What's new

To all Indian members here. A question...

I have few doubts in my mind.first, if India recognizes tibbat as part of china, then why does we patronising DL?
second- if china recognies tibbat as autonomous region, why the hell they are so unaccepting of DL?
Anyways, coming back to the topic, I have an opinion that '62 war was neither India's provocation nor was it China's aggression. Its just happened that Nehru grossly miscalculated Socailism to be a binding factor strong enough to prevent any war between India & china( nehru was a staunch pro-socialist, had it been his way, India would have become a communist state as well)and he also erred in judging china's military power vis-a-vis china's. and during his tenure, defense sector was non-existant, to say the least. though i must add, it was not a deliberate mistake on his part. he was a true patriot, no doubt about that. he was just too idealistic to understand real geopolitic complications. naive is the best word to describe him. anyhow, we, as a nation, learnt some hard lessons post '62 which enabled us to have a better preparation against ny future threat. today we are far more prepared and far more capable thanwe were in ' 62.
 
It is beginning to dawn on me, gradually, why we should teach recent history in our schools. This situation is a disaster. The Pakistanis know nothing about Pakistan, the Indians know nothing about India. the less said about the knowledge of each about the other, the better.

I have few doubts in my mind.first, if India recognizes tibbat as part of china, then why does we patronising DL?

Originally the Dalai Lama and his entourage sought political asylum in India. The Chinese regime had just completed a violent coup assuming full powers, in exchange for their earlier suzerainty (as Russia and Britain, but not China, defined the nature of Chinese authority over Tibet). It was likely that the Dalai Lama's life would be in danger in that situation. India had had dealings with Tibet from 1915 onwards in the modern, British sense; from the 10th or 11th century AD in the older sense, from the date of Atish Dipankar*'s re-conversion of Tibet.

[* My nick, Vajra, on other sites, is from this monk's home village of Vajrayogini, the next village to my ancestral village.]

Therefore, at that time, he and his entourage, which included most of the former Tibetan government, were given asylum.

One condition of asylum was not to conduct any political activity against any friendly power. This has generally been breached in practice by the setting up of the Tibetan government-in-exile, and by their very active on-going protest against Han cultural hegemonism in Tibet (their description; this is not Government of India's characterisation, as GoI doesn't have any characterisation of China's rule over its integral part, it being China's internal matter).

As a result, PRC generally remains apoplectic about India's behaviour in this regard.

second- if china recognies tibbat as autonomous region, why the hell they are so unaccepting of DL?

For these, please look up the definition of 'autonomous region' by PRC. It means only a separate cultural distinction, and an ethnic differentiation, which is sought to be recognised and protected, but not at the cost of banning migration to these regions. Note that China is ethnically homogeneous outside the provinces of Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and Qing Hai (ignoring the curious cultural history of South China!). Nowhere is opposition to the CPC tolerated.

China is not a democracy; it is a single-party democracy.

Anyways, coming back to the topic, I have an opinion that '62 war was neither India's provocation nor was it China's aggression.

It was both, in that sequence.

Its just happened that Nehru grossly miscalculated Socailism to be a binding factor strong enough to prevent any war between India & china( nehru was a staunch pro-socialist, had it been his way, India would have become a communist state as well)...

sigh

Nehru was, to be precise, a Fabian Socialist, a kind of socialist that sits in an elegant drawing room in Bloomsbury, sips Darjeeling tea from elegant bone-china and, through mouthfuls of very thin lettuce sandwiches, discusses socialism.

They were specifically dedicated to bringing about socialism gradually and progressively. Their ideals were based on the military tactics of Fabius Maximus Cunctator, Fabius Maximus the Delayer, the only Roman general who survived against Hannibal at a critical period of Roman history.

His full name is Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus Cunctator: Quintus of the Fabius family (gens) and the branch known as Fabii Maximi (all had the surname Fabius Maximus: he himself had a father, a grandfather and a great-grandfather all named Quintus Fabius Maximus), with the distinguishing name of Verrucosus. So Verrucosus (warty, from a wart over his lip) was his cognomen; his agnomen, distinguishing name given by his countrymen for some characteristic, was Cunctator, the Delayer, because he never allowed Hannibal to bring him to battle but evaded him, kept his force intact and even growing, and allowed Hannibal lose men and mounts, horse and elephant alike, through attrition.

By definition, Fabian Socialists were committed to bringing about Socialism (not Communism; there is a difference, which you can learn about in any simple political sciences textbook) only gradually, by wearing down the enemy.

What you have assumed about Nehru is grossly wrong and misunderstood. He was opposed to Communists, but Communists were not opposed to him. Many CPI leaders were close to him personally, but they disagreed politically. There was never any question of abandoning liberal democracy and assuming socialism in the political arena.

Where do young people pick up this nonsense?

...and he also erred in judging china's military power vis-a-vis china's. and during his tenure, defense sector was non-existant, to say the least. though i must add, it was not a deliberate mistake on his part.

It was deliberate policy on his part. He thought the day of wars was over; the UNO would take care of everything. Poor naif! and poor country that he led!


...he was a true patriot, no doubt about that. he was just too idealistic to understand real geopolitic complications. naive is the best word to describe him. anyhow, we, as a nation, learnt some hard lessons post '62 which enabled us to have a better preparation against ny future threat. today we are far more prepared and far more capable thanwe were in ' 62.

Let us leave the matter on this bright and optimistic note.
 
Last edited:
It is beginning to dawn on me, gradually, why we should teach recent history in our schools. This situation is a disaster. The Pakistanis know nothing about Pakistan, the Indians know nothing about India. the less said about the knowledge of each about the other, the better.



Originally the Dalai Lama and his entourage sought political asylum in India. The Chinese regime had just completed a violent coup assuming full powers, in exchange for their earlier suzerainty (as Russia and Britain, but not China, defined the nature of Chinese authority over Tibet). It was likely that the Dalai Lama's life would be in danger in that situation. India had had dealings with Tibet from 1915 onwards in the modern, British sense; from the 10th or 11th century AD in the older sense, from the date of Atish Dipankar*'s re-conversion of Tibet.

[* My nick, Vajra, on other sites, is from this monk's home village of Vajrayogini, the next village to my ancestral village.]

Therefore, at that time, he and his entourage, which included most of the former Tibetan government, were given asylum.

One condition of asylum was not to conduct any political activity against any friendly power. This has generally been breached in practice by the setting up of the Tibetan government-in-exile, and by their very active on-going protest against Han cultural hegemonism in Tibet (their description; this is not Government of India's characterisation, as GoI doesn't have any characterisation of China's rule over its integral part, it being China's internal matter).

As a result, PRC generally remains apoplectic about India's behaviour in this regard.



For these, please look up the definition of 'autonomous region' by PRC. It means only a separate cultural distinction, and an ethnic differentiation, which is sought to be recognised and protected, but not at the cost of banning migration to these regions. Note that China is ethnically homogeneous outside the provinces of Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and Qing Hai (ignoring the curious cultural history of South China!). Nowhere is opposition to the CPC tolerated.

China is not a democracy; it is a single-party democracy.



It was both, in that sequence.



sigh

Nehru was, to be precise, a Fabian Socialist, a kind of socialist that sits in an elegant drawing room in Bloomsbury, sips Darjeeling tea from elegant bone-china and, through mouthfuls of very thin lettuce sandwiches, discusses socialism.

They were specifically dedicated to bringing about socialism gradually and progressively. Their ideals were based on the military tactics of Fabius Maximus Cunctator, Fabius Maximus the Delayer, the only Roman general who survived against Hannibal at a critical period of Roman history.

His full name is Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus Cunctator: Quintus of the Fabius family (gens) and the branch known as Fabii Maximi (all had the surname Fabius Maximus: he himself had a father, a grandfather and a great-grandfather all named Quintus Fabius Maximus), with the distinguishing name of Verrucosus. So Verrucosus (warty, from a wart over his lip) was his cognomen; his agnomen, distinguishing name given by his countrymen for some characteristic, was Cunctator, the Delayer, because he never allowed Hannibal to bring him to battle but evaded him, kept his force intact and even growing, and allowed Hannibal lose men and mounts, horse and elephant alike, through attrition.

By definition, Fabian Socialists were committed to bringing about Socialism (not Communism; there is a difference, which you can learn about in any simple political sciences textbook) only gradually, by wearing down the enemy.

What you have assumed about Nehru is grossly wrong and misunderstood. He was opposed to Communists, but Communists were not opposed to him. Many CPI leaders were close to him personally, but they disagreed politically. There was never any question of abandoning liberal democracy and assuming socialism in the political arena.

Where do young people pick up this nonsense?



It was deliberate policy on his part. He thought the day of wars was over; the UNO would take care of everything. Poor naif! and poor country that he led!




Let us leave the matter on this bright and optimistic note.

Here is something I read regarding Nehru himself.

"Nehru assumed that as former victims of imperialism (India being a colony itself) they shared a sense of solidarity, as expressed in the phrase "Hindi-Chini bhai bhai" (Indians and Chinese are brothers). He was dedicated to the ideals of brotherhood and solidarity among developing nations. Nehru, credulously, did not believe that one fellow Socialist country would attack another; and in any event, he felt secure behind the impregnable wall of ice that is the Himalayas. Both proved to be severe miscalculations of China's intentions and military capabilities.

The motive for the Forward Policy was to cut off the supply routes for Chinese troops posted in NEFA and Aksai Chin. According to the official Indian history, the forward policy was continued because of its initial success, as it claimed that Chinese troops withdrew when they encountered areas already occupied by Indian troops. It also claimed that the Forward Policy was having success in cutting out supply lines of Chinese troops who had advanced South of the McMahon Line, though there was no evidence of such advance before the 1962 war. However, the Forward Policy rested on the assumption that Chinese forces "were not likely to use force against any of our posts, even if they were in a position to do so". No serious re-appraisal of this policy took place even when Chinese forces ceased withdrawing. Nehru's confidence was probably justified given the difficulty for China to supply the area over the high altitude terrain over 5000 km from the more populated areas of China.

The Chinese leadership initially held a sympathetic view towards India as the latter had been ruled by British colonial masters for centuries. However, Nehru's forward policy convinced PRC leadership that the independent Indian leadership was a reincarnation of British imperialism. Thus, the Indian government must be taught an unforgettable lesson. Mao Zedong stated: "Rather than being constantly accused of aggression, it's better to show the world what really happens when China indeed moves its muscles."

By early 1962, the Chinese leadership began to fear that India's intentions were to launch a massive attack against Chinese troops, and that the Indian leadership wanted a war. In 1961, the Indian army had been sent into Goa, a small region without any other international borders apart from the Indian one, after Portugal refused to surrender the exclave colony to the Indian Union. Although this action met little to no international protest or opposition, China saw it as an example of India's expansionist nature, especially in light of heated rhetoric from Indian politicians. India's Home Minister declared, "If the Chinese will not vacate the areas occupied by it, India will have to repeat what she did in Goa. India will certainly drive out the Chinese forces", while another member of the Indian Congress Party pronounced, "India will take steps to end [Chinese] aggression on Indian soil just as she ended Portuguese aggression in Goa". By mid-1962, it was apparent to the Chinese leadership that negotiations had failed to make any progress, and the Forward Policy was increasingly perceived as a grave threat as Delhi increasingly sent probes deeper into border areas and cut off Chinese supply lines. Foreign Minister Marshal Chen Yi commented at one high-level meeting, "Nehru's forward policy is a knife. He wants to put it in our heart. We cannot close our eyes and await death." The Chinese leadership believed that their restraint on the issue was being perceived by India as weakness, leading to continued provocations, and that a major counterblow was needed to stop perceived Indian aggression."
 
Where do young people pick up this nonsense?

This does beg the question why is there so many versions of what was a relatively simple event in history. Some here said it was a simplistic act of aggression by China, many have said it was retaliation for India's providing the DL asylum, some thinks China is the scorpion on the frog's back. Its instinct is to sting and it is your fault for giving it a ride across the river. This is very troubling because one does not make friends or live peacefully in the same house with a venomous creature.

There another question.

Nehru was, to be precise, a Fabian Socialist, a kind of socialist that sits in an elegant drawing room in Bloomsbury, sips Darjeeling tea from elegant bone-china and, through mouthfuls of very thin lettuce sandwiches, discusses socialism.

They were specifically dedicated to bringing about socialism gradually and progressively. Their ideals were based on the military tactics of Fabius Maximus Cunctator, Fabius Maximus the Delayer, the only Roman general who survived against Hannibal at a critical period of Roman history.



