How China gained from Partition of India in 1947

[Paludism]

Ridiculous.

Its astonishing how much Indians blame partition for their ills.
We have Muslim Hindu riots, partition
We don't have uniform law. Partition
We have appeasement politics. Partition.
We have issues with Bangladesh. Partition.
We have issues with pakistan. Partition.
We have issues with China. Partition.
We are not united. Partition.
We can't reach middle east. Partition.
We can't reach central Asia. Partition.
Minorities are insecure. Partition.


Jeez.

Just to add a couple more of your points...

We don't have toilets - partition
We are tourist rapists - partition
We don't get gold medals - partition
We have low IQ - partition
We are only slaves to the whites - partition
We look down on our Mongolian looking Brothers - partition
We are always delusional - partition
We don't even spare our sisters - partition
We love to use iron rods on women - partition


The list is endless and i can keep going lol....

 

[Indus Pakistan]

You had out Flanked us and had the military advantage. You could have cut the North East away if you had the capability.

You can pump out the figures but even by your admission India had the numbers advantage. You counted Bangladesh as "support" to Pakistan. What sort of fcukfest are you? Banglas were effectively at war against us - Mukhto Bahini were fighting Pak Army. Most of Bangla population were supporting [tacit or otherwise] Mukhto/india. However why not hear it from the commander of the Indian Army who was in charge of the war in 1971 Field Marshal Maneckshaw -

Quote

“The Pakistani army in East Pakistan fought very gallantly but they had no chance. They were a thousand miles from their base. I had eight or nine months to make my preparations. I had got a superiority of almost fifteen to one. They just had no chance. But they fought very gallantly.”

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/a-lesson-from-the-past/story-mmvUxgKqAfOobxD9u12I9M.html

This is coming from Indian commander of the forces that were deployed against Pakistan in Bangla. The Pakistan Army face a 15 to 1, yes 15:1 disadvantage and as FM Maneckshaw goes on to state Pak Army was 1,000 miles from their base. They were doomed from the moment the attack began. Don't forget PA strenght [regular] was only 55k and most of them were fighting Mukhto Bahini Bangla insurgents or keeping population of Bangla population placated. Again these facts are not coming from some internet warrior but the Indian commander in 1971.

Yet only Indian's can make this victory [which it was] into the greatest military achievemt since the Spartans fought Persians to a standstill. In a sense it exposes Indian contemtble military prowess in that they are forced to use this pathetic military victory [although great geo-political achievement] to garner bragging rigts.

It's like I come home and bragg to my wife how I beat up a punk in the street. On being asked by her "so what happened" I reply "well there was I and 15 of my mates and we jumped a lone guy in the street". Then "we fought like lions until we defeated this lone guy". I tell yeh "I am proud of me and my 15 mates".

All that bragging would merely have the opposite effect of exposing me as class A wimp.

* Therefore my advice to our Chinese friends is give these Indian's another lesson like you did in 1962. India can only achieve success with 15 to 1 advantage. And I don't think in case of fighting China, India can ever hope to gain such numerical advantages as both countries have about equal population numbers.

@Chinese-Dragon

 

[Kambojaric]

"India" is a synonym for South Asia, just as "Middle East" is for SW Asia, "Iberia" is for the SE region of Europe and "Scandinavia" is for the Northern most region of Europe. Even if Sweden today decides to call itself Scandinavia or Spain call itself Iberia, this does not mean the rest of the Scandinavian or Iberian countries had been partitioned away from Sweden and Spain respectively. In fact Portugal predates Spain (as a unified country) as does Nepal the Republic of India.

My knowledge of Chinese history is not the strongest but I think the Chinese posters here can back me up that the concept of China has existed for centuries? In fact this seems to be the case in the whole of East Asia including Japan and the Koreas. South Asia + Myanmar meanwhile has never been a unified entity until the emergence of the British. They then partitioned their own created entity as they willed.

 

[Suriya]

@Kaptaan nice description of war in east Pakistan and yes it was 5 : 1 or 15 :1 what ever you prefer .

But you forgets in 1971 one war war fought in western front too.

