China since its founding in 1949. The early forcible absorption of the sprawling Xinjiang and Tibetan plateau more than doubled the landmass of China.
This was followed by the advent of the earliest incarnation of the salami-slicing strategy, which led to China gaining control, step by step between 1954 and 1962, of the Switzerland-size Aksai Chin plateau of the original princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. An emboldened China then went on to seize the Paracel Islands in 1974, the Johnson Reef in 1988, the Mischief Reef in 1995 and, most recently, the Scarborough Shoal (2012).
At the core of the challenge posed by China to Asian security today is its lack of respect for existing frontier lines. In other words, China is still working to redraw political boundaries.
Along land frontiers, rodent-style surreptitious attacks usually precede its salami slicing. The aim is to start eating into enemy land like giant rodents and thereby facilitate salami slicing. The use of this strategy is becoming increasingly apparent along the Himalayan border with India, the world’s longest disputed frontier.
Here one form of attacks has involved the Chinese military bringing ethnic Han pastoralists to the valleys along the Himalayan line of control and giving them cover to range across it, in the process driving Indian herdsmen from their traditional pasturelands and opening the path to salami slicing. This strategy, which can also begin with the Chinese military nibbling at an unprotected border area, has been especially employed in the two highly strategic Buddhist regions located on opposite ends of the Himalayan frontier — Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh.
To assert its claims in the South and East China Seas, China unabashedly plays salami slicer. The tools of salami slicing here range from granting hydrocarbon-exploration leases to asserting expansive fishing rights — all designed to advance its territorial and maritime claims.
In the East China Sea, China has employed paramilitary agencies, such as the Maritime Safety Administration, the Fisheries Law Enforcement Command, and the State Oceanic Administration, in a campaign of attrition against Japan over the Senkaku Islands, which it calls Diaoyu — an offensive that has already succeeded in shaking the status quo by making the rest of the world recognize the existence of a dispute. This has emboldened Beijing to gradually increase the frequency of Chinese maritime surveillance ships sent into the 12-nautical-mile zone regarded as the territorial waters of the Senkaku Islands and to violate the airspace over them.
Taking on Japan, its former occupier and historical rival, is part of China’s larger search for new seabed resources and for strategic ascendancy in the western Pacific by breaking out of what it perceives to be “first island chain” — a string that includes the Senkakus, Taiwan, and some islands controlled by Vietnam and the Philippines.
China’s aim in the South China Sea is to slowly but surely legitimize its presence in the 80 percent of the sea it now claims formally. Through repeated and growing acts, China is etching a lasting presence in the claimed zones.
Among the ways Beijing has sought to establish new “facts” on the ground in the South China Sea is to lease hydrocarbon and fishing blocks inside other disputant states’ 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zones (EEZs), as defined by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Such leases are designed to circumscribe the UNCLOS-granted economic rights of states such as Vietnam and the Philippines while expanding China’s control of the region’s oil-and-gas wealth.
China has even established “Sansha City” on Woody Island in the Paracels as its administrative base for the South China Sea, setting up a local civilian government and a military garrison there to oversee the entire region. And in its latest effort to present a fait accompli over its occupation of the Paracels, it has started tourist cruises to those disputed islands.
To be sure, Beijing usually is careful to slice very thinly so as to avoid any dramatic action that could become a cause of war. Indeed, it has has a knack of disaggregating any action into several parts and then pursuing each element separately in such a manner as to allow the different pieces to fall in place.
This shrewdness helps to keep its opponents off balance and in a bind on how to respond. In fact, as a skillful salami slicer that acts insidiously, camouflaging offense as defense, China acts in ways not only to undercut its opponents’ deterrence but also to cast the burden of starting a war on them.
Any targeted state is presented with a strategic Hobson’s choice: either endure the salami slicing or face a dangerous and costly war with an emerging great power. This is the choice, for example, Manila has faced over China’s effective seizure of the Scarborough Shoal.
China’s tactics and strategy thus pose an increasing challenge to several of its neighbors who face a deepening dilemma over how to thwart the salami slicing. Exchanging notes with each other — and with the United States, the geographically nonresident Asian power — may be necessary to find ways to try and stop this creeping, covert warfare.
After all, China’s multipronged actions, cumulatively, carry the potential of fundamentally altering the Asian power dynamics to shape a Sino-centric region.
Brahma Chellaney is a geostrategist and the author, most recently, of “Water, Peace, and War” (Rowman & Littlefield).

