India is no match for China in the SAARC summit

[TheTruth]

Whats this ROFL? SL helped Pakistan in 1971 war against India and allowed PAF to refuel its planes in Colombo. What was the result? India-Vietnam defence cooperation is more lethal than China-Sri Lanka ties. I know how jittery you would be feeling inside while reading this.

Sri Lanka is an independent nation. They can do what they please and you will NOT get anyone's support if you try to push your neighbors around. The world has been fooled for decades, but they are paying more attention to India's behavior nowadays.

Indo-Vietnam partnership could be destroyed by China in the blink of an eye, even if you were given a decade to catch up and coordinate.

 

[Razia Sultana]

Sri Lanka is an independent nation. They can do what they please and you will NOT get anyone's support if you try to push your neighbors around. The world has been fooled for decades, but they are paying more attention to India's behavior nowadays.

Indo-Vietnam partnership could be destroyed by China in the blink of an eye, even if you were given a decade to catch up and coordinate.

India and SL have no enemity but the same can not be said about Vietnam and China. India has survived NATO base of Diego Garcia and ripped apart Pakistan and egos of Nixon-Kissinger duo and NATO in 1971. I know a bigger neighbour is never a popular neighbour and so is the case of India in SAARC and China in ASEAN and East Asia. By the way India respects the sovereignty of her neighbours and their right to foreign policy. We are friendly with SL and hence can convey our defence concerns even if its hypothetical.

 

[TheTruth]

@Razia Sultana The truth is that Vietnam does not have any friends in the region, or in the world. They are being used by several powers and in turn using those powers. Vietnam has limited options against China not only because of its incredible weakness but because they are hated by Cambodia and disliked by Thailand. No one else in ASEAN is particularly fond of them.

 

[Razia Sultana]

@Razia Sultana The truth is that Vietnam does not have any friends in the region, or in the world. They are being used by several powers and in turn using those powers. Vietnam has limited options against China not only because of its incredible weakness but because they are hated by Cambodia and disliked by Thailand. No one else in ASEAN is particularly fond of them.

Thats because it had once invaded Cambodia and got into a fight with Thailand. However much water has flown since. I have travelled to many ASEAN countries and got the feeling that they dislike chinese hegemony. while all ASEAN members are at par and there is no feeling of any complex with each other. Thailand is so pro US you almost feel its a NATO member.

 

[TheTruth]

Thats because it had once invaded Cambodia and got into a fight with Thailand. However much water has flown since. I have travelled to many ASEAN countries and got the feeling that they dislike chinese hegemony. while all ASEAN members are at par and there is no feeling of any complex with each other. Thailand is so pro US you almost feel its a NATO member.

Thailand is even more pro-China. Pro-US sentiment in ASEAN is extremely shallow and fickle, as it is in Korea and Japan. All based on Hollywood lies and superficial nonsense that will evaporate if any true crisis emerges.

 

[Razia Sultana]

Thailand is even more pro-China. Pro-US sentiment in ASEAN is extremely shallow and fickle, as it is in Korea and Japan. All based on Hollywood lies and superficial nonsense that will evaporate if any true crisis emerges.

We can also say India - China busines is more than India-US business. Thais dislike chinese vessels in Mekong River ask any common man near the golden triangle while they eagerly await US war ships on their ports.

 

[jaunty]

Looks like people here have confused notions about a nationhood. The concept of modern nation began in Europe around the 19th century and spread to the rest of the world. Before that the ruler of a land mass decided the nation and not the people. So in times of Ashoka, Akbar and Aurangzeb the rulers of Afghanistan and Bengal were the same. The Ottoman and Persian Empire included much wider geographical region than what is Turkey and Iran are today. People were least concerned whether they were ruled by one king or another. Until the birth of modern nationalism, no country in the world was bothered about the geographical changes as it changed with every ruler and it kept changing during his regime also.

When modern nationhood was spreading, India was under the British rule and Indian nationalism became synonymous with her struggle for freedom from the British Rule. This was the uniting factor and eventually it became so strong that despite having many religions, races, languages and geographical features, India developed a strong sense of nationhood. What you see China today, it was not the same in the first half of 20th century. In fact, most nations took the shape of modern nation after the second world war by when the people had started relating themselves with a national boundary. Every nation has something core for their nationhood - some are a nation because they speak one language, some follow one religion or custom. But still a language or a religion is not the essential ingredient for a nationhood. If that was so the Arab speaking muslims will not be divided into many nations. However, the Indian nationhood perplexes many who think that a religion or a language forms the basis of a nationhood and hence wrongly assume that India is held together artificially.

Excellent post.

 

[dray]

What make you think that we're not doing now? simply because your Indian medias did not cry out loud yet doesn't mean we couldn't do it in secrecy; Same happened few months ago when Indians were bragg how Modi cozy with Viet prime minister visit as measure to counter China then oops a Chinese sub pop up in SL port without warning that brought consternation and anger Indian gorverment.

This typical Indian media cry about Chinese reciprocate action

All the best.

 

[TheTruth]

We can also say India - China busines is more than India-US business. Thais dislike chinese vessels in Mekong River ask any common man near the golden triangle while they eagerly await US war ships on their ports.

China has taken an active approach to fighting drug-trafficking, and if the Thais resent it they certainly don't show it. I'll have to do more research myself though - thanks for the lead.

 

[Gibbs]

It's just a matter of time for China to be included.. It's inevitable

India has been there since Gupt era and included present day afganistan, pakistan and ceylon. work on your history genius. read something about Chandragupt Vikramaditya.

.. What do they teach you in Indian schools ?? Himmler would have been proud

Looks like people here have confused notions about a nationhood. The concept of modern nation began in Europe around the 19th century and spread to the rest of the world. Before that the ruler of a land mass decided the nation and not the people. So in times of Ashoka, Akbar and Aurangzeb the rulers of Afghanistan and Bengal were the same. The Ottoman and Persian Empire included much wider geographical region than what is Turkey and Iran are today. People were least concerned whether they were ruled by one king or another. Until the birth of modern nationalism, no country in the world was bothered about the geographical changes as it changed with every ruler and it kept changing during his regime also.

When modern nationhood was spreading, India was under the British rule and Indian nationalism became synonymous with her struggle for freedom from the British Rule. This was the uniting factor and eventually it became so strong that despite having many religions, races, languages and geographical features, India developed a strong sense of nationhood. What you see China today, it was not the same in the first half of 20th century. In fact, most nations took the shape of modern nation after the second world war by when the people had started relating themselves with a national boundary. Every nation has something core for their nationhood - some are a nation because they speak one language, some follow one religion or custom. But still a language or a religion is not the essential ingredient for a nationhood. If that was so the Arab speaking muslims will not be divided into many nations. However, the Indian nationhood perplexes many who think that a religion or a language forms the basis of a nationhood and hence wrongly assume that India is held together artificially.

Best answer i've seen around..

 

[Fattyacids]

Looks like people here have confused notions about a nationhood. The concept of modern nation began in Europe around the 19th century and spread to the rest of the world. Before that the ruler of a land mass decided the nation and not the people. So in times of Ashoka, Akbar and Aurangzeb the rulers of Afghanistan and Bengal were the same. The Ottoman and Persian Empire included much wider geographical region than what is Turkey and Iran are today. People were least concerned whether they were ruled by one king or another. Until the birth of modern nationalism, no country in the world was bothered about the geographical changes as it changed with every ruler and it kept changing during his regime also.

When modern nationhood was spreading, India was under the British rule and Indian nationalism became synonymous with her struggle for freedom from the British Rule. This was the uniting factor and eventually it became so strong that despite having many religions, races, languages and geographical features, India developed a strong sense of nationhood. What you see China today, it was not the same in the first half of 20th century. In fact, most nations took the shape of modern nation after the second world war by when the people had started relating themselves with a national boundary. Every nation has something core for their nationhood - some are a nation because they speak one language, some follow one religion or custom. But still a language or a religion is not the essential ingredient for a nationhood. If that was so the Arab speaking muslims will not be divided into many nations. However, the Indian nationhood perplexes many who think that a religion or a language forms the basis of a nationhood and hence wrongly assume that India is held together artificially.

You're confusing "statehood" with "nationhood." Perhaps, you did it intentionally.

A "state"(statehood) refers to a political entity with a territory under one ruler/govt, a sovereign country.

A "nation-state"(nationhood) refers to a "state" with a largely homogenous culture and people.

Nation-state is a new concept emerged out of modern Europe. But the notion of a "state" had always existed in history, e.g. Ancient China, Japan, Korea, Rome(before it was fragmented)....etc

Historically, India was never a state, much less a nation-state. Post 1947, India had become a state, a sovereign country, but it is still not a "nation-state." You're muddling the definition of "state" with "nation-state."

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

You're confusing "statehood" with "nationhood." Perhaps, you did it intentionally.

A "state"(statehood) refers to a political entity with a defined territory, a sovereign country.

A "nation-state"(nationhood) refers to a "state" with a largely homogenous culture and people.

Nation-state is a new concept emerged out of modern Europe. But the notion of a "state" had always existed in history, e.g. Ancient China, Japan, Korea, Rome(before it was fragmented)....etc

Historically, India was never a state, much less a nation-state. Post 1947, India had become a state, a sovereign country, but it is still not a "nation-state." You're muddling the definition of "state" with "nation-state."

pretty important to note the distinctions......especially those still confused about it today

well stated by the way

 

[Razia Sultana]

You're confusing "statehood" with "nationhood." Perhaps, you did it intentionally.

A "state"(statehood) refers to a political entity with a territory under one ruler/govt, a sovereign country.

A "nation-state"(nationhood) refers to a "state" with a largely homogenous culture and people.

Nation-state is a new concept emerged out of modern Europe. But the notion of a "state" had always existed in history, e.g. Ancient China, Japan, Korea, Rome(before it was fragmented)....etc

Historically, India was never a state, much less a nation-state. Post 1947, India had become a state, a sovereign country, but it is still not a "nation-state." You're muddling the definition of "state" with "nation-state."

I already said that people who think from just one or few ingredients that make a nation, will be perplexed to see India as a nation and what constitutes the Indian nation. I read on this forum someone using a quote from a Srilankan cricker who says he is a sinhalese, a tamil, a buddhist, a muslim etc etc and he is a proud Sri Lankan. Its difficult to find a single word for defining what that cricketer felt about his nationhood but i can vouch that i feel 100% like him for my own country. May be some political scientist will come up with a definition of such kind of nationhood which encompasses and cut across all races, religion, language and culture and binds people.

Historically India was treated as a geographical unit with several states within. Alexander did not attack Punjab but India, Mohd Bin Qasim did not attack Sindh but Hind, Vasco Da Gama did not discover sea route to Kerala but to India. In 1947 it became an independent sovereign state. Not just a state but a Nation State. When Europe was establishing its lingual nationhood, India was fighting colonial suppression. No nation is a born nation, all have evolved and so has Indian Nationalism. Ask an American what constitutes their nationalism and no one will say its religion or race or language... but you might hear them talking about democracy, liberty and equality and frankly speaking thats the essence of their nationhood and they all stand by it. Similarly, we have our own nationality.

It's just a matter of time for China to be included.. It's inevitable



.. What do they teach you in Indian schools ?? Himmler would have been proud



Best answer i've seen around..

Thankyou. I just quoted your signature in a comment which I noticed was yours after i posted it. Thanks.

 

[Beidou2020]

You're confusing "statehood" with "nationhood." Perhaps, you did it intentionally.

A "state"(statehood) refers to a political entity with a territory under one ruler/govt, a sovereign country.

A "nation-state"(nationhood) refers to a "state" with a largely homogenous culture and people.

Nation-state is a new concept emerged out of modern Europe. But the notion of a "state" had always existed in history, e.g. Ancient China, Japan, Korea, Rome(before it was fragmented)....etc

Historically, India was never a state, much less a nation-state. Post 1947, India had become a state, a sovereign country, but it is still not a "nation-state." You're muddling the definition of "state" with "nation-state."

Best post of the thread.

100% agree.