In fact the 1971 war started by pakistan when PAF bombed north Indian airbases that extended to Arga in Uter Pradesh .

But Pakistan army miserably failed to make any gain in the western front .

Your Pakistan tanks invaded jaisalmer sector in Rajastan , but that invasion was brutally repulsed and your American gifted Patton tank brigade was routed by IAF hunters and on ground lone Indian army infantry battalion .

Second week into the war , indian navy had blocked Karachi Harbor and IAF was bombing Karachi with impunity . PAF was no where to been seen.

Your performance in west Pakistan was abysmal and had war continued for long in absence pressure from USA and Russia , you would have surrendered west Pakistan too .

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/how-china-gained-from-partition-india-pakistan-british-raj-4807566/

How China gained from Partition
Geopolitical legacies of the division remain the biggest drag on India’s global aspirations

Written by C. Raja Mohan | Updated: August 22, 2017 7:40 am

The occasional reflections on the tragedies of Partition rarely include the consideration of its geopolitical consequences. The sundering of the political space in the Subcontinent gets a lot less attention in the narratives of independent India’s international relations than the sentimental accounts of Delhi’s non-alignment and moralpolitik.

Even today, it is not easy for the Indian elites to recognise that the geopolitical legacies of Partition remain the biggest drag on India’s larger global aspirations. None of it more important than the fact that China has turned out to be the biggest long-term beneficiary from the division of the Subcontinent.

Nothing illustrates the different geopolitical evolution of India and China since the mid 20th century than the simple question of territorial consolidation. Consider the following: India was divided in 1947 and China was united in 1949. The Subcontinent’s great partition locked the successor states — India and Pakistan — in a perennial conflict. China overcame an era of fragmentation to come together as a strong nation.

If the British Raj emerged as a powerful state by generating a measure of political and administrative coherence to the Subcontinent, its dissolution accompanied by division resulted in the strategic diminution of its successor states, India and Pakistan.

The combination of British power and the massive resources of an undivided Subcontinent created what came to be known as the “India Centre” that dominated the geopolitics of Asia and the Indian Ocean. Indian capital and labour, its armies and administrative systems were central to political stability, economic globalisation and the spread of modernising ideologies in the eastern hemisphere.

Before Partition, India’s energies — economic and military — radiated outwards. After Partition, the Subcontinent’s energies turned inward in defence of the new political borders. If the Anglos are widely seen as the main villains behind Partition — the British for their divide and rule tactics and the American integration of Pakistan into the Cold War politics — it is hard to see how the West benefited from Partition.

The Anglo-American initiatives to replace the India Centre with such new regional security structures as SEATO and CENTO flopped. For there was no real possibility of effective regional security without the participation of India. The efforts by Washington and London to mediate between India and Pakistan in order to generate a more coherent bastion against international communism, for example in the wake of the 1962 war between India and China, did not succeed either.

To make matters even more interesting, the communist giants, Russia and China fell apart at the turn of the 1960s and opened the door for the American strategic partnership with China that would contribute enormously to Beijing’s rise as a great power. China was not only good at exploiting the great power conflicts to its own benefit, its leaders also clearly saw the strategic implications of Partition. They also saw the opportunities to probe independent India’s limitations in sustaining primacy in the Subcontinent and the Indian Ocean that it had inherited from the Raj.

In the early decades after Partition, China seemed relatively marginal to South Asian geopolitics. India’s energies were focused on opposing the Anglo-American co-option of Pakistan into the Cold War alliance system and the supply of Western arms to the Pakistan military. India bet that it could manage the inherent contradictions with China through a conscious befriending of Beijing. But the outcomes abound in paradoxes.

Given the anti-Communist orientation of CENTO and SEATO, you would have thought China would view Pakistan with suspicion and embrace an India that chose to remain non-aligned and refused to support the Cold War alliances. China, however, found it hard to reciprocate India’s love — wrapped in the slogans of Panchsheel and Asian solidarity against Western imperialism. Instead Beijing built an all-weather partnership with Rawalpindi that would grow from strength to strength and remain the one constant feature of the Subcontinent’s international politics.

