oh CD,
for bangladesh and nepal,there govts are totaly under control of india.and india wont let them.
and we have not bad relations with lanka.
and rest of two,we are living in the same condition from 50 yrs.
so wat u got now?
i think u predict from the nature of most of members here,i want to remind u that these ppl dont run govt and india dont run by us.
so i hope next time CD player will work well
New Recruit
and i would also like to add ... that its pakistan whos under wrath of pakistani mujahidin aka TERRORISTS ...
Just stop advising us CD
, dont play games with us, Keep your ally happy. Works well for us.
India itself chose to make enemies out of its two biggest neighbours, China and Pakistan.
May I refer you to that excellent handbook on political science and international relations, Aesop's Fables? Especially the story about the Wolf and the Sheep.
Ask why China supports Pakistan's military? Because India backstabbed us in 1959. Cause and effect.
Presumably you are referring to the incidents in Tibet, and to the conversion of China's suzerainty over Tibet, as defined in international law and in international treaties, to outright sovereignty. Since these were exclusively actions initiated by the People's Republic of China, it is difficult to see what role India played, other than to be reluctant host to the thousands who took refuge across the borders.
Further, you have omitted to connect your imposition of direct rule over Tibet with your support for the Pakistani military. The connection has been left unclear, and enquiring minds want to know your reasons. Also, if possible, without inconveniencing you too much, the original reasons of the Politburo of the CPC.
Also, China does not "back" any terrorist organizations, unlike India which supported LTTE.
<gasp>
You spotted this? Now we are done for!
Of course, if the LTTE had won, and if they had acknowledged the shipments of arms and ammunitions that they had received from sponsors of freedom movements around the world, it would have been a different story today, perhaps to be equated to your support of other freedom movements which became legitimised.
One in south-east Asia comes to mind, but you may not be fond of quoting that example in view of the subsequent unfortunate incidents of 1989. But that was different, of course; you were offering legitimate and valid support of people ethnically close to you, from the depredations of an imperialist power that sought to exercise hegemonic rule over them.
Quite, quite different, we understand fully well, from the support given by the Tamils of India to the Tamils of Sri Lanka, against the hegemonic designs of the majority who had in fact abolished the use of Tamil in any official context (just to quote one minor example of the kind of oppression that was exercised).
By the way, you must meet one Saifullah K, who states categorically that you support the Lashkar (he doesn't know much about it, and particularly doesn't know which Lashkar he wants to indicate. Since he may be one of those hyper-patriots who lives out of Pakistan and is willing to fight to the last Pakistani, he doesn't really know the facts, only that if he doesn't write posts like the one he wrote recently, his willie will fall off.
I have read it.
My point is that it was India, who chose to go down the path of hostility with China.
Of course you are right; it goes without saying.
Let us ignore the fact that the Himalayan boundary has only been penetrated by aggressive war-making in one direction, Tibet to India, in the whole of recorded history from 326 BC to date, before the subsequent events of 62;
Let us ignore the fact that while the cultural boundaries of India have stayed in place for nearly 3,000 years, with the political boundaries moving out beyond only on less than half-a-dozen occasions for small lengths of time, the cultural and political boundaries of China have grown during the same period to include Gansu, Qing Hai, Xizang and Xinjiang, all of them, not to mention Mongolia, too, on occasion.
This, of course, means nothing; it is still India which is the aggressor.
Let us ignore the fact that contrary to all logic, while the PRC has over 400,000 soldiers and huge concentrations of military aircraft in those military regions facing India, India, aggressive, militaristic and spoiling for a fight, has some 150,000 troops facing the PRC, along with some handful of squadrons of little or no consequence.
Let us ignore the fact that in its zeal to improve the lot of the Tibetan people, the PRC built roads over the populated areas in Tibet but did so at such a high speed that those roads continued right past the people and into barren frontier lands right next to the border, or the line of actual control of the moment. Almost as if to build roads for PLA divisions, some of them armoured divisions located in territory that is broken and known not to be friendly for tank operations.
We can ignore several other things besides, we can ignore anything in fact that interferes with the clarity and lucidity of the statement that it was all India's fault for stabbing China in the back in 1959. China, unlike India, has always retained clarity and lucidity in its position; logic or external fact is never allowed to interfere.
Your complaints are all recent, they all happened AFTER India backstabbed China in 1959. Cause and effect.
Err....yes, indeed. Clear and lucid. China moves in troops into Tibet. China drives out the traditional pillars of society. These elements and poorer elements of Tibetan society take refuge over the nearest international border. The power on the other side of the border treacherously refuses to bar the border and thrust them back into the hands of the PLA at bayonet point.
Base treachery indeed.
Nothing is too much to punish such treachery.
Just be thankful that China is not hosting Indian separatist groups, in retaliation for India's having hosted ours for over half a century.
More clarity and lucidity.
To my personal knowledge, from a vantage point on the fringes of the leftist movement in my part of the country, I am aware of the active support given by the PRC to the CPI(ML). The support offered flickered a bit thereafter, on the First Suppression and on the Second Suppression, and was dormant during the manifold split in the 80s, and has now been renewed through other client organisations, such as the ULFA and the NSCN(M-S).
The NSCN(M-S) has been receiving Chinese arms and ammunition for over half a century; the ULFA only recently, after their patrons the ISI slackened their efforts a little.
I am sorry to contradict your clear and lucid statement that NO support was given to Indian separatists, but this is the distressing muddy and unclear reality.