I agree completely. Indians must simply come to terms with the point you have raised & react accordingly. Enough with the woolly headedness. The Chinese are not & probably never will be our friends. Contrary to what so many Indians think, the Chinese don't think it is an asian century or an India-China century, they will not settle for anything less than a China century & will deal with any & all pretenders accordingly. China is an important country for India & must be dealt with as such. What we don't need however, is to be muddle headed about the relationship.

China knows and is well aware of the fact that India alone poses serious threat towards its world domination .

In coming decades when China's growth will start cooling down and India will still be reaping its demographic dividends the real race will be between -China and India . Even though India remains decades behind China it is the only country capable to catch up and challenge its position.

and precisely for that reason it has invested so much in Pakistan to keep India pinned down to regional conflict .

In fact it has armed Pakistan to teeth to make sure that India will remain embroiled in conflict with constant threat of nuclear war.

India and China can never be friends ...

China can never allow another Asian country breathing down its neck as it prepares for Chinese domination of world .
 
Last edited:
.
The reason for the "incursions" and lack of a resolution lies in your PM Nehru's actions. Not the 62 war, but the Lama. He made sure the Lama remain a powerful force in international politics, I mean still being a pretender.

Right now you control the second most important whatever to the tibetan MONKS. Now if we agree to status quo, would that not give the Tibetans some ammo in their 1875 musket? Or what if they use that as a base to promote it further, or worse India gives that town to the Tibetans, and use it as a sacrifice for the independence of whole Tibet.

Not only are we not going to give up Tibet, we can't, too much water is there, we rather give up Beijing than Tibet.

You might think they are far fetched, it doesn't matter what you think, it matters what I think, since my actions are what's important, or at least what you are trying to understand.


Fast forward to today, Modi invited that "PM" Lobster Song or something to his inauguration, his meaning was clear, he intends to use Tibet against us, he still has the mentality of Nehru that India is the leader of the developing world. Well so be it, he's got his response.

I agree completely. Indians must simply come to terms with the point you have raised & react accordingly. Enough with the woolly headedness. The Chinese are not & probably never will be our friends. Contrary to what so many Indians think, the Chinese don't think it is an asian century or an India-China century, they will not settle for anything less than a China century & will deal with any & all pretenders accordingly. China is an important country for India & must be dealt with as such. What we don't need however, is to be muddle headed about the relationship.

this sounds good, except it doesn't mash too well with actual thinking on this side. Great nation diplomacy has no friends, but allies, and balance of power. The concert of Europe created no friends, but did make peace in their time.

There isn't a concept of Asian century or Chinese century, we go at our own pace, we won't let an American concept hasten a calculated process. That's not how winning is done. We will advance our power as we see fit, the chips can fall where they may.

It is India that isn't treating China with respect. The Tibetans are separatists and terrorists. Whether you think that is irrelevant, we think that. India sheltering them means India sees itself as superior, or at least in tends to use them as a chip, Nehru certainly did. You say we fired the first bullet? You got a knife in our flesh and continue to twist, so at this point, anything short of war is pretty justified on our side.
 