If India could not stop seeing China through an ideological prism even after 1962, Beijing consistently viewed Rawalpindi through a geopolitical lens. For one, the Chinese leaders saw no real contradictions with Pakistan, despite its pro-Western orientation. Beijing also rightly assessed that ideological slogans are not adequate to overcome major disputes over territorial sovereignty with Delhi.

Even more important, China understood that strong support to Pakistan was a critical element in limiting any future challenges from India. Hence the bilateral deal with Pakistan on Kashmir in the early 1960s, nuclear cooperation in the 1970s and 1980s following India’s first nuclear test in 1974, the transfer of missile technology in the 1990s, and the effective integration of Pakistan’s structures into China’s own military planning on defence production, interoperability and power projection over the last two decades.

For China, Partition is a gift that continues to give. Meanwhile, its growing economic resources, military capabilities and political influence have dramatically improved Beijing’s ability to exploit India’s difficulties with its smaller neighbours as well. Whether it is trade and investment, creation of infrastructure or the supply of armaments, it is China the looms large over the Subcontinent. After years trying to limit Western influences in its neighbourhood, India now finds halting China’s penetration of the Subcontinent will need a lot more political will and strategic purpose.

Whether the above article is true or not is immaterial. It's another exercise in meaningless conjecture. Partition DID happen and IT IS NEVER EVER going to be reversed. There is NO POINT in discussing ifs and buts. There is FAR MORE chance of Pakistan merging to form a nation with Iran or Turkey than with any other country. Saying IF partition didn't happen then.........is like saying IF Jesus (pbuh) or Abraham (pbuh) didn't exist then......... or if all black people became white then.........

We recently celebrated Pakistan's 70th anniversary. When we celebrate Pakistan's 100th anniversay then Pakistan will be as different to india as Iran, Turkey, Lebanon and Jordon are different to india. Nothing can change this reality.

Time to move on and accept facts not fairy tales and imaginations.

 

[ohmrlobalobayeh]

Weird India. It's the British who rules the continent. It's the partition of British, not India.
Now, the colonizer is gone, what blocks India from reuioning the south Asia?
The facts is, Indian's ability can't support theirs ambition.

Indians were never meant to have a single political entity- they lack the will to have 1.

They have ambitions and dreams- and often talk about them, but no concrete actions were ever taken as a nation to fullfill them.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

@Kaptaan nice description of war in east Pakistan and yes it was 5 : 1 or 15 :1 what ever you prefer .

But you forgets in 1971 one war war fought in western front too.

In fact the 1971 war started by pakistan when PAF bombed north Indian airbases that extended to Arga in Uter Pradesh .

But Pakistan army miserably failed to make any gain in the western front .

Your Pakistan tanks invaded jaisalmer sector in Rajastan , but that invasion was brutally repulsed and your American gifted Patton tank brigade was routed by IAF hunters and on ground lone Indian army infantry battalion .

Second week into the war , indian navy had blocked Karachi Harbor and IAF was bombing Karachi with impunity . PAF was no where to been seen.

Your performance in west Pakistan was abysmal and had war continued for long in absence pressure from USA and Russia , you would have surrendered west Pakistan too .

Immaterial at the end if the day. The point is that the Pakistani race and nation still exist today and nothing is going to change that. Whether Pakistan lost 1971 or whether the indian race was brutally defeated, humiliated and enslaved 1000s of times over a 1000 years by various conquerers is now irrelevant.

india is a nation that is completely different to Pakistan in EVERY way possible. Racially, culturally, genetically, politically etc. These differences are huge and unbridgeable. The destiny of Pakistan lies with China, Turkey and the Muslim nations West of us. Discussing what happened nearly 50 years ago is not going to change any of that.

 

[beijingwalker]

China gained nothing , we get what we have today by hard working and decades of sacrifice. besides, India was never anywhere near the top of China's agenda anyway.

 

[Suriya]

China gained nothing , we get what we have today by hard working and decades of sacrifice. besides, India was never anywhere near the top of China's agenda anyway.

GDP of China in the year 1991 : 333.14 USD
GDP of india in the year 1991 : 300.10 USD

Your permanent membership of UN security council was gift of Indian PM Nehru to the Republic of China in the face of generous offers from both US and USSR.

