What's new

India Needs to Join Asia's Emerging 'Chinese Order'

Why don't you stop stapling VISAs issued to Indian citizens residing in Arunachal Pradesh? If you don't have the heart to accept One-India policy, what right do you have to ask India to accept One-China policy?

Sorry Arunachal Pradesh is still on the negociation Table, even Japan doesn't recognize as part of India that why they're reluctant to build road in this contested area and you expect us to give it up? :disagree:
 
.
You are blaming us for being an ally during the bomb, could we blame Russia for India's bomb? I mean they were your ally.

I don't care what you would do with the bomb, just that in today's environment, India would sooner nuke itself than to pass nuclear secrets to other states.

America is not joking when they said nuclear weapons secrets must be guarded.

I guess you could have blamed Russia if Indian politicians or generals or even extremists advocated Nuclear strike on China at the drop of a hat, I guess! But no Indian official worth his salt will do that. Because they know better!

You are talking about America's reservations about Nuclear secrets -- but forget that it was Americans who awarded us for our non-proliferation efforts. OTOH, did you honor the non-proliferation treaties when you supplied the materials to Pakistan? How many International laws do you follow? How about maritime law for freedom of navigation?

Don't you guys have that Sharma or something that 70 year old dude that keep talking bullcrap and isn't he one of the leaders of BJP or a former version of it.

Did he say he wants to cut Pakistan in half.

Then we got a thread a few days ago on how India needs to defeat China to take back territory from a leading member of the government, home minister or something.

If we are to go through all the crazy crap Indian government has said over the years, you would look just as insane, but Pakistan due to its proximity to Middle east and terrorism, gets more attention.

Are you referring to that private defense analyst? How can you compare some private citizen masquerading as a defence analyst on a blogging site to a mainstream Pakistani politician? FYI, Pakistan has far more vicious defence analysts and retired generals spewing far more venom against India! You are simply clutching at the straws here.

As to UN resolutions, all great powers shield their allies, that's how it works. We also shield NK, you think we don't know what they are doing.

You think America don't know what Egypt, Lybia and any of their other crackpot allies are doing in the world.

That's how the game is played.

Don't hate the player hate the game.

What is your point? Are you trying to justify supporting a terrorist group in UN just because you have VETO power? Do you realize that your own region suffers from the same type of terrorism that you so eloquently try to justify on India?

Do you also realize that you are advocating India to do the same on others (including to yourself) if India were to ever be in such a position?

Even Indian authors admitted India was reluctant on more Chinese involvement in India and South Asia in general, which reduced investment from 100 billion to 20 billion.

This is especially true to the link from China through Myanmar and Bangladesh to India. That was a major part of the plan but due to Indian "security" issues it was scrapped and we never brought it on the table.

As to surplus, this isn't good anymore for us, the Surplus is too large for us, and China has way less red tape than India, the only reason India isn't running a surplus is because you can't. A lot of lower income countries are starting to run surpluses or close to now.

The trade between China and India is important, but then that's in spite of not because of. If you had given us access and a fair shot, which we would reciprocate if not already, we have way more investment in India.

We are far closer to being there than not being there. Besides, this isn't about india being poor, it's about you guys fussing over this "security" crap, ok if you want you can build it yourself and help everyone but you are not doing anything yourself either, so now you are just in everyone's way.

Now, this is what I call a "wholesome" crap! Do you have anything to prove that India shot down Chinese investments proposals worth $80 billions?

Your ambassador announced just a few days before the arrival of your President that there will be investments worth $100B but when he arrived, it turned out to be less than $20B. What kind of reassessment could have happened in those 2-3 days of time?

Of course there are some sensitive areas/industries that are not open to all the nations (like infrastructure in border areas). But to suggest that India shot down investment proposals worth $80 Billions is preposterous! But feel free to believe that!
 
. . . .
Why don't you stop stapling VISAs issued to Indian citizens residing in Arunachal Pradesh? If you don't have the heart to accept One-India policy, what right do you have to ask India to accept One-China policy?



