India decides to fight back aggressive China

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Wow! seem like you indians are really really free on this new year day.

No holiday for you? explains the agitation

Totally "ZILCH" celebration for the new 2013 at all in whole india?!!!

Maybe

BTW, no people in AC your head!

Sentence lacking logical or semantic meaning.

You can't read very well right?

Sentences written by those with learning difficulties or basic command over a language, Yup! i can't read them, as demonstrated above

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksai_Chin:
The region is almost uninhabited, has no permanent settlements, and receives little precipitation as the Himalayas and the Karakoram block the rains from the Indian monsoon.

Your above provided source vindicates my statement, though not accurately. Although i"ll presume that interpretation is beyond your intellectual capacity.

Go and buy a dictionary and carry along with you always.

Lemme guess you must be the socially challenged class nerd who gets abused

And don't forget to go and check the meaning of "almost" and "non-permanent".

Lastly, Retake and PASS your G.C.E. "O' level again before you come and talk to us here, OK?

LOLOL...

My Govt does recognize or adopt G.C.E , so it will be difficult for me to get down to your level (unless someone administered a non-fatal blow to my spinal cord).


PS: Don't forget to add your signature, intellectually/logically blank, moronic LOLs in your reply to me, I like to enjoy the luxury of assurance over the fact its you whom i am educating not someone else, since you"ve earned it

 

[faithfulguy]

Just like USA didn't create the Chinese civilisation ... but there would have been no PRC as a nation without USA.

Actually, USA won't create PRC. PRC mainly was created with Russian help. But Britain directly created India. If the British lost to the French in the 7 year war, than India would have been divided into multiple pieces.

 

[skysthelimit]

Though Egypt was a kingdom, they would fit into a nation from a perspective of history. It has continuous succession of rules that regard a core area as its history. And any successive rulers would claim itself as the sole legitimate ruler of that area. Ancient Egypt satisfy this rule from the first kingdom till Octavian conquered Egypt. And during that time, Egypt was ruled by foreigners such as Haksos and the Greeks. But its historical continuation and existence never broke until Octavian, later became Augustus, conquered Egypt. So the Egyptian dynasties is a continuous kingdom that fit into today's nation/state definition.

Ashoka created a empire or kingdom that was continuous for a certain period of time. After that, the ruler of successive empires never claimed any a core territory that he conquered. More importantly, no other rulers of successive kingdom claims to be a successor of Ashoka. As a result, to claim Ashoka was creator of India is historically inaccurate.

What India has is more of a religious centered civilization that has great influence over its neighbors. Its this force that bind India together today after independence. This is Bharat from the poem you speak about. But the force that put it into motion of creating an Indian nation is the British. So its historically accurate to say that the British created the Indian nation. Though the British never created the Indian civilization.

You need to understand the difference between a state and a nation. What you are describing in Egypt is a state. A nation is a geographical area whose population identifies itself as the same people irrespective of their ruler(s). This concept of nation rose in Europe in the post-Renaissance period, and in India around the Independence Movement of 1857. The concept of Chinese Nationalism was born only after the British gained hegemony over the Middle Kingdom and even then became full-fledged only with Kuomintang (that's around 1920).

But the Westerners have considered Indians as a separate entity/identity since Alexander - the same happened for the Chinese only after Marco Polo's travels became well known. Ironically, the China Marco Polo described was ruled by the Mongol Kublai Khan - who wasn't technically "Chinese".

And just to add another point - the geographic boundary of what was considered India has been more or less constant (the land between the ocean & the mountains) throughout. The boundary for China is much more fluid - see the link in my last post. One of the more definite boundaries of China was based on the Great Wall, which BTW didn't include Tibet at all.

 

[faithfulguy]

You need to understand the difference between a state and a nation. What you are describing in Egypt is a state. A nation is a geographical area whose population identifies itself as the same people irrespective of their ruler(s). This concept of nation rose in Europe in the post-Renaissance period, and in India around the Independence Movement of 1857. The concept of Chinese Nationalism was born only after the British gained hegemony over the Middle Kingdom and even then became full-fledged only after with Kuomintang (that's around 1920).

But the Westerners have considered Indians as a separate entity/identity since Alexander - the same happened for the Chinese only after Marco Polo's travels became well known. Ironically, the China Marco Polo described was ruled by the Mongol Kublai Khan - who wasn't technically "Chinese".