But you betrayed Nehru and stabbed him in the back .But this time Modi is sitting on the helm of the affair and he doesn't play nice at all.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

1967 war with China and the 1987 skirmish showed India learnt the bitter lesson of 1962 quite rapidly....The Highest ridge of the mountains forms the natural border between India and China.....Agreeing to this will make for a prosperous future for both India and China (Bhutan as well)...Both countries are full of high potential youths (China more than India), who think they can either fully match or half-way match the living standards of the West...A Nuclear Holocaust will be a punch to the dick of both nations, and would ensure continued global superiority of the White Race. A superiority which the White Race rightfully earned through the Scientific Revolution

 

[Indus Pakistan]

nice description of war in east Pakistan and yes it was 5 : 1 or 15 :1 what ever you prefer .

This is not question of my or your preferance but the facts given by the chief of the Indian Army and the military commander of 1971 war on the Indian side. I think you can't get better source of facts then out of the "mouth of the horse" so to say. And let me quote the figures again which are 15 to one. Quote from the Indian general -

“The Pakistani army in East Pakistan fought very gallantly but they had no chance. They were a thousand miles from their base. I had eight or nine months to make my preparations. I had got a superiority of almost fifteen to one. They just had no chance. But they fought very gallantly.”

But Pakistan army miserably failed to make any gain in the western front .

No it did not. To begin with did Pakistan have 15 to one advantage like India had in the east on the western front? No. Again India had the numerical advantage. Not as vast as on the east but it is safe to assume a 2 to one advantage existed on the Western front in India's favour.

So instead of defending India should have liberated P-OK [Azad Kashmir] but that never happened. Even on the Western front the smaller army [Pak] was lashing out. India had vastly greater manpower resources and Pak was tied down by having to fight Bangla Mukhtos in the east. Pakistan not only faced a two front war but two enemy war - Banglas and India. Pakistan also was the underdog on account of being far smaller population resources. This presented a perfect opportunity for India. It can't get better then this. Small country. Facing two front war. Facing two enemies. India should have just walked in and grabbed P-OK thus fulfilling the accession of Kashmir by the Maharajah. This would have finished Pakistan off. The Kashmir issue would have been sorted out by military force.

Yet the only thing happened was Banglas got independance was more to with Banglas then India. You think a military force can keep 70 million people ensleved forever? However the big prize was there for the taking when Pakistan had it's hand tied thanks to Banglas. But India failed to grab P-OK. So much for Indian military capability.

Oh wait a minute. You guys left P-OK for Pakistan as charity right? Baksheesh? Then we must do puja to you.

In fact the 1971 war started by pakistan when PAF bombed north Indian airbases that extended to Arga in Uter Pradesh .

If you read the quote from Indian Army Field Marshall Maneckshaw he states he had eight or none months preparation. This tells you well before the outbreak of 1971 war India was planning a attack for some time. You think our planners at GHQ were total numbnuts? They were aware and would have known that attack was about to happen from India anytime. Thus they launched a pre-emptive attack to get as good a "kill" or first blood before India attacked. And we know that was not a mistake because Field Marshall Maneckshaw by his own words was planning to attack any day.

"I had eight or nine months to make my preparations".

 

[Suriya]

bef

This is not question of my or your preferance but the facts given by the chief of the Indian Army and the military commander of 1971 war on the Indian side. I think you can't get better source of facts then out of the "mouth of the horse" so to say. And let me quote the figures again which are 15 to one. Quote from the Indian general -

“The Pakistani army in East Pakistan fought very gallantly but they had no chance. They were a thousand miles from their base. I had eight or nine months to make my preparations. I had got a superiority of almost fifteen to one. They just had no chance. But they fought very gallantly.”

No it did not. To begin with did Pakistan have 15 to one advantage like India had in the east on the western front? No. Again India had the numerical advantage. Not as vast as on the east but it is safe to assume a 2 to one advantage existed on the Western front in India's favour.

