India tells China: Kashmir is to us what Tibet, Taiwan are to you

[Tumba]

If you enjoy talking to him... you are just as guilty as him. Do you want to be the Indian version of Hong Wu?

thr are somethings ppl should learn in the HARDWAY ...

and i was only giving him taste of his own medicine... it was due for some time...

 

[Developereo]

Nepal was part of the Indian civilization. Indian civilization spread further than the current border of India. The current border of India is mainly created by the British colonial government.

He does have a valid point. Buddha lived in Nepal under the Kosala Kingdom.

Saying that Buddha lived in India is like saying Jesus lived in Rome.

 

[faithfulguy]

Indian civilization changed a lot. It is not continuous and unitary like Chinese. Indian civilization gave birth to Buddhism but then it also destroyed it!

Buddhism survives on in SE Asia and East Asia, no thanks to India.

I believe that South Asian civilization can claim the legacy of creating Buddhism. Like how Christianity was created in the Holy Lands and confucianism was created by Chinese civilization.

But I agree that Indian civilization is a misnomer as India is a country that happened to contains the biggest portion of the South Asian land mass colonized by Europeans, especially the British. Pakistan, Bangledesh, Sri Lanka, and Napal also can lay claim to the "Indian" civilization.

 

[Dharmocol]

I believe that South Asian civilization can claim the legacy of creating Buddhism. Like how Christianity was created in the Holy Lands and confucianism was created by Chinese civilization.

But I agree that Indian civilization is a misnomer as India is a country that happened to contains the biggest portion of the South Asian land mass colonized by Europeans, especially the British. Pakistan, Bangledesh, Sri Lanka, and Napal also can lay claim to the "Indian" civilization.

Yes correctly put it,Indian civilization is much bigger than the nation India itself,it had become a legacy in history.

 

[faithfulguy]

He does have a valid point. Buddha lived in Nepal under the Kosala Kingdom.

Saying that Buddha lived in India is like saying Jesus lived in Rome.

Both India, Napal, and Pakistan are successor states of the South Asian civilization that all South Asian countries can lay claim to. As I mentioned previously, the current nation boundaries were created by the British empire. As matter in fact, I think the difference between Napal and the Ganges valley is the difference between that of macedonia and Peloponnesian peninsula

 

[newdelhinsa]

Joe Shearer
Originally Posted by newdelhiinsa

This is getting tiresome and over PC.

India has recognised China's suzerainty over Tibet not sovereignty.

This statement is completely incorrect. Government of India has accepted that Tibet is an integral part of China. It was the British Indian government that restricted recognition of Chinese authority over Tibet to recognition of China's suzerainty, not Government of India. It is disheartening to find a fresh cause for confusion being introduced, the dispute being complex enough as it is.

The dispute over Tibet is not a dispute between India and China because India is not disputing it.

I am not going to ask mods to change the title of this thread. Not because Kashmir word used by Indian diplomat is technically equivalent to Tibet and Taiwan but an intention to play a half-baked chip with significant tactical importance at this stage.

What needs to be said is already said by Indian diplomat. People here should have the only privilege to discuss, whether India is capable to dispute Tibet alone or with the help of someone else with China and test her teaching skills.

The passage marked in red (above) is completely incomprehensible. If it is intended to convey a further protraction of the dispute, this time on a belligerent basis by India, it is difficult to consider a worse scenario from the Indian point of view.

The half baked chip (Technically incorrect) has played well.

The proof of pie is in eating, rest is futile, the earth is round, so this discussion.

One can go in many length and use this thread as an excuse to learn heaps but to me China's recent effort to not issue stapled visa to Kashmiris (if true) is a sign and part and parcel of the same diplomatic effort India has done so far.

Whatever the status of Tibet and Tibetans in India may be, the textbook Chinese concern (bluff) is win win situation for India. If India is going to be sensitive about Chinese concern then at the end of the thousands of Tibetans belong to China and is Chinese responsibility to accept them back, provide conducive atmosphere and rehabilitate (under comprehensive UN watch) or face repercussions (international community). China is not Afghanistan and is a thriving economy, why shouldn't they be ready to rehabilitate its citizens.

I dare to ask Chinese poster out to accept this responsibility before ranting Govt. in exile blah blah blah.

 

[Developereo]

Both India, Napal, and Pakistan are successor states of the South Asian civilization that all South Asian countries can lay claim to. As I mentioned previously, the current nation boundaries were created by the British empire. As matter in fact, I think the difference between Napal and the Ganges valley is the difference between that of macedonia and Peloponnesian peninsula

Correct.

When we say 'Indian civilization' we are using the adjective in the ancient, sloppy usage. Joe is the historian here but I always understood that, in antiquity, the word India was used as a sloppy shorthand for 'the lands of the Indus and beyond'. Kind of like the word 'the Orient'.

The periods when these lands comprised a single political entity were few and far between.

 

[faithfulguy]

The half baked chip (Technically incorrect) has played well.

The proof of pie is in eating, rest is futile, the earth is round, so this discussion.

One can go in many length and use this thread as an excuse to learn heaps but to me China's recent effort to not issue stapled visa to Kashmiris (if true) is a sign and part and parcel of the same diplomatic effort India has done so far.

Whatever the status of Tibet and Tibetans in India may be, the textbook Chinese concern (bluff) is win win situation for India. If India is going to be sensitive about Chinese concern then at the end of the thousands of Tibetans belong to China and is Chinese responsibility to accept them back, provide conducive atmosphere and rehabilitate (under comprehensive UN watch) or face repercussions (international community). China is not Afghanistan and is a thriving economy, why shouldn't they be ready to rehabilitate its citizens.

I dare to ask Chinese poster out to accept this responsibility before ranting Govt. in exile blah blah blah.

I am certain China would sort the people that is rehabitate and put the certain portion of it in the labor camp. So India will be the country condemn by the west if India repatriate them.

 

[faithfulguy]

Correct.

When we say 'Indian civilization' we are using the adjective in the ancient, sloppy usage. Joe is the historian here but I always understood that, in antiquity, the word India was used as a sloppy shorthand for 'the lands of the Indus and beyond'. Kind of like the word 'the Orient'.

I totally agree with you. Its a term created by Europeans to describe a land conquered by Alexander the Great. Subsequent European nations use India in this sense. So India is a totally European created term and country. As India is the Hindu part of the partition and Pakistan (East and West) the Muslim part of the partition. Both India and Pakistan are equal in term of history. So its not correct to say that Pakistan break away from India as the nation of India came into being the same time as Pakistan.

 

[Developereo]

I totally agree with you. Its a term created by Europeans to describe a land conquered by Alexander the Great. Subsequent European nations use India in this sense. So India is a totally European created term and country. As India is the Hindu part of the partition and Pakistan (East and West) the Muslim part of the partition. Both India and Pakistan are equal in term of history. So its not correct to say that Pakistan break away from India as the nation of India came into being the same time as Pakistan.

Just to bring it back to topic, and before the Indians step in, let me just acknowledge pre-emptively that modern Hinduism is probably the largest torch holder of that ancient civilization. Therefore, Indians can legitimately claim that 'their' civilization goes back thousands of years.

 

[indushek]

I totally agree with you. Its a term created by Europeans to describe a land conquered by Alexander the Great. Subsequent European nations use India in this sense. So India is a totally European created term and country. As India is the Hindu part of the partition and Pakistan (East and West) the Muslim part of the partition. Both India and Pakistan are equal in term of history. So its not correct to say that Pakistan break away from India as the nation of India came into being the same time as Pakistan.

This history thing has been discussed so many times here. But i couldn't resist from commenting on the bolded part up there, India has large number of Muslims and Christians other than Hindus when it broke away, this is not a breakage of Hindu part and Muslim part as u put it.

I will ask u to go back and read the history books so that u can either refresh or learn about it more.

 

[Developereo]

This history thing has been discussed so many times here. But i couldn't resist from commenting on the bolded part up there, India has large number of Muslims and Christians other than Hindus when it broke away, this is not a breakage of Hindu part and Muslim part as u put it.

I will ask u to go back and read the history books so that u can either refresh or learn about it more.

India is the collection of majority Hindu provinces, and Pakistan/Bangladesh is the collection of majority Muslim provinces.

Happy chappy?

 

[ps80]

In a nutshell, without going into a detailed narrative of the number of times met, the places and the personnel concerned, it might be said that the history of India-China talks on the border dispute after 1962 is a story of missed opportunities.

Throughout the 70s through the 90s, the PRC side was more or less agreeable to a compromise solution where the Aksai Chin wilderness would be ceded to China permanently by India; on the other hand, Arunachal Pradesh would be permanently recognised by China as integral part of India.