And just to add another point - the geographic boundary of what was considered India has been more or less constant (the land between the ocean & the mountains) throughout. The boundary for China is much more fluid - see the link in my last post. One of the more definite boundaries of China was based on the Great Wall, which BTW didn't include Tibet at all.

The concept of nationalism does not only existed in Europe. Though the modern, intensive sense was created after the French revolution, the definition you provided above

"A nation is a geographical area whose population identifies itself as the same people irrespective of their ruler(s)."

has been around for a while in Europe, middle east and China.

As for the British gaining hegemony over China, this never happened. It did happened in India gradually. And this created the modern Indian state. If British was not able to fend off the French and Portugese, modern India would have never existed. So you have the Brits to thank for in this regard.

Westerner had regarded India as a separate area since Alexander. the European also regard Africa in the same regard. Now, you get my point. India is a geographical expression. I know its a pain for you Indians to hear Winston Churchill's description of India. But he was historically factual in his statement.

 

[shahadat hussain]

The concept of nationalism does not only existed in Europe. Though the modern, intensive sense was created after the French revolution, the definition you provided above

"A nation is a geographical area whose population identifies itself as the same people irrespective of their ruler(s)."

has been around for a while in Europe, middle east and China.

As for the British gaining hegemony over China, this never happened. It did happened in India gradually. And this created the modern Indian state. If British was not able to fend off the French and Portugese, modern India would have never existed. So you have the Brits to thank for in this regard.

Westerner had regarded India as a separate area since Alexander. the European also regard Africa in the same regard. Now, you get my point. India is a geographical expression. I know its a pain for you Indians to hear Winston Churchill's description of India. But he was historically factual in his statement.

i see why you guys are obsessed with britishers.. afterall they occuiped HK till 1998.. Indians got rid of them almost 60 years ago..

Chinese lecturing indians against british rule is a classic oxymoron !!

 

[skysthelimit]

The concept of nationalism does not only existed in Europe. Though the modern, intensive sense was created after the French revolution, the definition you provided above

"A nation is a geographical area whose population identifies itself as the same people irrespective of their ruler(s)."

has been around for a while in Europe, middle east and China.

As for the British gaining hegemony over China, this never happened. It did happened in India gradually. And this created the modern Indian state. If British was not able to fend off the French and Portugese, modern India would have never existed. So you have the Brits to thank for in this regard.

Westerner had regarded India as a separate area since Alexander. the European also regard Africa in the same regard. Now, you get my point. India is a geographical expression. I know its a pain for you Indians to hear Winston Churchill's description of India. But he was historically factual in his statement.

I love it when someone I am arguing with uses the bait-and-switch tactic - it usually means they lost. We were talking about whether China was or wasn't a nation - and you try to provoke me by talking about when Churchill criticized India and the Indians. I don't know which of his quotes you are referring to and for the purposes of our discussion, I don't care.

And as for British hegemony - please refer to the Opium Wars.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

We can ask the same question to you ??Do you think your nukes scare us.Even if Indians are having less than one meal a day , they have the first thing a human should have -freedom ,unlike the chinese who are still slaves , earlier to kingdoms now to cpc.The only thing chinese have to show is 62.That is too much boasting for someone who has to run back scared from arunachal then in 67 and then in 87.chinese are nothing but full of hot air only warnings and no actions .barking dog seldom bites.

When we chinese argue with Indians, we don't need to bring Nuke as backup unlike Insecure Indians thinks that Nuke is the deterrent against Chinese And what kind of freedom you have enjoy when you're struggle to find the way on how to survive.

lol who know what's happened in 1967 and 1987 beside some fictions that Indians are trying for self-comforting but the whole world knew what was happening in 1962

barking dog seldom bites? you Indians don't even know the barking-bites intention...that how you got owned in 1962, we don't buy your definition.

 

[3Idiots]

Actually, USA won't create PRC. PRC mainly was created with Russian help. But Britain directly created India. If the British lost to the French in the 7 year war, than India would have been divided into multiple pieces.

No, dear.

China would have been a part of Imperial Japan, if USA / UK and USSR had brought the WW2 to end just with a victory of Nazi Germany.

Japanese romped over China with their own strength ... on the contrary, even British India was basically run by Indians - the British Indian army consisted mostly of Indians, not british.

Now do you understand, why British could never do a "rape of Nanking" in India?

Now do you understand, why Indians never were on the run driven by the British (like the chinese were on the run, under "long march") - because the police forces were Indian, army was Indians. So, who to run from.. ourselves??

On the other hand, japanese simply overwhelmed china overwhelmingly.. with numbers and with technological prowess.

Save the USA pressure on the japanese to withdraw .... especially after the use of nuclear weapons by USA ... Japanese were having china by it's throat. It was completely in their hands - how much to choke, how much to squeeze.

Now, back to you point .. where was USSR? - it was fighting it's own (albeit successfully against Hitler). Soviets were the first to raise their flag on Reichstag in Berlin.

Ditto for the Americans in Tokyo.

The chinese were at american feet, when japanese surrendered. The americans chose not to exercise any rights over china. Otherise, instead PRC you've had an overseas American empire in the territories held by PRC today.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

What is "under one meal per day"?

India became the largest rice exporter, if I read a news report correct some months back.

India also a leading exporter of wheat.

Ditto sugar...

Ditto milk ...

Ditto, you name it...

China - imports both rice and wheat; obviously CPC lies about "internal grain production" in china.

your export to enrich only few people, but majory of your people are living under the poverty line, we chinese don't mind to buy all Indians wheat and food to well feed our population.

 

[faithfulguy]

I love it when someone I am arguing with uses the bait-and-switch tactic - it usually means they lost. We were talking about whether China was or wasn't a nation - and you try to provoke me by talking about when Churchill criticized India and the Indians. I don't know which of his quotes you are referring to and for the purposes of our discussion, I don't care.

And as for British hegemony - please refer to the Opium Wars.

We were actually talking about India was created by British. And I had used ancient Egypt and China as an example of a nation state continue for a long period of time. And that India was a geographical expression like Africa instead of a nation. But India composed of many nations and empires come and go. But the notion of an Indian nation was created by the British and continue to this day by Indians.

China lost a war to the British in Opium war, and then to British and French again and then to French and then to Japanese. China lost many wars. But as a nation, it was never colonized. Its fate is similar to that of Ottoman Turks. It lost extraterritorial rights.

 

[3Idiots]

We were actually talking about India was created by British. And I had used ancient Egypt and China as an example of a nation state continue for a long period of time. And that India was a geographical expression like Africa instead of a nation. But India composed of many nations and empires come and go. But the notion of an Indian nation was created by the British and continue to this day by Indians.

China lost a war to the British in Opium war, and then to British and French again and then to French and then to Japanese. China lost many wars. But as a nation, it was never colonized. Its fate is similar to that of Ottoman Turks. It lost extraterritorial rights.

Factually incorrect:

the current territories occupied by PRC, right upto the Vietnam border were part of the mongol empire:

Japan overran china.. and only then proceeded to south east asia.

The chinese "PLA" was actually in barren lands outside china when we consider the "great wall" as the historical border of erstwhile china.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

Factually incorrect:

the current territories occupied by PRC, right upto the Vietnam border were part of the mongol empire:

Japan overran china.. and only then proceeded to south east asia.

The chinese "PLA" was actually in barren lands outside china when we consider the "great wall" as the historical border of erstwhile china.

And thanks to mongol, we got Inner mongolia and Tibet, without them we couldn't officially claim Tibet as our own which hold the strategical resource of Asia's future. We love Mongolians

 

[3Idiots]

And thanks to mongol, we got Inner mongolia and Tibet, without them we couldn't officially claim Tibet as our own which hold the strategical resource of Asia's future. We love Mongolians

Tibetans don't think you have "got them".

Neither do the uyghurs.

Anyway, the discussion here is about the erstwhile china and the current PRC (not focused on the surrounding territories, which mildly put, are disputed and will be resolved in the future .. either peacefully, the USSR way or unpeacefully the nazi germany way).

 

[faithfulguy]

Tibetans don't think you have "got them".

Neither do the uyghurs.

Anyway, the discussion here is about the erstwhile china and the current PRC (not focused on the surrounding territories, which mildly put, are disputed and will be resolved in the future .. either peacefully, the USSR way or unpeacefully the nazi germany way).

Stop trolling. We are talking about how India was created by the British. I had proven it in my previous posts. Stop changing the topic and trolling about the future of another country. Unless of course, you now agree that India was created by the British. We'll end it here.

 

[3Idiots]

Stop trolling. We are talking about how India was created by the British. I had proven it in my previous posts. Stop changing the topic and trolling about the future of another country. Unless of course, you now agree that India was created by the British. We'll end it here.

Only you are trolling, in a thread which talks about a topic unrelated to your useless rants and fantasies which don't exist in reality.

Go home and sleep.. and if that doesn't work, get help from a pyschologist and obtain "Fit for Mental Asylum" certificate.