So instead of defending India should have liberated P-OK [Azad Kashmir] but that never happened. Even on the Western front the smaller army [Pak] was lashing out. India had vastly greater manpower resources and Pak was tied down by having to fight Bangla Mukhtos in the east. Pakistan not only faced a two front war but two enemy war - Banglas and India. Pakistan also was the underdog on account of being far smaller population resources. This presented a perfect opportunity for India. It can't get better then this. Small country. Facing two front war. Facing two enemies. India should have just walked in and grabbed P-OK thus fulfilling the accession of Kashmir by the Maharajah. This would have finished Pakistan off. The Kashmir issue would have been sorted out by military force.

Yet the only thing happened was Banglas got independance was more to with Banglas then India. You think a military force can keep 70 million people ensleved forever? However the big prize was there for the taking when Pakistan had it's hand tied thanks to Banglas. But India failed to grab P-OK. So much for Indian military capability.

Oh wait a minute. You guys left P-OK for Pakistan as charity right? Baksheesh? Then we must do puja to you.

If you read the quote from Indian Army Field Marshall Maneckshaw he states he had eight or none months preparation. This tells you well before the outbreak of 1971 war India was planning a attack for some time. You think our planners at GHQ were total numbnuts? They were aware and would have known that attack was about to happen from India anytime. Thus they launched a pre-emptive attack to get as good a "kill" or first blood before India attacked. And we know that was not a mistake because Field Marshall Maneckshaw by his own words was planning to attack any day.

"I had eight or nine months to make my preparations".

Are you blaming us for not taking over Azad Kashmir in 1971 ?

You are right we should have done that but US was breathing down the neck and so was USSR asking us to halt . US navy's 7th fleet was in Bay of Bengal and any move on our part would have invited chinese intervention at behest of none other than USA .

We had a limited objective of liberating East pakistan , we did that in two week sharp , and came back handing over it to the natives .

Yes IA prepared for war taking months even though Indira Gandhi want immediate military intervention . But so did pakistan and you know the outcome.

 

[nature is]

GDP of China in the year 1991 : 333.14 USD
GDP of india in the year 1991 : 300.10 USD

Your permanent membership of UN security council was gift of Indian PM Nehru to the Republic of China in the face of generous offers from both US and USSR.

But you betrayed Nehru and stabbed him in the back .But this time Modi is sitting on the helm of the affair and he doesn't play nice at all.

The 5 major allied powers of WW2 founded UNSC. The charter doesn't have a provision to change any founding member, much less giving seat to a newly formed country like India.

India started 1962 war with Nehru's Forward Policy, he then lied to his people that China backastabbed after India lost the war. IA Henderson report has been leaked.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...list-Neville-Maxwell/articleshow/33094229.cms

 

[beijingwalker]

GDP of China in the year 1991 : 333.14 USD
GDP of india in the year 1991 : 300.10 USD

Your permanent membership of UN security council was gift of Indian PM Nehru to the Republic of China in the face of generous offers from both US and USSR.

But you betrayed Nehru and stabbed him in the back .But this time Modi is sitting on the helm of the affair and he doesn't play nice at all.

How can you give UNSC as a gift while you yourself is not one? China, PRC and ROC are both China, we fought in WW2 and earned it, it's not handed to us. That seat is always ours, be it PRC or ROC. Nehru stabbed China in the back by harboring Dalai lama and carrying out Forward Policy. but he got what he deserves, died a broken man after humiliated by PLA.

 

[Suriya]

The 5 major allied powers of WW2 founded UNSC. The charter doesn't have a provision to change any founding member, much less giving seat to a newly formed country like India.

India started 1962 war with Nehru's Forward Policy, he then lied to his people that China backastabbed after India lost the war. IA Henderson report has been leaked.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...list-Neville-Maxwell/articleshow/33094229.cms

Nehru declined offer of permanent U.N. seat'

http://www.thehindu.com/2004/01/10/stories/2004011004021200.htm

When Nehru Refused American Bait on a Permanent Seat for India at the UN

https://thewire.in/58802/when-nehru-refused-american-bait-on-a-permanent-seat-for-india-at-the-un/

PRC got UN security council seat only in the late 1971 before that it was ROC or today's Taiwan which held that position .