@Dungeness
I really am not interested. I was amused; now I am bored.
China did give India a 3 week head start on its intention to build the road, and India failed to respond through diplomatic channel before taking military action.
It is not clear how you know so intimately what transpired. It is also not clear on what grounds India should have responded when the dispute was between Bhutan and China, unless it is your presumption that an intimation to India was in effect an intimation to Bhutan, with whom China has no direct diplomatic relations. Even in that case, until the Bhutanese themselves had taken a view, it was not open to India to do anything.
Before and after the standoff, what Indian Army face across the border was/is Chinese, not Bhutanese troop. So the argument of "dispute territory" was nothing but lame excuse.
A puzzling wording. It sounds as if you are saying that the Indian Army faced the PLA, and did not face the Bhutanese Army. Presumably you mean that it was the Indian Army facing the PLA, and the Bhutanese did not face the PLA. Possibly; but in what way does that make disputed territory a weak excuse? The whole point of an Indian presence is to supply the muscle that Bhutan lacks; how does that spill over into deciding on behalf of Bhutan what is disputed and what is not?
Doval resorted to a typical logic fallacy in responding to his Chinese counterpart when he failed to answer a straight forward question, had the so called "inside story" to be believed. It is a display of low level street smart that somehow so many Indian members are taking pride for.
On the contrary, that is precisely the crux of the matter. I am not a Doval fan - the contrary, in fact - but the purported exchange is precisely the question that China needs to be asked about the nine-dash line. Why is it low-level street smart when one side uses such word play, and high level statesmanship when artificially concocted maps are thrust on all parties by one?
There is no any evidence for public record that Bhutan had asked Indian to intervene.
Why should there be any public record? These are not matters to be decided in a town house meeting, these are communications at responsible levels, and not meant for broadcasting.
So Indian troop did not have a justification to enter the area on behalf of Bhutan.
Weak. The justification is based on Bhutan's request, and that did not, and does not have to be communicated at a press conference.
India shouldn't flip flop between per Bhutan's request or per its own security concern of "chicken neck". It is dishonest.
Where is the flip-flop? What everybody commenting on the subject has said is that on top of the dispute being addressed by coercive force by one disputant, there is also a geo-political threat. The threat added an edge to the action, it was not the motivation for the action. Which part of that do you find it difficult to understand?
Being anti-establishment doesn't mean either right or wrong, considering current BJP government itself is the result of anti-Congress-establishment. You can't really discount his points based on this alone.
No, it doesn't mean right or wrong. If you had read carefully, you would have seen that I approve of this, as a democracy needs these mavericks to counter the establishment. I discount his posts not on his anti-establishment attitude, but on the distortion that creeps into his articles, a distortion beyond anti-establishment positioning, which by itself would not have been cautionary.
Sorry to hear your story that you and your family have been through under goons, which itself indicates that something have gone wrong in your country.
That is self-evident. But that does not mean that all other reasoning has to be suspended. It is not RSS thinking influencing me, it is a bewilderment at China's inexorable pressure on all neighbours on all sides, excepting Russia, Mongolia, and North Korea, perhaps also Myanmar, under the present regime, and a relief that at least in one case, it failed.
I would not have engaged with you had you not assumed Chinese mus be "frustrated", or "butthurt" per your countrymen, by India's "victory". I just wanted to tell you what I, an independent thinking overseas Chinese, have observed.
Fair enough. When you make statements, those are to be taken seriously, and I do take them seriously. It is just that in this case, I was not bothered to engage with the deeper issues, but merely amused - I am getting quite tired of explaining this, and wish I had not mentioned that word at all - at the frenetic Chinese netizen reaction. And I do not see it as India's victory; for that matter, even the Government of India does not project it as an Indian victory, it is only the tabloid media and the Indian fringe elements, such as Internet fan-boys, who do.