India failed to take advantage of this very convenient solution. As has already been discussed, because of its arid and unpopulated nature, there is no Indian interest in Aksai Chin, while China finds it a convenient plain through which to run its strategic highway between Lanzhou and Xigatse. It is of vital strategic interest to China, of no strategic or cultural interest to India.

India also failed to take advantage of the flexibility of the Chinese position on Arunachal Pradesh, which is a legitimate area of Indian sovereignty, for a variety of reasons, vitiated only by lack of precision in defining boundaries and in identifying viable landmarks or topological divisions.

Arunachal Pradesh is inhabited by the following tribes, from west, the borders of Bhutan, to the east - the Monpa, the Aka or Hrusso, in two clans, the Kutsun and Kovatsun, the Dafla or Bangni or Ni, in two classes, the Gute and the Guchi, the Apa Tani, and the Abor or Adi, divided into Padam, Minyong, Pangi, Shimong and others. Further east than this is the large confederation of the Mishmi. In all cases, the names of the tribes have been used as commonly accepted by them; the alternative names that they call themselves have been indicated next to those.

None of these tribes are ethnically Tibetan, or even close, with the possible exception of the Monpas. In the case of the Monpas, it is the consensus of scholars, mainly the British, that they are closely allied to the eastern Bhutanese and any influence of Tibetan culture is due to the dominance of the Tawang monastery and its former feudal grip over this tribe.

In all other cases, there is greater affinity with tribes living south of the Brahmaputra than with the Tibetans. There are no cultural similarities, and the spread of Buddhism is not uniform here, as it was north of the Himalayas, or even to the west, in Bhutan. Even the residual matter of their folk-memories of migration has been handled academically by the great Christoph von Fuehrer-Haimendorff: ...these memories can only relate to the last stages of a population movement which may well have changed its course more than once."

Further proof of their distinction from Tibetans comes from Bailey, discoverer of the Bailey Trail which the PLA used with such devastating effect to achieve complete tactical surprise in 1962, who said, writing about the term lopa used by the Tibetans for these southern tribesmen,"The term Lopa meant to the Tibetans what barbarian meant to the Greeks..."

Quite clearly, we should have come to terms with the PRC while they were favourably inclined to deal with the matter on conditions that were perfectly acceptable and coincided with the primary interests of the two sides. Unfortunately, the dilatory nature of bureaucratic decision-making on the Indian side, and the huge difficulties constituted by political fear, by both major national parties, the Congress and the BJP, of acceptance of cession of land by India to China, (leaving aside the constitutional difficulty of this step, which probably requires an amendment to the constitution) stood in the way of a solution.

Today, these favourable conditions for a peace no longer exist. China has now some medium-term reasons to delay a settlement, as it causes tension and anxiety within Indian decision-making circles. There is clearly a distinction between the authority with which Mao and Deng chaired the Military Commission, and that which their successors brought to the same position. There was a marked difference between the veterancs of the Long March and their followers. As a result, today the PLA as well as the PLA AF and the PLAN have a far more aggressive attitude towards neighbouring countries than does the Foreign Ministry.

It is my personal evaluation that we may have to wait for the successor of Hu Jin Tao, the successor being a man with some authority among the military circles himself, greater than the influence of HU, or even for an efflux of time until China is markedly ahead of India in all metrics, for a lasting peace to be settled, and for boundaries to be settled.

I hope you found this note useful.

Very useful and informative, indeed. Thanks.

I am disappointed, not at your views on the issue, but the missed opportunities that we could have used to resolve this dispute.

If I understand your views correctly, and please correct me if I get it wrong, the current dispute is mainly over the two areas - AP and Aksai Chin. I think Aksai Chin is already under Chinese control, so it's AP that is the main subject of ongoing discussions between the two sides. Do you think that there is still any dispute over Sikkim?

 

[CardSharp]

Very useful and informative, indeed. Thanks.

I am disappointed, not at your views on the issue, but the missed opportunities that we could have used to resolve this dispute.

If I understand your views correctly, and please correct me if I get it wrong, the current dispute is mainly over the two areas - AP and Aksai Chin. I think Aksai Chin is already under Chinese control, so it's AP that is the main subject of ongoing discussions between the two sides. Do you think that there is still any dispute over Sikkim?

No Sikkim has been recognized by the PRC.

 

[ps80]

No Sikkim has been recognized by the PRC.

OK..then a potential solution, in my view, is to accept the status quo. Is it not acceptable to both sides?