.
also read

China’s salami-slice strategy | Stagecraft and Statecraft


China’s salami-slice strategy
Posted on July 26, 2013 by Chellaney
BY BRAHMA CHELLANEY
The Japan Times
, July 26, 2013
View attachment 111702
China’s furtive, incremental encroachments into neighboring countries’ borderlands — propelled by its relative power advantage — have emerged as a key destabilizing element in the Asian security landscape. While China’s navy and a part of its air force focus on asserting revanchist territorial and maritime claims in the South and East China Seas, its army has been active in the mountainous borderlands with India, trying to alter the line of control bit by bit.
Beijing’s favored frontier strategy to change the territorial and maritime status quo is apparently anchored in “salami slicing.” This involves making a steady progression of small actions, none of which serves as a casus belli by itself, yet which over time lead cumulatively to a strategic transformation in China’s favor.
By relying on quiet salami slicing rather than on overt aggression, China’s strategy aims to seriously limit the options of the targeted countries by confounding their deterrence plans and making it difficult for them to devise proportionate or effective counteractions.
This, in part, is because the strategy — while bearing all the hallmarks of modern Chinese brinksmanship, such as a reliance on surprise and a disregard for the risks of wider military escalation — seeks to ensure the initiative remains with China.
Changing the territorial status quo has been the unfinished business of the People’s Republic of China since its founding in 1949. The early forcible absorption of the sprawling Xinjiang and Tibetan plateau more than doubled the landmass of China.
This was followed by the advent of the earliest incarnation of the salami-slicing strategy, which led to China gaining control, step by step between 1954 and 1962, of the Switzerland-size Aksai Chin plateau of the original princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. An emboldened China then went on to seize the Paracel Islands in 1974, the Johnson Reef in 1988, the Mischief Reef in 1995 and, most recently, the Scarborough Shoal (2012).
At the core of the challenge posed by China to Asian security today is its lack of respect for existing frontier lines. In other words, China is still working to redraw political boundaries.
Along land frontiers, rodent-style surreptitious attacks usually precede its salami slicing. The aim is to start eating into enemy land like giant rodents and thereby facilitate salami slicing. The use of this strategy is becoming increasingly apparent along the Himalayan border with India, the world’s longest disputed frontier.
Here one form of attacks has involved the Chinese military bringing ethnic Han pastoralists to the valleys along the Himalayan line of control and giving them cover to range across it, in the process driving Indian herdsmen from their traditional pasturelands and opening the path to salami slicing. This strategy, which can also begin with the Chinese military nibbling at an unprotected border area, has been especially employed in the two highly strategic Buddhist regions located on opposite ends of the Himalayan frontier — Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh.
To assert its claims in the South and East China Seas, China unabashedly plays salami slicer. The tools of salami slicing here range from granting hydrocarbon-exploration leases to asserting expansive fishing rights — all designed to advance its territorial and maritime claims.
In the East China Sea, China has employed paramilitary agencies, such as the Maritime Safety Administration, the Fisheries Law Enforcement Command, and the State Oceanic Administration, in a campaign of attrition against Japan over the Senkaku Islands, which it calls Diaoyu — an offensive that has already succeeded in shaking the status quo by making the rest of the world recognize the existence of a dispute. This has emboldened Beijing to gradually increase the frequency of Chinese maritime surveillance ships sent into the 12-nautical-mile zone regarded as the territorial waters of the Senkaku Islands and to violate the airspace over them.
Taking on Japan, its former occupier and historical rival, is part of China’s larger search for new seabed resources and for strategic ascendancy in the western Pacific by breaking out of what it perceives to be “first island chain” — a string that includes the Senkakus, Taiwan, and some islands controlled by Vietnam and the Philippines.
China’s aim in the South China Sea is to slowly but surely legitimize its presence in the 80 percent of the sea it now claims formally. Through repeated and growing acts, China is etching a lasting presence in the claimed zones.
Among the ways Beijing has sought to establish new “facts” on the ground in the South China Sea is to lease hydrocarbon and fishing blocks inside other disputant states’ 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zones (EEZs), as defined by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Such leases are designed to circumscribe the UNCLOS-granted economic rights of states such as Vietnam and the Philippines while expanding China’s control of the region’s oil-and-gas wealth.
China has even established “Sansha City” on Woody Island in the Paracels as its administrative base for the South China Sea, setting up a local civilian government and a military garrison there to oversee the entire region. And in its latest effort to present a fait accompli over its occupation of the Paracels, it has started tourist cruises to those disputed islands.
To be sure, Beijing usually is careful to slice very thinly so as to avoid any dramatic action that could become a cause of war. Indeed, it has has a knack of disaggregating any action into several parts and then pursuing each element separately in such a manner as to allow the different pieces to fall in place.
This shrewdness helps to keep its opponents off balance and in a bind on how to respond. In fact, as a skillful salami slicer that acts insidiously, camouflaging offense as defense, China acts in ways not only to undercut its opponents’ deterrence but also to cast the burden of starting a war on them.
Any targeted state is presented with a strategic Hobson’s choice: either endure the salami slicing or face a dangerous and costly war with an emerging great power. This is the choice, for example, Manila has faced over China’s effective seizure of the Scarborough Shoal.
China’s tactics and strategy thus pose an increasing challenge to several of its neighbors who face a deepening dilemma over how to thwart the salami slicing. Exchanging notes with each other — and with the United States, the geographically nonresident Asian power — may be necessary to find ways to try and stop this creeping, covert warfare.
After all, China’s multipronged actions, cumulatively, carry the potential of fundamentally altering the Asian power dynamics to shape a Sino-centric region.
Brahma Chellaney is a geostrategist and the author, most recently, of “Water, Peace, and War” (Rowman & Littlefield).



China knows and is well aware of the fact that India alone poses serious threat towards its world domination .

In coming decades when China's growth will start cooling down and India will still be reaping its demographic dividends the real race will be between -China and India . Even though India remains decades behind China it is the only country capable to catch up and challenge its position.

and precisely for that reason it has invested so much in Pakistan to keep India pinned down to regional conflict .

In fact it has armed Pakistan to teeth to make sure that India will remain embroiled in conflict with constant threat of nuclear war.

India and China can never be friends ...

China can never allow another Asian country breathing down its neck as it prepares for Chinese domination of world .


Great post! I knew they were doing this but to see it framed as part of their policy is annoying to say the least. That's why it seems like they are just waiting for us to make the wrong move and fight back for what we see as intrusion, but it allows them plausible denialiability and then they can pounce on us. Basically, a trap so they can meet their objectives while looking as if they were innocent in the world. China is quite cunning. The problem I see for India is lack of consistent policies and strong leadership. We are very lucky to have Modi elected and in power but the problem is when an idiots like Sonia and Rahul become elected ever, China will take that opportunity next time to pounce on us. Even Mamata is serious security issue. China is using Pakistan's intel resources to slow us down big time. We need to take off the gloves and start hitting back at key assets. Im sure they can the same to us....but within our own lands....desperate times calll for desperate measures. The mushrooming of Muslim enclaves in border areas is a common tactic by ISI for them to conduct their operations. Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Madives, etc have all seen an increase in Chinese and Pakistan personnel. We should not be lulled by these false promises of friendship. They have lulling us for decades but their objectives have never changed.


I say start targetting key operatives. No more courts, strictly killled in encounters after we have gotten info.



Modi needs to create a school or academy for Public affairs that will train future leaders, politicans, strategists, etc on how to form a consistent vision. Modi has a lot cut out of him. I'm seriously not playing up Congress or BJP....I dislike both. I only like Modi for his love of India and his will to make it better.
 
.
The reason for the "incursions" and lack of a resolution lies in your PM Nehru's actions. Not the 62 war, but the Lama. He made sure the Lama remain a powerful force in international politics, I mean still being a pretender.

Right now you control the second most important whatever to the tibetan MONKS. Now if we agree to status quo, would that not give the Tibetans some ammo in their 1875 musket? Or what if they use that as a base to promote it further, or worse India gives that town to the Tibetans, and use it as a sacrifice for the independence of whole Tibet.

Not only are we not going to give up Tibet, we can't, too much water is there, we rather give up Beijing than Tibet.

You might think they are far fetched, it doesn't matter what you think, it matters what I think, since my actions are what's important, or at least what you are trying to understand.


Fast forward to today, Modi invited that "PM" Lobster Song or something to his inauguration, his meaning was clear, he intends to use Tibet against us, he still has the mentality of Nehru that India is the leader of the developing world. Well so be it, he's got his response.



this sounds good, except it doesn't mash too well with actual thinking on this side. Great nation diplomacy has no friends, but allies, and balance of power. The concert of Europe created no friends, but did make peace in their time.

There isn't a concept of Asian century or Chinese century, we go at our own pace, we won't let an American concept hasten a calculated process. That's not how winning is done. We will advance our power as we see fit, the chips can fall where they may.

It is India that isn't treating China with respect. The Tibetans are separatists and terrorists. Whether you think that is irrelevant, we think that. India sheltering them means India sees itself as superior, or at least in tends to use them as a chip, Nehru certainly did. You say we fired the first bullet? You got a knife in our flesh and continue to twist, so at this point, anything short of war is pretty justified on our side.


Concept of controlling Tibetan leaders or religious leaders is foreign to us ...thankfully we are not China to do that !!!

India gave the Dalai Lama political asylum and because we had historical ties with Tibet .
If we intended to use Tibet against china , we would not have accepted once China policy .

Despite controlling Tibet for 5 decades you are still scared of Dalai lama .

Nobody asked you to give up Tibet . rather it is greedy China that has now come up with its claims over Arunachal Pradesh 6 decades after it has remained in indian fold .

The current issues in china's vicinity lie in China;s revisionist expansionist policy .


so much insecurity superpower China harbors that it is worried about powerless Tibetan PM In exile being invited for oath taking ceremony of Indian PM .
 
Last edited:
.
The reason for the "incursions" and lack of a resolution lies in your PM Nehru's actions. Not the 62 war, but the Lama. He made sure the Lama remain a powerful force in international politics, I mean still being a pretender.

Right now you control the second most important whatever to the tibetan MONKS. Now if we agree to status quo, would that not give the Tibetans some ammo in their 1875 musket? Or what if they use that as a base to promote it further, or worse India gives that town to the Tibetans, and use it as a sacrifice for the independence of whole Tibet.

Not only are we not going to give up Tibet, we can't, too much water is there, we rather give up Beijing than Tibet.

You might think they are far fetched, it doesn't matter what you think, it matters what I think, since my actions are what's important, or at least what you are trying to understand.


Fast forward to today, Modi invited that "PM" Lobster Song or something to his inauguration, his meaning was clear, he intends to use Tibet against us, he still has the mentality of Nehru that India is the leader of the developing world. Well so be it, he's got his response.



this sounds good, except it doesn't mash too well with actual thinking on this side. Great nation diplomacy has no friends, but allies, and balance of power. The concert of Europe created no friends, but did make peace in their time.

There isn't a concept of Asian century or Chinese century, we go at our own pace, we won't let an American concept hasten a calculated process. That's not how winning is done. We will advance our power as we see fit, the chips can fall where they may.

It is India that isn't treating China with respect. The Tibetans are separatists and terrorists. Whether you think that is irrelevant, we think that. India sheltering them means India sees itself as superior, or at least in tends to use them as a chip, Nehru certainly did. You say we fired the first bullet? You got a knife in our flesh and continue to twist, so at this point, anything short of war is pretty justified on our side.



Tibetans are not HAN. Case closed. The world see's thru the BS......they also see what is going on in Hong Kong.
 
.
this sounds good, except it doesn't mash too well with actual thinking on this side. Great nation diplomacy has no friends, but allies, and balance of power. The concert of Europe created no friends, but did make peace in their time.

There isn't a concept of Asian century or Chinese century, we go at our own pace, we won't let an American concept hasten a calculated process. That's not how winning is done. We will advance our power as we see fit, the chips can fall where they may.

It is India that isn't treating China with respect. The Tibetans are separatists and terrorists. Whether you think that is irrelevant, we think that. India sheltering them means India sees itself as superior, or at least in tends to use them as a chip, Nehru certainly did. You say we fired the first bullet? You got a knife in our flesh and continue to twist, so at this point, anything short of war is pretty justified on our side.

First you usurp what is not yours ..and then you cry hoarse about somebody thrashing knife in the flesh that did not belong to you .

Yes India committed strategic blunder by letting China gobble up Tibet in 50's .worse we gave away our extraterritorial rights we had in Tibet . Our stance to give political asylum to Dalai lama and his harassed compatriots was borne out of that historical friendship we had with Tibet .

Tibetans are separatists and terrorists . right ! and so also were those students in Tianmen square ....thanks to china for exterminating such terrorist scums ...

Your definition of terrorists is in line with your friends in Pakistan . Nothing better can ever be expected from you under such circumstances .
 
.
Concept of controlling Tibetan leaders or religious leaders is foreign to us ...thankfully we are not China to do that !!!

India gave the Dalai Lama political asylum and because we had historical ties with Tibet .
If we intended to use Tibet against china , we would not have accepted once China policy .

Despite controlling Tibet for 5 decades you are still cared of Dalai lama .

Nobody asked you to give up Tibet . rather it is greedy China that has now come up with its claims over Arunachal Pradesh 6 decades after it has remained in indian fold .

The current issues in china's vicinity lie in China;s revisionist expansionist policy .


so much insecurity superpower China harbors that it is worried about powerless Tibetan PM In exile being invited for oath taking ceremony of Indian PM .

look, you asked I told you, what do you want me to say, India is the saint of the world and we are the second coming of Hitler.

I can say that, but that would bring us no closer to an end than what you just posted would.

What you posted is your opinion, not ours, you can't force your opinion on us, I mean no while being weaker than us.


Fear is not the right word, but the Lama in American hands, and he essentially is, is basically giving Americans an excuse to do anything. This excuse to do things is very important for great powers, as American and Chinese power gets more and more close, the little things matters more and more.
 
.
look, you asked I told you, what do you want me to say, India is the saint of the world and we are the second coming of Hitler.

I can say that, but that would bring us no closer to an end than what you just posted would.

What you posted is your opinion, not ours, you can't force your opinion on us, I mean no while being weaker than us.


Fear is not the right word, but the Lama in American hands, and he essentially is, is basically giving Americans an excuse to do anything. This excuse to do things is very important for great powers, as American and Chinese power gets more and more close, the little things matters more and more.



So there comes a point when India's hand will b e pushed far enough. We told you we rather be friends but you don't want that. So, you leave us with no other option but to embrace America. Thanks
 
.
look, you asked I told you, what do you want me to say, India is the saint of the world and we are the second coming of Hitler.

I can say that, but that would bring us no closer to an end than what you just posted would.

What you posted is your opinion, not ours, you can't force your opinion on us, I mean no while being weaker than us.


Fear is not the right word, but the Lama in American hands, and he essentially is, is basically giving Americans an excuse to do anything. This excuse to do things is very important for great powers, as American and Chinese power gets more and more close, the little things matters more and more.

exactly and big powers like China use those small excuses that India gave asylum to Dalai lama to make a boundary issue .

while China tactically annexed Tibet which was never part of Chinese empire it refuses to validate the Indo-Tibtan border . and now it is using the decade old Dalai lama saga to further its military agenda .

is it a matter of great introspection that despite 5 decades of stranglehold over Tibet why you guys are so worried about Dalai lama ?
 
.
Indians just can't accept the fact that when President Xi Jinping visited India, he also took his military with him to teach the elephant a lesson. Despite the humiliation, India Hindu Extremist regime still accepted $20 billion worth of juicy Chinese yuan.

Get over it people.

Look at it this way, last year the United Stated stripped an ambassador naked and a few months later, the Hindu Extremist Prime Minister Narendra Modi goes over to kiss Obsmas boots, I mean sign investment deals... business as usual
 
.
Back
Top Bottom