Listen mate, you are preaching the choir here. Who in their right mind refuses investment? It is not about your investments, it about unnecessary border flare-ups. It is about your support to terror groups in Pakistan! It all counts to nothing if you help Pakistan get Nuclear bombs and then come to India to invest a couple of billions!

Just take a look around PDF and tell me who is arrogant here! You guys always preach "talk less, do more". What you do here is exactly the opposite! Have you looked yourself in the mirror?



Are you insane? Did India speak about her grandiose aims? How is this relevant to topic at hand?

If anything, I can argue that some Chinese members here already think that they have achieved so much that they can ridicule India about its poverty!
Problems add problems equal endless problems.
If concession make no sense,let's show our weapon and power.I am watching the game between India and China.
May God bless India,the university-class super power.
Thank you for your reply.:coffee:
 
Last edited:
.
I guess you could have blamed Russia if Indian politicians or generals or even extremists advocated Nuclear strike on China at the drop of a hat, I guess! But no Indian official worth his salt will do that. Because they know better!

You are talking about America's reservations about Nuclear secrets -- but forget that it was Americans who awarded us for our non-proliferation efforts. OTOH, did you honor the non-proliferation treaties when you supplied the materials to Pakistan? How many International laws do you follow? How about maritime law for freedom of navigation?

Well then, since India don't want to share nuclear secrets, why make the case that you would.

We never supplied, again, more or less confirmed by US, UK, and Pakistan.

We never broke any maritime laws, the fact you are saying that means how little you know of the China seas situation. We have disputes on border, but never actually broke any laws.

Are you referring to that private defense analyst? How can you compare some private citizen masquerading as a defence analyst on a blogging site to a mainstream Pakistani politician? FYI, Pakistan has far more vicious defence analysts and retired generals spewing far more venom against India! You are simply clutching at the straws here.

The comment on taking Chinese territory was from your home minister, and btw, your generals be it retired or otherwise always claim china to be the enemy, not one time did a Chinese general say India is a threat and must be stopped.

I forgot that 70 year old dudes name, but he was a politician, and he has influence, he's not some moron with a laptop, I mean he is, but not a regular one.

You are making comments about Pakistan because their generals said stuff?!

But when I made the comment that India needs to control what you guys are saying to not raise tension, all you guys can muster is we are oppressed and don't know freedom.

So if what you are suggesting is Pakistan needs to shut up then the same applies.

What is your point? Are you trying to justify supporting a terrorist group in UN just because you have VETO power? Do you realize that your own region suffers from the same type of terrorism that you so eloquently try to justify on India?

Do you also realize that you are advocating India to do the same on others (including to yourself) if India were to ever be in such a position?

But you are not, we are. That might seem trivial, but that's the whole point.

We don't have to justify anything, you said we are anti India, and we are not, we would have done the same regardless of who it was targeted.

Our terror problems are our problems, we will deal with them. We look in the mirror and we look for solutions, it may not be perfect, but it is what it is.

I personally blame our government for failing at that region rather than blaming others.


Now, this is what I call a "wholesome" crap! Do you have anything to prove that India shot down Chinese investments proposals worth $80 billions?

Your ambassador announced just a few days before the arrival of your President that there will be investments worth $100B but when he arrived, it turned out to be less than $20B. What kind of reassessment could have happened in those 2-3 days of time?

Of course there are some sensitive areas/industries that are not open to all the nations (like infrastructure in border areas). But to suggest that India shot down investment proposals worth $80 Billions is preposterous! But feel free to believe that!

I never said India shot down 80 billion, I'm saying India was not hot on the idea of china getting too involved in the area, especially where infrastructure and business interests are concerned.

Most of the investments had ties to that area, it was the China to India through Bangladesh and Myanmar trade route.

When India wasn't going to take that deal, we didn't bring up the rest. knowing it would either be shot down, or operate at a loss due to lack of infrastructure.

We didn't change our minds, and apparently, neither did you, so we are where we are. This deal involved more than 2 nations, Bangledesh and Myanmar knows about it and are keen on it.
 
.
Broadsword: News analysis: Ajit Doval becomes China negotiator with stars in alignment

A former army man's take on Border dispute and Doval's new role

AA%2Bborder.jpg


Since 2003, in 17 rounds of talks, India and China have relied on quiet diplomacy between a top official from either side to resolve their thorny territorial dispute. Termed “Special Representatives” or SRs, these negotiators --- who must enjoy the confidence of their national leaders --- are mandated to bypass the endless technical wrangling of diplomats, bureaucrats and soldiers.

On November 24, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval would "conduct boundary negotiations and strategic consultations with China".

Doval will be India’s fifth SR; after Brajesh Mishra (2003-04); JN Dixit (2004-05); MK Narayanan (2005-10); and Shivshankar Menon (2010-14). For a decade, China’s SR was the redoubtable Dai Bingguo, who has been lauded by Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinsky. Dai retired last year to be succeeded by Yang Jiechi.

Modi had first offered the job of SR to former foreign secretary and respected Sinologist, Shyam Saran, who declined. The rank of “principal secretary” that Saran was offered was two ranks below his Chinese interlocutor, Yang Jiechi, who holds the rank of State Councillor --- one rung above a minister.

Doval has accepted the challenge at his current rank of “principal secretary”. He will now negotiate with Yang Jiechi to decide ownership of some 1,30,000 square kilometres (sq km) of territory that both countries claim. This is spread across three areas --- (a) The uninhabited Western Sector in Ladakh, where the dispute involves 38,000 sq km; (b) The small Central Sector in Uttarakhand, which is just 2,000 sq km; and (c) The large and contentious Eastern Sector, which measures some 90,000 sq km, practically the whole of Arunachal Pradesh.

Sources close to the negotiations say that New Delhi has been prepared to accept Beijing’s claims in the Western Sector, provided China accepted India’s claims in the Eastern Sector with the relatively inconsequential Central Sector resolved through minor give-and-take. Beijing, however, demands “substantive concessions” in the Eastern Sector --- specifically ceding to China ownership of the strategic Tawang district. This is unacceptable to New Delhi.

Notwithstanding this deadlock, previous SRs negotiated an “Agreement on Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the China–India Boundary Question”, which was signed during Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to India in April 2005.

Doval will have to translate this into a “Framework Agreement” for a final settlement, after which a new border will be delineated and demarcated.

The “Political Parameters” of 2005 are viewed as a triumph in New Delhi because they include two points that favour India’s case. These are (a) Article VI: “The boundary should be along well-defined and easily identifiable natural geographical features to be mutually agreed upon between the two sides”; and (b) Article VII: “In reaching a boundary settlement, the two sides shall safeguard due interests of their settled populations in the border areas.”

Indian diplomats see China’s acceptance of the watershed principle as tacit acceptance of the McMahon Line, drawn along the watershed in 1914, which India claims is the border between Arunachal Pradesh and Tibet. The clause about protecting the settled populations is seen in New Delhi as Chinese acceptance that populous Tawang remains with India.

China downplays these assumptions. Beijing signed the “Political Parameters” under pressure, at a time when New Delhi’s international profile was growing. In 2005, a burgeoning growth rate had made India the darling of global investors. New Delhi was edging closer to Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s Japan. With the US-India strategic partnership flowering, and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh due to visit Washington, Beijing clearly folded under the pressure.

Says a senior diplomat of that era: “China apparently resolved to make Wen’s visit to India a grand success, hoping to take some of the shine off Dr Manmohan Singh’s forthcoming US visit. New Delhi successfully leveraged Beijing’s concerns and pushed through a favourable “Political Parameters” agreement that the Chinese premier signed in India on April 11, 2005.

Even so, New Delhi failed to maintain the momentum. The global economic crisis, India’s growth slump, and political paralysis in New Delhi gave Beijing little incentive to continue purposeful negotiations.

With India’s political wheel turning full circle this year, Doval will negotiate from an expanding diplomatic space. Prime Minister Modi’s powerful domestic mandate, revitalised ties with Japan and Vietnam, and a burgeoning US-India relationship --- evident from President Barack Obama’s forthcoming visit to New Delhi as Republic Day chief guest --- could induce Beijing to resume serious negotiations.

Over time, the SR dialogue has grown in scope. Besides the boundary question, it has become a standing forum for strategic discussions between New Delhi and Beijing. The two SRs discuss sensitive issues when they meet one-on-one; while the visit agenda occasionally includes a “retreat” outside the capital, where they have ample opportunity to exchange ideas, views and to float trial balloons.

The SR talks are complemented by two other simultaneous dialogue tracks. One is between India’s foreign secretary and China’s equivalent vice-minister for foreign affairs. The second track is a Technical Group, which includes the dealing foreign ministry officials from both sides. This resolves the nuts and bolts issues of border management, such as confidence building measures (CBMs).

The SR Dialogue was instituted during Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s visit to China in 2003. There had been little progress in 8 rounds of talks between officials from 1981-88; and in 14 meetings of a Joint Working Group (JWG) from 1988-2003. Both sides agreed that a political solution to the boundary question, negotiated between empowered, top-level officials, would allow the pursuit of broader strategic goals.

The first challenge for Doval would be to obtain a clear negotiating mandate. So far, there has been little clarity on India’s bottom lines. While both sides would accept a border settlement on their own terms; reconciling those might involve concessions. It remains for the prime minister to gauge what concessions he can sell to parliament and the people.
 
.
But China can potentially inflict far more damage than anybody in USA could -- simply for the fact that they share border with us! And have been doing exactly that!!

Already, they dammed our major river without so much as an acknowledgement of the fact that India is a lower riparian state! (Now, imagine India doing the same to Pakistan or Bangladesh without raising a sh*tstorm throughout the whole world!!)

That sounds terrible! :o:
 
.
Buddha was from Nepal. :lol:

And Nepal has never been a part of India, or even British India.

A very weak argument, considering Sub continent is a Dharmic land and the practices are originated here.

Bhuddha was born is Nepal or India is not clear, But his enlightenment happened in Bihar Bodgaya. His teachings were started here. Before Buddhism Indian sages used to do the same and also taught similar principles.

But Buddha made them popular.
 
.
我希望你不要被香港电影给骗了,佛教是来自古代印度,但是印度人很早就放弃它,中国武术起源于中国,三千年前就已经有武术存在,香港电影里‘飞檐走壁’的少林武术现实中是不存在的
中国追求的是世界多极化,不是美国那样的强权,所谓中国的‘亚洲秩序’不过是媒体在鼓吹
I hope you don't be fooled Hongkong film, Buddhism is from ancient India, but the Indians very early to give it up, Chinese Wushu originated in China, three thousand years ago had a martial arts exist, there is not a Hongkong movie'Feiyanzoubi' Shaolin martial arts reality

China is pursuing the world multi polarization, not the United States as the power,the so-called Chinese 'order in Asia' is the media in the advocate

Yes India is also doing the same, But it is too early to talk about India's multi polar world!!
 
.
There are tons of sources from the US and UK that Pakistani spies in the West were the main reason the bomb came to be in Pakistan. I won't say China never played a part, that's hard to prove, but it's not a major one.

No nation on earth would transfer nuclear technology of the kind you are suggesting.

Second, you deliver nukes to Philippines or Myanmar or Vietnam and the US will sanction you back to the stone age.

Which leads me back to the first point. The US didn't even flinch at Pakistan with the Bomb, when they made a big deal even when India got the bomb. We were not on the friendliest terms then, why would they not sanction us.



Again this is just the typical crap that some people like to use, rogue, crazy, extremist. Everyone else is the problem except you.

Pakistan's got problems, I'll give you that, but to suggest Pakistani government and military are filled with nut jobs is frankly weird.

But then again, one of the top stories this year in India is how China is rogue because we are not a democracy, so I'm not surprised.



We did condemn the attacks.

What Pakistan does is up to them, and let's not pretend that India is innocent in this, despite what China is doing in the China seas, why do we not get fired on.

Maybe it's time to look in the mirror. Or an American documentary.



The border dispute is ancient history, China Japan trade is going strong, China ASEAN trade is also going strong.

It's only you that's got the problem.

We can do business just fine, when there are issues on the table, China US trade is also booming, so again, you problem, not ours.




Some of our members may have some problems, yes, their comments maybe cruel and unnecessary, but they are not far from facts. Mostly because poverty and the side effects of it are very easily confirmed.

While Indian members use attacks that are baseless, like we are oppressed, no rights or something like that. Anybody who's been in China would never say that, and while on the subject, China is far closer to the Western world on the Homosexual issue, domestic violence, as well as other social issues than India. Another side effect of not being as poor as we once were.

So you can say some say things in poor taste, but at least it's not as subjective.




There is no bad blood there, most Chinese in China, don't care about India much. You think we are anti India, get over yourself, China is all hands on deck to take on the reigning super power, not India.

From all this interaction with Indian members here and all I can say is no wonder you are still so poor. Business is business, if you can't see that, then, what can I tell you.

Why would China block a UNSC resolution to ban the LET?
 
.
Broadsword: News analysis: Ajit Doval becomes China negotiator with stars in alignment

A former army man's take on Border dispute and Doval's new role

AA%2Bborder.jpg


Since 2003, in 17 rounds of talks, India and China have relied on quiet diplomacy between a top official from either side to resolve their thorny territorial dispute. Termed “Special Representatives” or SRs, these negotiators --- who must enjoy the confidence of their national leaders --- are mandated to bypass the endless technical wrangling of diplomats, bureaucrats and soldiers.

On November 24, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval would "conduct boundary negotiations and strategic consultations with China".

Doval will be India’s fifth SR; after Brajesh Mishra (2003-04); JN Dixit (2004-05); MK Narayanan (2005-10); and Shivshankar Menon (2010-14). For a decade, China’s SR was the redoubtable Dai Bingguo, who has been lauded by Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinsky. Dai retired last year to be succeeded by Yang Jiechi.

Modi had first offered the job of SR to former foreign secretary and respected Sinologist, Shyam Saran, who declined. The rank of “principal secretary” that Saran was offered was two ranks below his Chinese interlocutor, Yang Jiechi, who holds the rank of State Councillor --- one rung above a minister.

Doval has accepted the challenge at his current rank of “principal secretary”. He will now negotiate with Yang Jiechi to decide ownership of some 1,30,000 square kilometres (sq km) of territory that both countries claim. This is spread across three areas --- (a) The uninhabited Western Sector in Ladakh, where the dispute involves 38,000 sq km; (b) The small Central Sector in Uttarakhand, which is just 2,000 sq km; and (c) The large and contentious Eastern Sector, which measures some 90,000 sq km, practically the whole of Arunachal Pradesh.

Sources close to the negotiations say that New Delhi has been prepared to accept Beijing’s claims in the Western Sector, provided China accepted India’s claims in the Eastern Sector with the relatively inconsequential Central Sector resolved through minor give-and-take. Beijing, however, demands “substantive concessions” in the Eastern Sector --- specifically ceding to China ownership of the strategic Tawang district. This is unacceptable to New Delhi.

Notwithstanding this deadlock, previous SRs negotiated an “Agreement on Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the China–India Boundary Question”, which was signed during Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to India in April 2005.

Doval will have to translate this into a “Framework Agreement” for a final settlement, after which a new border will be delineated and demarcated.

The “Political Parameters” of 2005 are viewed as a triumph in New Delhi because they include two points that favour India’s case. These are (a) Article VI: “The boundary should be along well-defined and easily identifiable natural geographical features to be mutually agreed upon between the two sides”; and (b) Article VII: “In reaching a boundary settlement, the two sides shall safeguard due interests of their settled populations in the border areas.”

Indian diplomats see China’s acceptance of the watershed principle as tacit acceptance of the McMahon Line, drawn along the watershed in 1914, which India claims is the border between Arunachal Pradesh and Tibet. The clause about protecting the settled populations is seen in New Delhi as Chinese acceptance that populous Tawang remains with India.

China downplays these assumptions. Beijing signed the “Political Parameters” under pressure, at a time when New Delhi’s international profile was growing. In 2005, a burgeoning growth rate had made India the darling of global investors. New Delhi was edging closer to Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s Japan. With the US-India strategic partnership flowering, and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh due to visit Washington, Beijing clearly folded under the pressure.

Says a senior diplomat of that era: “China apparently resolved to make Wen’s visit to India a grand success, hoping to take some of the shine off Dr Manmohan Singh’s forthcoming US visit. New Delhi successfully leveraged Beijing’s concerns and pushed through a favourable “Political Parameters” agreement that the Chinese premier signed in India on April 11, 2005.

Even so, New Delhi failed to maintain the momentum. The global economic crisis, India’s growth slump, and political paralysis in New Delhi gave Beijing little incentive to continue purposeful negotiations.

With India’s political wheel turning full circle this year, Doval will negotiate from an expanding diplomatic space. Prime Minister Modi’s powerful domestic mandate, revitalised ties with Japan and Vietnam, and a burgeoning US-India relationship --- evident from President Barack Obama’s forthcoming visit to New Delhi as Republic Day chief guest --- could induce Beijing to resume serious negotiations.

Over time, the SR dialogue has grown in scope. Besides the boundary question, it has become a standing forum for strategic discussions between New Delhi and Beijing. The two SRs discuss sensitive issues when they meet one-on-one; while the visit agenda occasionally includes a “retreat” outside the capital, where they have ample opportunity to exchange ideas, views and to float trial balloons.

The SR talks are complemented by two other simultaneous dialogue tracks. One is between India’s foreign secretary and China’s equivalent vice-minister for foreign affairs. The second track is a Technical Group, which includes the dealing foreign ministry officials from both sides. This resolves the nuts and bolts issues of border management, such as confidence building measures (CBMs).

The SR Dialogue was instituted during Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s visit to China in 2003. There had been little progress in 8 rounds of talks between officials from 1981-88; and in 14 meetings of a Joint Working Group (JWG) from 1988-2003. Both sides agreed that a political solution to the boundary question, negotiated between empowered, top-level officials, would allow the pursuit of broader strategic goals.

The first challenge for Doval would be to obtain a clear negotiating mandate. So far, there has been little clarity on India’s bottom lines. While both sides would accept a border settlement on their own terms; reconciling those might involve concessions. It remains for the prime minister to gauge what concessions he can sell to parliament and the people.

Why is China interested in Arunachal Pradesh? There's nothing there.
 
.
Why is China interested in Arunachal Pradesh? There's nothing there.

Arunachal Pradesh is a part of Tibet(China calls it South Tibet).
That means that the next Dalai Lama could very well come from that place.
A Dalai Lama who holds Indian passport will create lot of new headaches for China.

And that area is rich in natural resources and hydro power potential.AP cab supply our enitire North-East and even Bangladesh in the future with hydro-electricity.
 
Last edited:
.
Arunachal Pradesh is a part of Tibet(China calls it South Tibet).
That means that the next Dalai Lama could very well come from that place.
A Dalai Lama who holds Indian passport will create lot of new headaches for China.
You guys practically have the dalai lama,what will one more,albeit with Indian citizenship do?
Add to that tibetan upper classes would never accept a dalai lama from people of a region it considered inferior,even buddhist tribes of south tibet?
 
.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom