What was the point of your post?
As far as I know, the proposal was not available when Rajive Gandhi went to Beijing.
Are we talking about a nation-state or a middle-aged woman about to enter into a period of hormonal disturbances? The embarrassment? The cost? Patriotic? What are you talking about? There were no talks for the intervening 30 years, so what embarrassment was involved? If you are correct (you are not, but let us be hypothetical), if the proposal was kept open for 30 years, what was the desperate urgency to withdraw it?
That is the silliest thing I have read for a long time. Everyone at Bandung had suffered at the hands of the western powers, not just China and India. So there was nothing special about these two countries attending. China was doing nobody a favour by attending; the conference was about non-alignment, and the principals were Nasser, Sukarno, Tito and Nehru. Nehru and the Indians took great care that the Chinese should be accepted by all others; it was not that China was a world leader and had the vast sums of money to fling around that she has today. China had just finished fighting a vicious and bloody war against the forces of the United Nations, and had not got her seat on the Security Council. If you read accounts of the Conference, not propaganda brought out by the CPC, you will find out who did what for whom; the simple question to you is that India did a lot for China, at the Conference and on other occasions during that period. What did China do in return? Other than swell up in jealous rage and decide to teach Nehru a humiliating lesson to satisfy the Chinese leadership's wounded egos?
What did you have in mind instead? That India should go to each neighbour and ask to talk about old times once again? Please read the excellent note by saiyan0321 on the question of boundaries and borders in international law. Furthermore, you may not be aware, but in 1842, there was already a formal agreement between the Tibetan authorities (the Chinese Amban accompanying them had been killed in battle immediately before, that defeat being a major reason for both sides deciding to sit and decide boundaries), and the Treaty of Chushul had been signed between the state of Kashmir and the state of Tibet. Are you suggesting that the British as suzerains of the state of Kashmir and the Chinese of the Qing dynasty should have rejected the treaty and sat down separately and decided once again?
Are you aware that China had no interest in Aksai Chin until the first Chinese military commander in Tibet in 1950 decided to strengthen an old caravan route to Kashgar from western Tibet, and that ever since, China has been frantically digging around for some evidence to show that they owned the land on which that commonly-used caravan route lay? There is no proof to this date, and not one map has turned up from the Chinese side. Naturally; there is not a shred of evidence that justifies the claim.
The point is that India did not overthrow the British; there was remarkably little violence, because the Indian leadership deliberately and consciously chose that route. I know that you will find it difficult to understand this, but the Indian freedom movement leadership negotiated the withdrawal of the British colonists and imperialists, and did so through formal legislation at London, that handed over the entire colony of India to the two Dominions of India and Pakistan.
In these circumstances, what is the point of your question?
LOL.
Are you even aware that to date - up until the 5th of September, 2020, the PRC has refused to produce a single map through the dozens of negotiating meetings that have been held, showing their idea of where the border should run in Ladakh?
Please do your homework first.
Ah, THAT is why, knowing what you would decide 55 years later, you were unable to share with India the nature of your claims on a border that only the Treaty of Chushul dealt with?
I can see that you are well aware of the Chinese family background and Han ethnic roots of Karl Marx, on whose thought the Communist Party of China was founded. That, of course, and your adoption of Russian weapons and acceptance of Russian advisors - not taking into account the relations between the Kuomintang and Germany, first, Britain and the USA next - clearly shows your independence of western or external influences. Down to the MiG 19s and MiG 17s that were used in the Korean War.
Oh, by the way, English is not the Indian official language; it is used alongside Hindi, because we have over 400 languages in use, and it is difficult for us low-IQ Indians to learn all 400 of them; especially dull ones like me, people who know only three to read, write and speak, and another three to speak and read.
Really a silly argument. It merely shows that neither then nor today is there the slightest sincerity in seeking a peaceful solution.
And the zillions of Chinese students, many of whom stay back to take up jobs in critical and security-sensitive technology jobs are unassimilated? What language do they use to speak to their American teachers and colleagues at work? Mandarin? Do they take chopsticks to work to eat at the cafeteria?
There is no need for me or anyone else to remind you that there are huge western music classes and that Chinese classical music is hardly accepted elsewhere in the world. Chinese Opera is; if you have lived in the west, and seen the influence that Indian classical music has there, both north Indian and south Indian, then you might not have made quite such ridicule-worthy assertions.
Many western people are Buddhist and Hindu; does that sound as if India has lost her independence?
As for your defence industry, what would it have been without the famous American technology tool, the photocopy machine?
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/seriesm/seriesm_4rev4e.pdf
Let it close.
If the people and the leadership of China think that their present position of being near the top of the world in all respects is worth burning up in nuclear fire, then such stupid people and leadership deserve to burn. It is a pity that we will also suffer because of this stupidity. There seems to be little alternative.
