What's new

The Giants of Asia (China & India) Strive for Closer Ties

What happens if AAP comes to power like they did in Delhi? Aren't they just as bad as Congress?

They don't have a grass roots presence anywhere outside of Delhi. Delhi is highly urbanized - AAP's best chances are in other urban areas which themselves are a very small part of the overall landscape. Bombay has 2 already Bombay-centric regional parties. It might make some in-roads in educated cities like Bangalore.

And no one is as bad as the Congress. They have made "liberalism" and "secularism" - cherished principles in the Indian Constitution into a vote-amassing gimmick. It is amazing that their followers still call themselves secular and liberal - just look at their history

1. Partition along religious lines - -47
2. Dismissal of an elected Communist state Govt. thru underhand tactics - 1950s - Kerala
3. The Emergency - 70s - forcible sterilization, suspension of democracy, lack of human rights
4. Indira standing with Bhindranwale; Rajiv helping LTTE and playing religious politics like in Shah Bano case - 1980s
5. The only Indian PM convicted - 1990s - Mr. Rao
The recent history you are probably aware of.

The fact that the Congress still calls itself secular and liberal with a straight face is itself downright hilarious.
 
.
Modern day India is made by the British.Expansionism is also inherited from their former masters and embedded in their blood. I think ancient India is fine,they never invaded no one,but modern day india is not to be trusted,unless they completely abandon their british heritage.

China should never give up on AP

Name of "INDIA" itself is continuation of British Legacy, If they're serious in recalling the roots of Old Heritage they would prefer to be called HINDUSTAN....but they wont ,,,,, bcoz they prefer allegiance under the name of Queen of England...:-)
.
Iam giving you One more Eye Opening fact, during Partition in 1947, Pakistan refused to accept continuation of Lord Mountbatten as first Governor general of United India...But India accepted her Majesty Queen Elizbeth allegiance & appointed him first Governor of India (after Partition) :(

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/mountbatten_lord_louis.shtml

Mountbatten was a British naval officer who oversaw the defeat of the Japanese offensive towards India during World War Two. He was appointed the last viceroy of British India and first governor general of independent India.

LO4E.jpg
 
.
The Giants of Asia Strive for Closer Ties | RealClearWorld

A few years back, we had the least known leader for a century, the ultimate committee man, in charge in China, a bright but exhausted economist, wearied by political infighting, as prime minister in India, and machine politicians succeeding each other after brief terms in Japan.

Now those countries - the most powerful in the world except for the US, though Russia and Germany might stake claims - are led by giants: Xi Jinping, Narendra Modi, and Shinzo Abe.

Each charismatic, purposeful, and dominant within his own country. Can they work out a way not only to avoid bumping into each other dangerously, but to co-exist and even prosper together? The signs are cautiously promising, but the winds that blow across Asia can always change direction suddenly.

A few days ago we saw Abe stride across America, asking of it a vision for a re-energised role in Asia, the world's largest and most important continent, in a manner that demanded a positive response of the type that the US polity appears no longer capable of providing.

The pathetic attempt by Barack Obama and his Secretary of State, the incomparably incompetent John Kerry, to attract a caucus of Arab leaders to the US to discuss the American embrace of Iran makes for a sorry comparison. Today Modi arrives in Beijing for a three-day visit, his first since becoming Prime Minister a year ago.

Security experts and economists on each side have been billing this encounter with the all-powerful Xi as the latest round in a growing geopolitical contest.

India under Modi has intensified connections with the US, built military co-operation with Vietnam - involved in a bitter maritime dispute with China - and enjoys a special relationship with Abe, as Japan Inc launches a new investment wave into Asia.

In advance of the visit, Chinese media have complained about Modi visiting the disputed border region of Arunachal Pradesh.

Hu Zhiyong of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences wrote in the Global Times that "due to the Indian elites' blind arrogance and confidence in their democracy, and the inferiority of its ordinary people" - an unhappy phrase - "very few Indians are able to treat Sino-Indian relations accurately, objectively and rationally".

He also told the Indian government to "stop supporting the Dalai Lama," who of course lives there. Modi recently obliged, cancelling a meeting scheduled between the Dalai Lama and Amit Shah, president of the Bharatiya Janata Party he leads.

The Indian side has expressed its own concerns about China's extraordinary $50 billion investment in an economic corridor through Pakistan, giving it land access to the port of Gwadar - because the corridor includes disputed territory in Pakistani Kashmir. Modi has moved swiftly to intensify relations with other countries that China has long courted, such as Iran, Afghanistan, Nepal, and now Sri Lanka, and Indian Ocean nations Mauritius and the Seychelles.

But the benefits of co-operation can also be immense, given the deep continuing developmental needs of both countries - though with China still well in the lead.

Modi, for instance, signed up India as a founder of China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, while Beijing has held out the prospect of a "strategic co-operative partnership". China is escorting India into APEC membership, and leading the construction of new transport links between the countries.

The prospects for improvement are obvious. Total trade between these most populous countries in the world, is only half that between China and Australia.

GavekalDragonomics analyst Tom Miller says this economic potential will only be fulfilled once security concerns no longer overshadow the relationship, and doubts that their "huge trust deficit" can be plugged.

But that's where the vision and authority of these three considerable leaders comes in. Their challenge is to retain their domestic support not only in spite of international deals that bring the three countries closer, but through doing them.

I don't always agree with Pepe's hyperbole, but I think he is on the right track in this article.

The critical challenge for Asian stability would be the uncertainty of bilateral relationship between China and Japan, both being heavily industrialized and trade/financial powerhouses, and being 2nd and 3rd largest economies of the world. Despite huge bilateral trade, as strategic competitors the two are actively designing their own game plans in countering the other's influence. China is pursuing an Eurasian integration strategy (e.g. One Belt One Road, AIIB), while Japan is riding on convenience of "Pivot to Asia" (e.g. TPP), competing for influence in an already-splintered rest-of-Asia:
  • On Korean peninsula, both are competing for SK (the 5th industrialized powerhouse of the world), NK is hostile to Japan.
  • In ASEAN, a 2.5 trillion GDP and fast industrializing region, both are competing fiercely for influence in all 8 countries (other than Vietnam and Philippines, the two are hostile to China hence close to Japan)
  • In resources-rich Central Asia, China has longer influence on the stans or SCO countries, though Japanese influence is also increasing.
  • In resources-rich Australia/Pacific, both are competing for influence like on the Korean peninsula, China using trade & FDI, Japan using tech (ToT) and political alliance.
  • In less developed South Asia, competition between China and Japan is not that fierce. Pakistan is a long-time Chinese ally, SL is economically close to China as well. India is hostile to China and close to Japan. The two only compete for projects in Bangladesh.
  • In MENA countries, both are competing for influence however some countries are hostile to the West hence Japan is affected.

Island nations are always a bit out of touch from reality. In WW II, Japan chose the loosing side, this time also they are making the same mistake. But a Japan not hostile to China will be a tremendous asset for China. The same goes for Korea. That is West's greatest fear, loosing Japan and Korea's as close allies. So China should never burn their bridges with these two nations, like it can afford to with Philippines or Vietnam. Perhaps beating up of P & V will be learning example for J & K.
 
.
I don't always agree with Pepe's hyperbole, but I think he is on the right track in this article.

Island nations are always a bit out of touch from reality. In WW II, Japan chose the loosing side, this time also they are making the same mistake. But a Japan not hostile to China will be a tremendous asset for China. The same goes for Korea. That is West's greatest fear, loosing Japan and Korea's as close allies. So China should never burn their bridges with these two nations, like it can afford to with Philippines or Vietnam. Perhaps beating up of P & V will be learning example for J & K.

Don't worry. I feel like we have a greater grasp of the chessboard than our opponents. We know which pieces are rooks and which are pawns, and we know who is essential and who is expendable.

PH and VN didn't have to be pawns. Their populations (each expected to balloon to the 100 million mark in the near future) should have made them contenders. But population alone is not enough, and both countries have failed to industrialize, despite the ample opportunities offered to them during the Cold War. In particular, the PH had unrestricted access to US investment and US markets while China was undergoing the Cultural Revolution, yet they did nothing with them. And the low-value manufacturing jobs that China's coastal areas have relied on a stepping stone will be going to 1) China's interior, 2) South Asian and qualified African states, and 3) robots. The PH and VN will have missed the train yet again, and that's why their interests and desires can be dismissed without compunction.
 
.
Well China's stance on the India-Pakistan Kashmir dispute (and China's help to Pakistan) all came AFTER 1959 right?
I'm not saying India is a "necessary evil" or anything of the sort, in realpolitik none of that matters anyway. What matters is capability and facts on the ground.
India has the capability to cause problems in Tibet, the Tibetan Government in Exile is hosted in India. Intentions are irrelevant (and unknowable in any case).
If we solve the border issue in a way that is favorable to India, what are we going to get in return? How can we guarantee that India won't use the Tibetan Government in Exile against us again?

I think going forward the chances of India using the Tibet card if China keeps on fueling the border tension is much higher than India doing it when the pending border issues with China is resolved or at least allowed to cool down.

Name of "INDIA" itself is continuation of British Legacy, If they're serious in recalling the roots of Old Heritage they would prefer to be called HINDUSTAN....but they wont ,,,,, bcoz they prefer allegiance under the name of Queen of England...:-)
.
Iam giving you One more Eye Opening fact, during Partition in 1947, Pakistan refused to accept continuation of Lord Mountbatten as first Governor general of United India...But India accepted her Majesty Queen Elizbeth allegiance & appointed him first Governor of India (after Partition) :(

BBC - History - Historic Figures: Lord Louis Mountbatten (1900 - 1979)

Mountbatten was a British naval officer who oversaw the defeat of the Japanese offensive towards India during World War Two. He was appointed the last viceroy of British India and first governor general of independent India.

View attachment 222253

Stupid comment. The name "India" was not given by British Raj.
 
.
Just shows how backward Indian civilisation is compared to Chinese civilisation. China was united by Chinese, Hindus were united by the white man.

It is a wrong phrase. There hasn't been any "India civilisation" in textbooks.

there was an Indus Valley Civilisation though 4,000 years ago, which had almost nothing to do with current "India" - a British colonial subject without any British comfort such as indoor-plumbing though..

academically, there 're 21 criteria to qualify one as a "Civilisation"..

Only Sinic Mongoloid race basid in China and Euro Caucasoid race based in Europe have met these 21 criteria fully. (so strictly speaking, not even Japan is a civilisation, but a part of China-based Sinic Civilisation)
 
Last edited:
.
It is a wrong phrase. There hasn't been any "India civilisation" in textbooks.

there was an Indus Valley Civilisation though 4,000 years ago, which had almost nothing to do with current "India" - a British colonial subject.

academically, there 're 21 criteria to qualify one as a "Civilisation"..

Only Sinic Mongoloid race basid in China and Euro Caucasoid race based in Europe have met these 21 criteria fully. (so strictly speaking, not even Japan is a civilisation, but a part of China-based Sinic Civilisation)
This is a good joke
In this link you can see the spread of Indian civilization which is accepted by all historians.
Greater India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
.
You need to read better history books, since now you seem to have access to more than what CCP let you read when you were in China, I suggest you to start visiting some good library in UK.
? :)

i've read plenty, thank you for the suggestion though.

So may I also suggest you using a new tech called indoor-plumbing? it's good for your tribe and can contribute your long-overdue share to the rest of mankind as well.
 
. .
It is a wrong phrase. There hasn't been any "India civilisation" in textbooks.

there was an Indus Valley Civilisation though 4,000 years ago, which had almost nothing to do with current "India" - a British colonial subject without any British comfort such as indoor-plumbing though..

academically, there 're 21 criteria to qualify one as a "Civilisation"..

Only Sinic Mongoloid race basid in China and Euro Caucasoid race based in Europe have met these 21 criteria fully. (so strictly speaking, not even Japan is a civilisation, but a part of China-based Sinic Civilisation)
Umm, nope. You can't make up 21 requirements TODAY and decide things that existed 5000 years ago. :D
In that case, YOU don't have a proper logical script EVEN TODAY! It's as much a proper language as Hieroglyphs. We had alphabets and proper grammar from the age of Panini. :)

When it comes to evolution, you have some ground to cover. Lack of civilization allows people to consider almost anything as edible. With prosperity, people restrict their diet accordingly. Economic strength is something no one disagrees with, but how far it has percolated to all your people is anyone's guess. Even today, I can't go to the interiors of your country and check things for myself. The only places we are restricted to are the cities and the showcases of progress that you decide for ourselves. :)
 
.
The Giants of Asia Strive for Closer Ties | RealClearWorld

A few years back, we had the least known leader for a century, the ultimate committee man, in charge in China, a bright but exhausted economist, wearied by political infighting, as prime minister in India, and machine politicians succeeding each other after brief terms in Japan.

Now those countries - the most powerful in the world except for the US, though Russia and Germany might stake claims - are led by giants: Xi Jinping, Narendra Modi, and Shinzo Abe.

Each charismatic, purposeful, and dominant within his own country. Can they work out a way not only to avoid bumping into each other dangerously, but to co-exist and even prosper together? The signs are cautiously promising, but the winds that blow across Asia can always change direction suddenly.

A few days ago we saw Abe stride across America, asking of it a vision for a re-energised role in Asia, the world's largest and most important continent, in a manner that demanded a positive response of the type that the US polity appears no longer capable of providing.

The pathetic attempt by Barack Obama and his Secretary of State, the incomparably incompetent John Kerry, to attract a caucus of Arab leaders to the US to discuss the American embrace of Iran makes for a sorry comparison. Today Modi arrives in Beijing for a three-day visit, his first since becoming Prime Minister a year ago.

Security experts and economists on each side have been billing this encounter with the all-powerful Xi as the latest round in a growing geopolitical contest.

India under Modi has intensified connections with the US, built military co-operation with Vietnam - involved in a bitter maritime dispute with China - and enjoys a special relationship with Abe, as Japan Inc launches a new investment wave into Asia.

In advance of the visit, Chinese media have complained about Modi visiting the disputed border region of Arunachal Pradesh.

Hu Zhiyong of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences wrote in the Global Times that "due to the Indian elites' blind arrogance and confidence in their democracy, and the inferiority of its ordinary people" - an unhappy phrase - "very few Indians are able to treat Sino-Indian relations accurately, objectively and rationally".

He also told the Indian government to "stop supporting the Dalai Lama," who of course lives there. Modi recently obliged, cancelling a meeting scheduled between the Dalai Lama and Amit Shah, president of the Bharatiya Janata Party he leads.

The Indian side has expressed its own concerns about China's extraordinary $50 billion investment in an economic corridor through Pakistan, giving it land access to the port of Gwadar - because the corridor includes disputed territory in Pakistani Kashmir. Modi has moved swiftly to intensify relations with other countries that China has long courted, such as Iran, Afghanistan, Nepal, and now Sri Lanka, and Indian Ocean nations Mauritius and the Seychelles.

But the benefits of co-operation can also be immense, given the deep continuing developmental needs of both countries - though with China still well in the lead.

Modi, for instance, signed up India as a founder of China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, while Beijing has held out the prospect of a "strategic co-operative partnership". China is escorting India into APEC membership, and leading the construction of new transport links between the countries.

The prospects for improvement are obvious. Total trade between these most populous countries in the world, is only half that between China and Australia.

GavekalDragonomics analyst Tom Miller says this economic potential will only be fulfilled once security concerns no longer overshadow the relationship, and doubts that their "huge trust deficit" can be plugged.

But that's where the vision and authority of these three considerable leaders comes in. Their challenge is to retain their domestic support not only in spite of international deals that bring the three countries closer, but through doing them.

Nice post. Much like what i have been saying on here for a while. India -Cina relations should have been even more closer if not for the border dispute which is the ONLY thing that still keeps the 2 countries from forging a very deep/close relationship or even alliance. They have very common objectives in the international scene.

The only part i disagree with is : THE GIANTS OF ASIA(INDIA AND CHINA). The giants of Asia for now are still China and Japan.:argh:

India -China relation was never bitter in history though centuries. Only after 1962 that things changed unfortunately or otherwise.If the border issues are resolved. I don't see any hostility.I hope it gets resolved while Mr.Modi is there. I believe China relation with Pakistan is more about containing India than economic reasons.

True. However to be honest, India is also to blame, not just for the 1962 war, but also for causing this war in the first place. Since it was India(under Nehru) willingness to not only allow the Tibetan government in Exile to settle in India, but India actively supported a foreign seperatist government on its soil with the help of the CIA, and trained some of them against the Chinese government. So India should also take the blame and recognise its faults. Same with his so called 'Holiness' Dalai lama.(well at least the Dalai lama reconised/confessed he received help from the CIA, but India has so far denied any involvement.lol)......talk of politics...........:cheesy::lol:

How CIA helped Dalai Lama to end up in exile — RT News
The Dalai Lama's involvement with the CIA and the Tibetan Guerrillas - International Shugden Community
CIA Tibetan program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CIA's Secret War in Tibet
 
.
Umm, nope. You can't make up 21 requirements TODAY and decide things that existed 5000 years ago. :D
In that case, YOU don't have a proper logical script EVEN TODAY! It's as much a proper language as Hieroglyphs. We had alphabets and proper grammar from the age of Panini. :)

When it comes to evolution, you have some ground to cover. Lack of civilization allows people to consider almost anything as edible. With prosperity, people restrict their diet accordingly. Economic strength is something no one disagrees with, but how far it has percolated to all your people is anyone's guess. Even today, I can't go to the interiors of your country and check things for myself. The only places we are restricted to are the cities and the showcases of progress that you decide for ourselves. :)

There is no such academic term as Indian civilization, only Vedic civilization which came from foreign invader Aryan. Aryans Vedic Sanskrit was passed down orally, its written form was artificially re-created by Panini. Chinese character is the oldest continuously use writing system, predating both Vedic Sanskrit and Panini version.

Sanskrit is long dead. The Brahmi script you use today is derived from Aramaic script originated in Middle East. The high point of any civilization is writing. Low civilization lacks indigenous script and the capability to record down their own history.
 
Last edited:
.
You have the English to thank for. Personally i don't see how it will be resolved any time soon. Guess the dispute will continue to last for a long time

Well i never denied its somehow our fault for seizng Chinese and Burmese land and incoporating it into our Indian territory/colony back then. But then again you cant really blame us, since all colonial powers did the same thing back then. It was the surviva of fittest back hen, as there was no international laws per se. Every power grabbed as much territory as it could. So wasn't just an english thing. Cant blame just Britain alone. Truth is that any country that has the power/capabilities will expand/spread its influence, those that dont is simply because they can't/dont have the power/capabilities to do so, not because they dont want to/or are peaceful/innocent/saint.lool As they say: its only when a poor/weak man becomes rich/powerful that you know his real intentions/behaviour.:bunny::D
 
.
There is no such academic term as Indian civilization, only Vedic civilization which came from foreign invader Aryan. Aryans Vedic Sanskrit was passed down orally, its written form was artificially re-created by Panini. Chinese character is the oldest continuously use writing system, predating both Vedic Sanskrit and Panini version.

Sanskrit is long dead. The Brahmi script you use today is derived from Aramaic script originated in Middle East. The high point of any civilization is writing. Low civilization lacks indigenous script and the capability to record down their own history.

Oh please! Not again those crappy non-history!

And sure Chinese characters are ancient, these are basically pictography that cavemen used, too bad that it didn't evolve after that. Btw, we have similar pictographs in our ancient caves!

However, we are going off-topic, one of your compatriots started it, hope you don't continue it.
 
.
Oh please! Not again those crappy non-history!

And sure Chinese characters are ancient, these are basically pictography that cavemen used, too bad that it didn't evolve after that. Btw, we have similar pictographs in our ancient caves!

However, we are going off-topic, one of your compatriots started it, hope you don't continue it.

I presented academically validated history, you Indian troll are the ones who write BS history to feed your ego.

No, You had no pictographs or any writing system until Panini re-invented sanskrit and you copying from Aramaic script. Chinese writing is indigenously developed and continuously in use.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom