NSA Ajit DovaL on How INDIA Should TackLe the ThreaT of CHiNA !!

[nang2]

I see. Maybe it is his job to be paranoid.

Speaking of threat from China, it is often pulling everyone back to 1962. This thread pointed me to some online resources and provided some good reading materials. One paragraph caught my attention and it appears to be a good summary on what leads to Forward Policy.

"While there were obvious breaks with the British Indian legacy at the
diplomatic and rhetorical level, the geopolitical dimension of early India–
China relations revealed significant continuity with the colonial past. There
was no geopolitical tabula rasa, despite the euphoria of independence.
The territorial parameters within which the new relationship was shaped
were inherited from the Raj. In practical terms, India came to defend
nineteenth century colonial frontiers in the Himalayas, while China re-
conquered its erstwhile imperial possession after a century of humiliation.
Independent India inherited the geopolitical legacy of the Great Game,
but refused to continue playing it by the rules of Curzonian realpolitik.
To Nehru, Sino-Indian friendship was still too important to be derailed
by ‘petty issues’ like the desolate Himalayan borders. It is within this
inherently unstable combination of pan-Asian optimism and post-Great
Game geopolitics that the contextual origins and the root causes of the
1961 Forward Policy decision can be found."

http://www.idsa.in/system/files/jds_6_4_JohanSkogJesen.pdf

This article also mentioned that the military takeover of Tibet (though mostly considered as peaceful by China) and the revolt in later years had some impact on Nehru's view of Sino-Indian relationship. Actually, the revolt started not in Tibet but in neighboring provinces that had certain Tibetan population and religious presence. It is more of a clash between land reform/redistribution driven by the Communist government and longtime feudalistic Tibet landowners. It is not so much a religious oppression though Communists have innate distrust in religions. It just so happened that the Tibet Buddhist temples happened to be the biggest land owners as well. Not sure why someone renounces the mundane world would want to own so much land. But that is a completely different subject.

"Only the paranoid survive"- said Mr. Finch of Person of Interest.

The survival instinct we inherit from our cave-dwelling ancestors often times creates trouble for us in the modern world. The world just progresses too fast for human evolution to keep up.

 

[H.B.]

This article also mentioned that the military takeover of Tibet (though mostly considered as peaceful by China) and the revolt in later years had some impact on Nehru's view of Sino-Indian relationship. Actually, the revolt started not in Tibet but in neighboring provinces that had certain Tibetan population and religious presence. It is more of a clash between land reform/redistribution driven by the Communist government and longtime feudalistic Tibet landowners. It is not so much a religious oppression though Communists have innate distrust in religions. It just so happened that the Tibet Buddhist temples happened to be the biggest land owners as well. Not sure why someone renounces the mundane world would want to own so much land. But that is a completely different subject.


The survival instinct we inherit from our cave-dwelling ancestors often times creates trouble for us in the modern world. The world just progresses too fast for human evolution to keep up.

Maybe. On the broader question of Sino-India relations, Tibet is a buffer region both for the Chinese heartland plains and for the Northern Indian plains. So, a China takeover of Tibet will always be a red flag for India. Plus, China propping up Pakistan consistently and deliberately is a direct attempt to undermine India. These are the two major sticking points and will remain so for some time. Unless addressed satisfactorily for both sides, India will remain wary if not paranoid of Chinese ambitions.

 

[nang2]

Maybe. On the broader question of Sino-India relations, Tibet is a buffer region both for the Chinese heartland plains and for the Northern Indian plains. So, a China takeover of Tibet will always be a red flag for India. Plus, China propping up Pakistan consistently and deliberately is a direct attempt to undermine India. These are the two major sticking points and will remain so for some time. Unless addressed satisfactorily for both sides, India will remain wary if not paranoid of Chinese ambitions.

Now, the buffer is served by Nepal. China's take over of Tibet itself shouldn't be a red flag since Tibet was ruled by previous Chinese government, though Tibet may be largely left alone during that period. It may be the larger military presence with the current Chinese government that could look like a red flag. There is no denial that in the early years of current Chinese government, there were some over-the-head ambition that eventually backfired. Nowadays, China is far more restrained with the use of force.

Maybe. On the broader question of Sino-India relations, Tibet is a buffer region both for the Chinese heartland plains and for the Northern Indian plains. So, a China takeover of Tibet will always be a red flag for India. Plus, China propping up Pakistan consistently and deliberately is a direct attempt to undermine India. These are the two major sticking points and will remain so for some time. Unless addressed satisfactorily for both sides, India will remain wary if not paranoid of Chinese ambitions.

As of Sino-Pakistan relationship, I don't think China ever aided Pakistan explicitly for invasion to India. China did provide in-time support when Indian army was driving deep in Pakistan. I don't think it is an issue. Nehru called for help from Soviet and US while China was driving into India. It is natural response for friendly country to help preserve the sovereignty of another country. Propping up a country and encouraging her to invade another country is a completely different matter. If China ever did that, it would severely tarnish her credibility and reputation.

 

[H.B.]

Now, the buffer is served by Nepal. China's take over of Tibet itself shouldn't be a red flag since Tibet was ruled by previous Chinese government, though Tibet may be largely left alone during that period. It may be the larger military presence with the current Chinese government that could look like a red flag. There is no denial that in the early years of current Chinese government, there were some over-the-head ambition that eventually backfired. Nowadays, China is far more restrained with the use of force.


As of Sino-Pakistan relationship, I don't think China ever aided Pakistan explicitly for invasion to India. China did provide in-time support when Indian army was driving deep in Pakistan. I don't think it is an issue. Nehru called for help from Soviet and US while China was driving into India. It is natural response for friendly country to help preserve the sovereignty of another country. Propping up a country and encouraging her to invade another country is a completely different matter. If China ever did that, it would severely tarnish her credibility and reputation.

1. Nepal is not a buffer simply because of its geography. Geographically speaking, only the Himalaya-Tibet highlands can offer a viable buffer due to its low population density, rugged terrain and store of water for the plains of India and China. As of now, there is no viable buffer state between India and China.
2. Larger military presence is a big concern and will remain so.
3. Far more restrained seems empty rhetoric observing SCS moves of China and presence of Chinese military officers in Gilgt region.
4. Indeed, China has not done that.
5. It is a issue when the state being supported is an ideological and civilizational rival, and not merely a political and military rival. This help undercuts the very notion of Indian nationhood. What seems a trifle from China's point of view is highly sensitive from India's side.

 

[nang2]

1. Nepal is not a buffer simply because of its geography. Geographically speaking, only the Himalaya-Tibet highlands can offer a viable buffer due to its low population density, rugged terrain and store of water for the plains of India and China. As of now, there is no viable buffer state between India and China.
2. Larger military presence is a big concern and will remain so.
3. Far more restrained seems empty rhetoric observing SCS moves of China and presence of Chinese military officers in Gilgt region.
4. Indeed, China has not done that.
5. It is a issue when the state being supported is an ideological and civilizational rival, and not merely a political and military rival. This help undercuts the very notion of Indian nationhood. What seems a trifle from China's point of view is highly sensitive from India's side.

Chinese move in SCS should be put in bigger context, instead of being simply influenced by western media. Apparently, when Vietnam and Philippine occupied far more spots there and did land reclamation, there wasn't much report from western media. When China did, all of sudden there was a big cry. China is now portraited as aggressor while the biggest territory holder remains Vietnam. I am talking about the region that was frequently on the news lately. So, the mentality of Chinese both in China and abroad towards this issue is pretty much indifference towards the criticism.

You mentioned "Indian nationhood". I don't quite understand. Is the conflict between India and Pakistan about the land dispute or one wanting to completely annihilate the other?

 

[H.B.]

Chinese move in SCS should be put in bigger context, instead of being simply influenced by western media. Apparently, when Vietnam and Philippine occupied far more spots there and did land reclamation, there wasn't much report from western media. When China did, all of sudden there was a big cry. China is now portraited as aggressor while the biggest territory holder remains Vietnam. I am talking about the region that was frequently on the news lately. So, the mentality of Chinese both in China and abroad towards this issue is pretty much indifference towards the criticism.

You mentioned "Indian nationhood". I don't quite understand. Is the conflict between India and Pakistan about the land dispute or one wanting to completely annihilate the other?

The nine dash line, source of all Chinese claims, is ridiculous. So yes, China come across as the bully.

Regarding second part, I believe there are PDF threads already on this topic.

 

[nang2]

The nine dash line, source of all Chinese claims, is ridiculous. So yes, China come across as the bully.

Regarding second part, I believe there are PDF threads already on this topic.

The nine dash line was way back in previous government. Even that is not strictly enforced. If you think the nine dash line is ridiculous, you would be more interested to see the line drawn by Vietnam. Every country can make whatever claim she likes. It is the actual occupation that speaks the loudest.

 

[H.B.]

It is the actual occupation that speaks the loudest.

Might begets right. I get it. So, please don't offer platitudes such as greater restraint shown by China and that nonsense. Every country looks to maximize its strategic space, no harm in that but the whitewashing you attempted here is frankly embarrassing.

Nowadays, China is far more restrained with the use of force..

 

[nang2]

Might begets right. I get it. So, please don't offer platitudes such as grater restraint shown by China and that nonsense. Every country looks to maximize its strategic space, no harm in that but the whitewashing you attempted here is frankly embarrassing.

I simply said "speak the loudest". No need to draw quick reference to "might begets right". If you simply mark the option of others as nonsense, then the conversation breaks down as it is no longer constructive.

 

[desimorty]

Chinese move in SCS should be put in bigger context, instead of being simply influenced by western media. Apparently, when Vietnam and Philippine occupied far more spots there and did land reclamation, there wasn't much report from western media. When China did, all of sudden there was a big cry. China is now portraited as aggressor while the biggest territory holder remains Vietnam. I am talking about the region that was frequently on the news lately. So, the mentality of Chinese both in China and abroad towards this issue is pretty much indifference towards the criticism.

You mentioned "Indian nationhood". I don't quite understand. Is the conflict between India and Pakistan about the land dispute or one wanting to completely annihilate the other?

Source: NSA Ajit DovaL on How INDIA Should TackLe the ThreaT of CHiNA !! | Page 4

Agresive patroling by the PLAN. The PLA has problems with internal showboating over taking reason. Sometimes escalating situations. Ontop of the this the top PLA CCP high ranks are alienated from PLA middle ranks and yet the PLA is a private army. Their (PLA) top generals are CCP memebers. Only 2 true civilians control this with 11 PLA generals.
Good system so far, but extremely poor at adapting and re-acting.
So basically, no one cares about the SCS other than SEAsia. But if the PLA operates their, with over zelous patroling, international incident may disrupt GLOBAL trade. Making it a Indian, American, Atlantain issue.

We are not using Pakistan, we just need each other.

Source: NSA Ajit DovaL on How INDIA Should TackLe the ThreaT of CHiNA !! | Page 3

really? Your CCP govt. is using Pakistan. Hopefully they in Pakistan know this. You killed Americans with the last Viet cong, and then did it in Korea, making Koreans kill Koreans and Americans.
The PA has internal Islamic terrorist sympathizers but they aren't stupid. During 1971, 1999 or 1965 did China actually send a single soldier? NO you sent guns to kill Indians.
CCP will fight India down to the last Pakistani and thats a bitter truth. But China is just an outsider taking advantage of internal South Asian politics. Now its involved, with modern technology, India will rpusue its allies in Asia. Turns out China has more enemies than India. Go figure.