Why would Nehru who's style you've described as Fabian, choose to escalate (along with China) by imposing the forward policy?

Nehru assumed that as former victims of imperialism (India being a colony itself) they shared a sense of solidarity, as expressed in the phrase "Hindi-Chini bhai bhai" (Indians and Chinese are brothers). He was dedicated to the ideals of brotherhood and solidarity among developing nations. Nehru, credulously, did not believe that one fellow Socialist country would attack another; and in any event, he felt secure behind the impregnable wall of ice that is the Himalayas.



This makes a lot of sense to me. The "Hindi-Chini bhai bhai" thing fits well within an Indian pro-developing country stance (as China and India had so much in common in those days).
 
This does beg the question why is there so many versions of what was a relatively simple event in history. Some here said it was a simplistic act of aggression by China, many have said it was retaliation for India's providing the DL asylum, some thinks China is the scorpion on the frog's back. Its instinct is to sting and it is your fault for giving it a ride across the river. This is very troubling because one does not make friends or live peacefully in the same house with a venomous creature.

There another question.





Why would Nehru who's style you've described as Fabian, choose to escalate (along with China) by imposing the forward policy?

Ah, I see the difficulty.

The difference is that the Bloomsbury Set, these Fabian Socialists, who numbered the best of the British Left among their members, took their name from a Roman dictator with a markedly different military policy, but that did not in any way influence their conduct of foreign affairs or of matters outside economic.

It was not that Nehru would apply Cunctator's tactics in the battlefield. Those were for application only in governance and legislation, to wear down the anti-progressive enemy through repeated harrassing tactics, scorched earth retreats and fighting withdrawals.

In the sphere of external affairs, this did not apply.

Nehru was not bound by, or inspired by Fabian doctrine on the ground in NEFA or in Ladakh.


This makes a lot of sense to me. The "Hindi-Chini bhai bhai" thing fits well within an Indian pro-developing country stance (as China and India had so much in common in those days).
More than a possibility.
 
rediff.com: rediff.com Special: Who was to blame for the 1962 war? Was it India or China who initiated the conflict?

Check this article, it explains who REALLY started the war.

The article is by your beloved Rediff, and even they admit that India was the aggressor

And Even wikipedia agrees Nehru started the war first by initiating the Forward Policy

Events leading to the Sino-Indian War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Furthermore India has no claim to Arunachal Pradesh, what language do the people speak here? They speak Tibetan, they look Tibetan they are Tibetan.

Why does India claim Arunachal Pradesh? because it was SIGNED OVER TO BRITAIN.

Why would Tibet sign over their own land for free?

McMahon Line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, Tibet refused to recognize the boundaries drawn by these treaties[citation needed]. British forces led by Sir Francis Younghusband invaded Tibet in 1904 and imposed a treaty on the Tibetans.


Because the British FORCED them to at gunpoint.

This land was originally was owned by Tibet, who was PART OF CHINA. Tibet signed it over the Britain.


SO WHY THE HELL DOES INDIA GET THIS PIECE OF LAND? WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE TIBETAN!?!?
 
854446-Travel_Picture-State_of_Arunachal_Pradesh.jpg


Look at the people who live in Arunachal Pradesh

Do these people look Indian or Chinese?
 
Originally Posted by Chinaownseverything
Do these people look Indian or Chinese?

Tell me; do they look Chinese or Malay or Indonesian or Cambodian or Hong or Burmese or Mizo or Naga or Meitei or Khamba or Gurkha or.... ?
Are you a "Photo-Anthropologist" ?!
 
Ah! Just when I was wondering if I was dreaming. Just when it looked so bizarre and unreal, being able to discuss a sensitive topic with knowledgeable people offering sober and sensible inputs on both sides.

Thank you, Chineownseverything, for reassuring me and bringing me awake once again.

@Cardsharp
@Chauism

A member, 'Milestogo', exasperated by Indian teenage idiots each with access to a keyboard, a broadband connection and a wonderfully vacant mind engaging in verbal battles with their Pakistani, sometimes with their Chinese counterparts, suggested that we should discuss these matters in a restricted room.

This latest illiterate intervention suggests that he was right.

In my opinion, as I have long argued at PakTeaHouse, a wonderful place till recently, Indian moderates should police the place and take care of Indian members of the lunatic fringe, similarly Pakistani moderates with the Pakistani lunatic fringe, and now I find the opportunity to suggest that Chinese moderates should do so with their own.

I know that this is not practical without moderators' powers. I know that the site owners and administrators sometimes let a controversy go on in other to draw in numbers of viewers, all curious to know what is going on.

There's no harm in dreaming dreams of our own.:-)

I amleaving this thread until this lout goes away.

rediff.com: rediff.com Special: Who was to blame for the 1962 war? Was it India or China who initiated the conflict?

Check this article, it explains who REALLY started the war.

The article is by your beloved Rediff, and even they admit that India was the aggressor

And Even wikipedia agrees Nehru started the war first by initiating the Forward Policy

Events leading to the Sino-Indian War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Furthermore India has no claim to Arunachal Pradesh, what language do the people speak here? They speak Tibetan, they look Tibetan they are Tibetan.

Why does India claim Arunachal Pradesh? because it was SIGNED OVER TO BRITAIN.

Why would Tibet sign over their own land for free?

McMahon Line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, Tibet refused to recognize the boundaries drawn by these treaties[citation needed]. British forces led by Sir Francis Younghusband invaded Tibet in 1904 and imposed a treaty on the Tibetans.


Because the British FORCED them to at gunpoint.

This land was originally was owned by Tibet, who was PART OF CHINA. Tibet signed it over the Britain.


SO WHY THE HELL DOES INDIA GET THIS PIECE OF LAND? WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE TIBETAN!?!?
 
Originally Posted by Chinaownseverything
Do these people look Indian or Chinese?

Tell me; do they look Chinese or Malay or Indonesian or Cambodian or Hong or Burmese or Mizo or Naga or Meitei or Khamba or Gurkha or.... ?
Are you a "Photo-Anthropologist" ?!

This land is being fought over by India and China. Based on historical claims.

Just look at their eyes and you can see that they are of mongoloid race while the indians are caucasoid race.

Just because part of Tibet used to belong to Britain does not mean it belong to India. Or does the USA belong to India along with Australia and Canada?
 
Ah! Just when I was wondering if I was dreaming. Just when it looked so bizarre and unreal, being able to discuss a sensitive topic with knowledgeable people offering sober and sensible inputs on both sides.

Thank you, Chineownseverything, for reassuring me and bringing me awake once again.

@Cardsharp
@Chauism

A member, 'Milestogo', exasperated by Indian teenage idiots each with access to a keyboard, a broadband connection and a wonderfully vacant mind engaging in verbal battles with their Pakistani, sometimes with their Chinese counterparts, suggested that we should discuss these matters in a restricted room.

This latest illiterate intervention suggests that he was right.

In my opinion, as I have long argued at PakTeaHouse, a wonderful place till recently, Indian moderates should police the place and take care of Indian members of the lunatic fringe, similarly Pakistani moderates with the Pakistani lunatic fringe, and now I find the opportunity to suggest that Chinese moderates should do so with their own.

I know that this is not practical without moderators' powers. I know that the site owners and administrators sometimes let a controversy go on in other to draw in numbers of viewers, all curious to know what is going on.

There's no harm in dreaming dreams of our own.:-)

I amleaving this thread until this lout goes away.

Why can you not disprove my arguments? Even your beloved Reddit says that Indians are wrong.

Even history says you are wrong, these lands have always belonged to tibet never once in history to India.
 
Originally Posted by Chinaownseverything
"Just look at their eyes and you can see that they are of mongoloid race"

THE EYES HAVE IT ! THE EYES HAVE IT ! THE EYES HAVE IT !!!!
The motion is passed.
 
I genuinely want to know what Indian members here think about the 1962 war. Please be frank, my feelings won't be hurt and I'm not likely to get offended. I really want to get the Indian perspective on it as a student of history and perspectives.

Was the 1962 war a result of China stabbing India in the back?

What was the sequence of event that lead to the war?

Was Nehru's fault?

Do Indians think there are parallels to the reported incursion recently?

Thanks in advance for any reply
Nehru's fault in addition to China stabbing India in the back.
Both the countries agreed to withdraw large troops from the border,India did it immediately(That is Nehru's fault) just then China back stabbed us and raged war.
So both reasons are satisfied here.
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Military Forum Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom