PDA

View Full Version : India Vs. China (borderline War)



Pages : [1] 2 3

Kontakt Era
29 Oct 04,, 05:05
Hi im new to this forum. My name is Michael. I just wanted to know what would happen in a borderline war between india and china. I am an american, but my parents are indian. I would appreciate it if anyone who is Chinese or Indian replies, he will not bash either ones country, just answer my question, if you are so kind.

lemontree
29 Oct 04,, 18:19
Kontakt

You will have to read about past conflict (1962) and skirmishes (1967), that have taken place between India and China, to get an idea about the security concerns of these two nations. A lot of vital info has been kept secret by both the nations. I have been trying to study the reasons, policies and military history of both the govts that led to the past war. It is very difficult as most of the Chinese information is not in english, and being an Indian I have no access to a translator to read those documents, and a lot of Indian info is still secret.

However, ask some questions and I will try and do justice to them. Your present question is too general, be a little more specific. BTW I am Indian.

hammer
29 Oct 04,, 19:11
Hi lemontree i understand you were an officer in the Indian army. cheers!! anyway can you give me some info about the 1967 border skirmishes? what was the chinese motive then and what actually happened and what made them change their mind ? thanks

Officer of Engineers
29 Oct 04,, 23:33
Hi im new to this forum. My name is Michael. I just wanted to know what would happen in a borderline war between india and china. I am an american, but my parents are indian. I would appreciate it if anyone who is Chinese or Indian replies, he will not bash either ones country, just answer my question, if you are so kind.

My view - A whole bunch of people are going to die over some bragging rights over a few pieces of rock that no one in their right mind would want. Which is precisely why both armies do not want a fight. The politicians, however, ...

Strictly from an academic PoV, the InA is in somewhat of a superior position than the Chinese. Not enough to conquer Tibet but enough to take the fight to the Chinese. Whether they can win is another question but the fight would not be on Indian territory.

zulu
30 Oct 04,, 09:38
Kontakt

You will have to read about past conflict (1962) and skirmishes (1967),

can you provide some details of 1967 skirmishes.

Kontakt Era
31 Oct 04,, 00:33
nO, I DONT WANNA KNOW ABOUT THE PAST WARS, CAUSE I KNOW WHAT IT WAS LIKE. i WANT TO KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN A CURRENT WAR BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES, NOT THE POLITICS. I KNOW INDIA HAS A SLIGHTLY SUPERIOR ARMY, AND THE CHINESE ARMY IS MADE UP OF WEAK WEAPONS AND WELL DISCIPLINED FARMERS (THE ARMY IS HUGE THOUGH).


i TALK TO A LOT OF SOLDIERS, MAINLY COLONELS IN THE RUSSIAN AND INDIAN ARMY. THEY TELL ME INDIA WOULD WIN BY A LONGSHOT.

s_qwert63
31 Oct 04,, 01:20
I doubt India would win "by a longshot", the terrain on the frontier is horrible so a quick and decisive war is almost impossible to achieve. Both countries would also be able to commit a lot of troops to the fight, since both have nearly indespensable human resources.
Heavy weapons will also be hard to deploy because of the mountainous terrain and the Air Forces would also have a tough time, as well as tanks.
So it will be mostly down to infantry, so expect a scenario similair to World War I.

Kontakt Era
31 Oct 04,, 01:25
I Dont Think India Or China Will Draft For A War. Its Not Going To Be A Long War, Because No One Will Advance Past The Competed Territory. But, Who Do U Think Would Win In The End? Like I Said Before The Colonels In The Russian And Indian Army Say India Will Win Due To The Better Training Of India's Soldiers. It Will Just Be A Series Of Firefights.

mijkoning
31 Oct 04,, 03:03
:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

i think we have a troll here.

ajaybhutani
31 Oct 04,, 16:22
In the IAF vs PLAAf thread started by me ther was some discussion about the Possible Chineese strategy in case of war and the indian one. Though the indian troops might be better trained but i think the chineese hav an edge in cutting down the supply lines of the indian soldiers ( they have loads of Missiles to do the job while the indians are not hta good since prithvi has a pthetic range for china and agni';s induction isnt there in considerable numbers (missiles are usually produced only at 10-20 units a year. and agnis induction started recetly ). Though IAF is quite Potent but the chineese already ahve a lot of Air defence (in teh form of domestically produced derivative of S300 's) .In my opinion its gonna be a bloody war but we cant really decide which side will have an edge.In teh end it might depend upon teh strategies used by the generals of teh two forces which might tilt the war in any directions.

ajaybhutani
31 Oct 04,, 18:17
Though the navies cannot fight together due to their incapabilities to show power at faraway distances but the indian navy can disrupt the chineese oil supply lines. and can have an edge in the longer duration borderline war.The other source of oil for China is russia and i guess russians would prefer to keep their supply at teh same rate and not increase it (at least indians ca pose that much influence on russians).
If the war lasts for a few days it will be a now win situation but if there are continues low intensity border skirmishes then indians can use their trump card of blokcing chineese oil supplies to control the chineese.

lemontree
01 Nov 04,, 07:14
In the eventuality of a conflict, it will all boil down to numerical superiority at the point of strike. The terrain in the Arunachal and Ladhak sectors is a little different. With respect to deployment of assets like armour etc.

It will basically be an infantry and arty war, with the air force of either side giving air support and hitting tactical and stratigic targets. Fighting in mountains will eat up a lot of troops on either side, and casualties will be enormous.

Indians could hit the rear echlons of the PLA by certain guerilla units specifically raised for those tasks, and cause considerable confusion.

But I doubt that it would be a decisive war.

lemontree
01 Nov 04,, 07:16
can you provide some details of 1967 skirmishes.

Zulu, google up on "Chola Incident", you will get some idea of the skirmish.

dabrownguy
01 Nov 04,, 08:11
who did u speak to. btw put more credit into your claims.-konkact era

guys. Which side will the kill ratio favour? I think India in the long run. The troops are no idoits and spent years training on terrian.

lemontree
01 Nov 04,, 08:27
guys. Which side will the kill ratio favour? I think India in the long run. The troops are no idoits and spent years training on terrian.

Its also the question if the objectives will be achived. The Indians had a better kill ratio in the Ladhak sector in the '62 conflict (we lost approx 156 or so dead; PLA cas unknown but 'believed' to be much more than ours). Be we did not win the war.

hammer
01 Nov 04,, 08:47
lemontree,
how effective SFF would be incase of a longterm war ? i mean since all the tibetans in the SFF rightnow have probably never seen Tibet . they not are "locals" anymore in tibet.

lemontree
01 Nov 04,, 09:03
lemontree,
how effective SFF would be incase of a longterm war ? i mean since all the tibetans in the SFF rightnow have probably never seen Tibet . they not are "locals" anymore in tibet.

Links are maintained. They can mingle with the local population and will (may?) get their support. Depends on the situation at that time. But max that they can do is tie up crutial PLA troops in sectors where InA will make a thrust/advance.
They can only be used for a short while, sustainance will not be much as the PLA will crackdown on them. They can only be used in the manner the 'Mukti Bhani' were used in East Pakistan in 1971.

Davis_Chan
01 Nov 04,, 19:01
Hi im new to this forum. My name is Michael. I just wanted to know what would happen in a borderline war between india and china. I am an american, but my parents are indian. I would appreciate it if anyone who is Chinese or Indian replies, he will not bash either ones country, just answer my question, if you are so kind.


hey i found some informations for this topic.As a chinese,i think this report is objective:



Forty years ago, the Indian nation was convulsed by fear and eventual humiliation as its army was vanquished by the Chinese People's Liberation Army in a bitter and cold battle in the Northeast.

Forty years later, India has repaired its relationship with the Chinese to some extent, but those wounds have not been forgotten.

Excuses have been thrown up for the military debacle. India was ill prepared; it believed in non-violence; it trusted the Chinese and in 'Hindi-Chini bhai bhai'. Fingers have been pointed, most famously at then prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, defence minister Krishna Menon, and Lieutenant General B N Kaul, who was in charge of the army on India's eastern frontier.

After the war, India claimed that China was occupying about 33,000 square kilometres of its territory in the Aksai Chin region of Ladakh. China claimed that India was occupying 90,000 square kilometres; Beijing claims the entire state of Arunachal Pradesh as its territory.

Forty years later, few know the real story of what happened, what went wrong. Successive governments have refused to release the Henderson-Brooks report that investigated the lapses of 1962.

Though the two Asian giants have tried to mend their relations over the decades, several issues remain unresolved: the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile in India; China's non-recognition of Sikkim's merger with India; the nuclear tests in 1998 by India; and India's allegation that China is arming Pakistan, including the latter's nuclear programme.

http://us.rediff.com/news/indochin.htm

lemontree
02 Nov 04,, 07:28
After the war, India claimed that China was occupying about 33,000 square kilometres of its territory in the Aksai Chin region of Ladakh. China claimed that India was occupying 90,000 square kilometres; Beijing claims the entire state of Arunachal Pradesh as its territory.

Davis

Yes there is a disagreement on the borders. However, the little that I could research on from the ancient maps of the Chinese/Tibetan emipres, Arunachal was never within the kingdoms of either China but some portions of the Kemang/Towang would have been under the Tibetan rulers at some time. Similarly with Aksai Chin, it is a Platue that was required for a strategic road to link Tibet with Sinkiang, so Mao had got it occupied. If you see the terrain and mounitanous layout of Aksai Chin, it seems unlikely that Titebans ever controlled that region. Even for that matter the Dogra kings of Kashmir would have had very little influence over there due to its remoteness and lack of habitation. It would have been a sort of no mans land during ancient times, only used as transit by traders going/coming from Kashgar.

If the Mchmohan Line was unacceptable to Mao and he needed Aksai Chin for a road, he should have initiated negotiations, instead he action and Nehru's reaction has led to 42 years of suspicion and bad blood that could have been avoided.

Davis_Chan
02 Nov 04,, 10:29
Davis

Yes there is a disagreement on the borders. However, the little that I could research on from the ancient maps of the Chinese/Tibetan emipres, Arunachal was never within the kingdoms of either China but some portions of the Kemang/Towang would have been under the Tibetan rulers at some time. Similarly with Aksai Chin, it is a Platue that was required for a strategic road to link Tibet with Sinkiang, so Mao had got it occupied. If you see the terrain and mounitanous layout of Aksai Chin, it seems unlikely that Titebans ever controlled that region. Even for that matter the Dogra kings of Kashmir would have had very little influence over there due to its remoteness and lack of habitation. It would have been a sort of no mans land during ancient times, only used as transit by traders going/coming from Kashgar.

If the Mchmohan Line was unacceptable to Mao and he needed Aksai Chin for a road, he should have initiated negotiations, instead he action and Nehru's reaction has led to 42 years of suspicion and bad blood that could have been avoided.

hey,lemontree.i got your main idea but not clearly in some details.

i am SURE that what our government told us about the war in 1962 are different.What I learned from history in highschool told me the McMahon line which made by an english only recognized by Indian and local Tibet government,The central government of China rejected the McMahon line,including Republic of China(1911-1949) and People's Republic of China.

The trigger of the war in 1962 was India attacked the China-control-region first,then China have to fight back.This war we chinese called "self-defence war towards India",several minutes ago i just surfed some Indian website about this war,i found it's different from chinese:)

in addtion,i have a question to you. I heard some indian believe Tibet do not belong to China.and India holds it. Is that ture?

lemontree
02 Nov 04,, 12:00
hey,lemontree.i got your main idea but not clearly in some details.

in addtion,i have a question to you. I heard some indian believe Tibet do not belong to China.and India holds it. Is that ture?

What our govt. tell the people is far away from the truth.

I don't know where you have read about the Indian views on Tibet. But the present belief is that China owns Tibet, the difference is only on the portions of Aksai Chin and some portions of Arunachal.

When you were taught (in school) that India attacked China, it must have been the 'forward policy' of deploying troops near the border. If there was anything else do let me know, so we can discuss it. The only 'attacking' that Indians had done was in helping (along with CIA) the Tibetan insurgents to carry out attacks on the PLA. Beyond that the Indian army was so neglected by Nehru that it could bearly attempt any operations in mountains without any infrastructure.

lemontree
02 Nov 04,, 12:27
Davis

Please read an extract of Tibetan history from the lonely planet web site, it has certain portions of history that may have not been included in the current Chinese school text books for obvious reason.

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/north_east_asia/tibet/history.htm


....When he died in 1682, the Tibetan government encountered succession problems: the hastily-enthroned sixth Dalai Lama was noted for his 'unbridled licentiousness'. At the same time, relations with the new Chinese Manchu Qing Dynasty quickly soured and in 1705 Mongol forces descended on Lhasa, capturing the Dalai Lama. The choice of his successor was just as controversial. He was deposed during the invasion of a rival group of Mongols in 1717, who were ousted in turn by the Chinese, who brought the seventh Dalai Lama with them. The Chinese were received as liberators by the Tibetans, and Emperor Kang Xi declared Tibet a protectorate of China - a historical precedent for the Communist takeover nearly 250 years later.

We are aware that Tibet has been a protectorate of China since approx 300 years.


The Brits lost official contact with Tibet, but, fearing Russian expansion into Central Asia, decided to nip Russian designs in the bud. A 1903 expedition discovered that the Dalai Lama had fled to Mongolia with a Russian 'adviser'. However, an Anglo-Tibetan convention was signed via negotiations with a lama whom the Dalai Lama had appointed as regent in his absence. The accord implied that Tibet was a sovereign power with the right to make treaties of its own. The Manchus objected and in 1906 the British signed a second accord that recognized China's suzerainty over Tibet.

If the Manchus signed the second accord then they would have accepted the Mchmohan Line.

lemontree
02 Nov 04,, 12:29
Davis

Lonely plant is an independant source and gives facts as they are. I hope you trust it as an unbiased source.

Davis_Chan
02 Nov 04,, 17:12
Davis

Lonely plant is an independant source and gives facts as they are. I hope you trust it as an unbiased source.

Lemontree,thanks for your informations,i have read it.Basically i agree with what the article said.i aslo check some resourses.the evidence shows that the history between Tibet and China was even longer than you imagined.

There were used to be a closely relationship between Tibet and China since the Li Shi Ming, great king in Tang dynasty China,had his daughter princess Wen Cheng got marriage with the King in Tibet about 640.BC. And in 821.BC China and Tibet signed a documentary to be ally,pledged maintaining the friendship forever.

Mongolia ruled Tibet since 12th and then Ming dynasty inherited the Yuan since 13th who aslo inherited the role to govern Tibet.I think what u mentioned above that Tibet has been a protectorate of China since approx 300 years,is not exactly.

As for the Manchus line,i don't know much about it.But most chinese believe that British government was a trouble maker : Kashmir,Manchus line and even Hongkong today.

lemontree
03 Nov 04,, 07:09
As for the Manchus line,i don't know much about it.But most chinese believe that British government was a trouble maker : Kashmir,Manchus line and even Hongkong today.

Well, most of the bitter conflicts were their 'gift', like the Kashmir porblem, the Israel-Palistine imbroglio. But the border conflict between India and China was the undoing of both the govts at that time. Both nations were new and the leaders (Nehru/Mao) should have addressed this issue. I feel Nehru should have taken the initiative when PLA moved into Tibet.

lemontree
03 Nov 04,, 10:59
Davis

Some old Indian army pics, these are about 3 yrs after the '62 border war. Below is patrol getting ready to move, near Nathu la (eastern sector). Notice the change in the rifles from .303 to L1A1 SLR.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1960s/Images/Nathu02.jpg

lemontree
03 Nov 04,, 11:28
Indian gunners struggle with a gun on a mucky and slippery road, in the eastern sector (1962). Its a well known pic here in India.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1962War/Images/Artillery.jpg

Davis_Chan
03 Nov 04,, 16:37
Sino-India War in 1962


http://lzlx.ncqn.com/UploadFiles/200442115181371.jpg

Davis_Chan
03 Nov 04,, 16:59
It's my pleasure to have conversation with you,you are a rational guy,Lemontree:)

i believe indian and chinese do not consider each other as a treat.Resently,as i know,China supports India's bid for UNSC.I think it's a good news for both of our country.

Kontakt Era
04 Nov 04,, 05:09
ARE U KIDDING, THEY WOULDNT DARE TO FIRE BALLISTIC MISSILES! if THEY WOULDE THE U.S. WOULD JUMP IN FASTER THAN U CAN SAY "CAT IN A HAT." I TALK TO INDIAN, RUSSIAN, AND AMERICAN COLONELS. I DONT WANT TO PROVIDE U WITH NAMES, BUT MOST OF THEM SAY INDIA WOULD WIN. INDIAN SOLDIERS ARE WELL TRAINED ON THE TERRIAN, MUCH BETTER THAN THE CHINESE. CHINA MAY HAVE WEAPONS IN A 10:1 RATIO TOWARD INDIA. BUT U HAVE TO REMEMBER ITS THE MOUNTAINS, U CANT JUST FIRE THEM RAPIDLY. THE WHOLE WAR WOULD CONSIST OF FIRE FIGHTS AND SMALL ARITLLERY. TO TELL U THE TRUTH, I DONT REALLY THINK EITHER BORDERLINES ARE EXTREMELY PROTECTED. THEY ARE BOTH SO LARGE, AND TREACHEROUS.

lemontree
04 Nov 04,, 06:09
....BUT MOST OF THEM SAY INDIA WOULD WIN....

Warfare can never be predicted, funny things happen on the battlefield which can make a side win or loose. The point is that today the conventional arms equation between India and China is such that neither will attempt a planned war. Frankly, today, India does not have an offensive capability against China, its only defensive, and similarly China too does not have the offensive capability against India that it had 42 yrs ago. Remember in mountains you require a ratio of at least 6:1 against the opponent to launch any offensive capability.

OoE and Ray will give you better discourse on the essentail elements of mountain warfare.

lemontree
04 Nov 04,, 06:25
It's my pleasure to have conversation with you,you are a rational guy,Lemontree:)


The feeling is mutual. The pic you posted above is either of the Longju or Khenzemane incidents in August 1959, when PLA troops (coy plus strength) surrounded InA section posts and asked them to leave. Its quite well known pic.
Do you by any chance have more pics from the PLA about the border war, since our chaps were retreating (in the eastern sector) they did'nt fancy taking too many pics.

I think the Chinese support for the UNSC is mainly to strenghtenen understanding and to ensure that US and India do not "link up" for any anti-Chinese 'crusade' in the future either on Tiwan or any other issue that is of Chinese national intrest. Its a very good political/deplomatic move.

Kontakt Era
04 Nov 04,, 06:27
Actually China Has Weapons In A Ratio 10:1 Towards India. But, Their Weapons Are Pathetic. By The Way, Do U Know Thomas John. Hes A Para-trooper, A Captain. What Are U Anyways?

lemontree
04 Nov 04,, 06:34
Actually China Has Weapons In A Ratio 10:1 Towards India. But, Their Weapons Are Pathetic. By The Way, Do U Know Thomas John. Hes A Para-trooper, A Captain. What Are U Anyways?

I'm not aquainted with Thomas John. However, I was a Captain in the Indian Army, and have extensive experience in mountain/jungle warfare.

When you say 'weapons ratio of 10:1', what are you implying?..I'm talking in terms of infantry assets that have to be deployed in mountains to launch any offensive/defensive operation. Deployment of heavy weapons, without the ability to exploit the advantages on ground is of little use.

Kontakt Era
04 Nov 04,, 06:36
Well, Every 1 Indian That Will Be Up In The Mountains, There Will Be 5 Chinese. Say That It Would Be A Small Skirmish Of Mortars. Wouldnt The Chinese Pretty Much Destroy U Guys?

Kontakt Era
04 Nov 04,, 06:39
Oh Yeah, If U Dont Mind Saying, Whats Ur Name, And Are U A Staff Sergeant Of The Forum? Is It Just A Name, Or Does It Mean Something? Im Michael, Im 14 And I Live In The U.s. But My Parents Are Indian. India Is Really Gross Though, U Guys Need To Fix Ur Social Skills, Cause India Looks Like.....just Wow.....

Kontakt Era
04 Nov 04,, 06:42
I Mean, Tried To Look On The Better Side....i Really Did, But When I Started To Eat, And A Slumb Begger Comes Up To Me And Says " Blah Blah Blah", I Think Thats What He Said Even. I Wanted To Throw Up Man! No Offense But I Just Think U Guys Should Hand Over The 400,000 Slump People To The Paks. Say Its A Gift From Us To U. They Can Use Them For Target Practice In The Desert. Maybe Then Their Fighting Skills Will Pick Up. I Know Hwta I Just Said Was Brutal, But China Actually Is Doing The Right Thing With The Abbortion.

Kontakt Era
04 Nov 04,, 06:43
I Meant 400.000,000, Woops Sorry

lemontree
04 Nov 04,, 07:09
Well, Every 1 Indian That Will Be Up In The Mountains, There Will Be 5 Chinese. Say That It Would Be A Small Skirmish Of Mortars. Wouldnt The Chinese Pretty Much Destroy U Guys?

No, its more like 2 Chinese against 1 Indian at present. Skirmish of mortars and arty is not simple as it was ages ago. There are gun locating radars that can locate the enemy mortar/gun locations and would destroy/silence/neutralize them. They can destory us with same ease as we can destory them.

lemontree
04 Nov 04,, 07:14
Oh Yeah, If U Dont Mind Saying, Whats Ur Name, And Are U A Staff Sergeant Of The Forum? Is It Just A Name, Or Does It Mean Something?

The ranks in the forum depend on the number of posts that you have made here, it means nothing much.



Im Michael, Im 14 And I Live In The U.s. But My Parents Are Indian. India Is Really Gross Though, U Guys Need To Fix Ur Social Skills, Cause India Looks Like.....just Wow.....

Social skills improve with education. 70-80% of India is rural, we can't make them gentlemen and ladies over night. It takes time.

lemontree
04 Nov 04,, 07:23
I Mean, Tried To Look On The Better Side....i Really Did, But When I Started To Eat, And A Slumb Begger Comes Up To Me And Says " Blah Blah Blah", I Think Thats What He Said Even. I Wanted To Throw Up Man!

Then I suggest that next time you eat, please do so in a restaurant or cafe and don't eat from road side koisks. :)



No Offense But I Just Think U Guys Should Hand Over The 400,000 Slump People To The Paks. Say Its A Gift From Us To U. They Can Use Them For Target Practice In The Desert. Maybe Then Their Fighting Skills Will Pick Up. I Know Hwta I Just Said Was Brutal, But China Actually Is Doing The Right Thing With The Abbortion.

Those 400,000,000, people are my country men, who are not as previlaged as you have been. My sister and bother-in-laws live in the US, they keep asking me to move there. But I have refused, its my duty to contibute to the growth of my nation, however difficult and frustrating it may be.

When I faced the Pakistanis on the border it did for these slum dwellers as much as for the millionair sitting in his plush mansion. If the Americans were just as selfish then they would'nt have permitted you and my sister from making the US their home. With that argument the US/UK/Canada and other developed nations should stop giving social security to the unemployed poor, just leave them to beg on the streets (would'nt you say so!).

lemontree
04 Nov 04,, 07:30
But China Actually Is Doing The Right Thing With The Abbortion.

China is doing nothing of that sort. They had the one child norm earlier as they had a huge population problem - more mouths to feed means more money. But now they are rethinking that as the present population is aging and there are few young people to work. A nation is built and defended by its young not the old.

Officer of Engineers
04 Nov 04,, 08:31
ARE U KIDDING, THEY WOULDNT DARE TO FIRE BALLISTIC MISSILES! if THEY WOULDE THE U.S. WOULD JUMP IN FASTER THAN U CAN SAY "CAT IN A HAT." I TALK TO INDIAN, RUSSIAN, AND AMERICAN COLONELS. I DONT WANT TO PROVIDE U WITH NAMES, BUT MOST OF THEM SAY INDIA WOULD WIN. INDIAN SOLDIERS ARE WELL TRAINED ON THE TERRIAN, MUCH BETTER THAN THE CHINESE. CHINA MAY HAVE WEAPONS IN A 10:1 RATIO TOWARD INDIA. BUT U HAVE TO REMEMBER ITS THE MOUNTAINS, U CANT JUST FIRE THEM RAPIDLY. THE WHOLE WAR WOULD CONSIST OF FIRE FIGHTS AND SMALL ARITLLERY. TO TELL U THE TRUTH, I DONT REALLY THINK EITHER BORDERLINES ARE EXTREMELY PROTECTED. THEY ARE BOTH SO LARGE, AND TREACHEROUS.

Well, Son, I was a Canadian Forces Lieutenant-Colonel and Ray here was an Indian Army Brigadier and we've had these conversations all over the place, including with my American and British Allied senior officers and general officers. Not to say you're lying but your understanding is extremely limited to the point of falsehood.

Are the Indians better trained? Possibly but that doesn't allow them to overcome logistical hurdles that is pretty well damned treacherous. You're fighting the terrain as much as the bad guys. A fighting man needs two gallons of water a day regardless of conditions if he is to maintain top performance. No one is going to haul around that much water on foot.

Also, you have an extremely limited understanding of weapons. Chinese weapons pathetic? Would you like me to take a shot at you from 100 metres away with a Chinese weapon? Is the INAS rifle better than the Type-90 Bulpup? Maybe but is the the Type-90 good enough for me to drop a man at 100 metres. Yeah, that it is.

ajaybhutani
04 Nov 04,, 09:02
i still cant digest taht chineese have infantry/artillary superiority of 10:1 over the indians.Sounds real dangerous for the indians.

lemontree
04 Nov 04,, 09:57
i still cant digest taht chineese have infantry/artillary superiority of 10:1 over the indians.Sounds real dangerous for the indians.

ajay
Micheal is a 14 yrs kid, please don't take his military related comments seriously. He reminds me of myself, at 14 (after reading Commando comics and some mil history) even I thought that I was a 'Heinz Guderian'. :)

ajaybhutani
04 Nov 04,, 12:31
I Mean, Tried To Look On The Better Side....i Really Did, But When I Started To Eat, And A Slumb Begger Comes Up To Me And Says " Blah Blah Blah", I Think Thats What He Said Even. I Wanted To Throw Up Man! No Offense But I Just Think U Guys Should Hand Over The 400,000 Slump People To The Paks. Say Its A Gift From Us To U.
Those 400,000 slump people have the same fundamental rights in india as any other indian citizen.Well u are American Indian and ur reaction is obvoius but frankly its just a way to look at it . i m from a well to do family and about to finish my education.I look at these people with an eye of mercy as they never got an opporunity in their life to do somethin.. and i was lucky (just as mahatma gandhi said whenever in life u feel depressed remember the face of the poorest man u ever saw.U'll know how better u are.though there are others like you who look at them as a thorn in their feet.i'll just say that u r lucky to be born in a well to do family and not in a slum in delhi/bombay.


They Can Use Them For Target Practice In The Desert. Maybe Then Their Fighting Skills Will Pick Up. I Know Hwta I Just Said Was Brutal, But China Actually Is Doing The Right Thing With The Abbortion.
about the chineese abortions. Well my friend ask a mother who is foced to abort her child how cruel it is.??

Davis_Chan
04 Nov 04,, 16:11
well,Chinese abortion in sino-india war was caused by two reasons:
1.support line and support ability were extremely limited,which conditions had aslo happened in Korean war.An unindustrialization country lack of the capability to support continuous attack.
2.The main threat to China was not India in 1962.China had a bad relationship with US and USSR, also Chiang Kai-shek government in Taiwan was hostile to Beijing government.

hammer
04 Nov 04,, 19:14
well,Chinese abortion in sino-india war was caused by two reasons:
1.support line and support ability were extremely limited,which conditions had aslo happened in Korean war.An unindustrialization country lack of the capability to support continuous attack.
2.The main threat to China was not India in 1962.China had a bad relationship with US and USSR, also Chiang Kai-shek government in Taiwan was hostile to Beijing government.

Chan, i dont think they are talking about the Chinese "Abortion" of war in 1962. :biggrin:

ajaybhutani
04 Nov 04,, 19:43
ajay
Micheal is a 14 yrs kid, please don't take his military related comments seriously. He reminds me of myself, at 14 (after reading Commando comics and some mil history) even I thought that I was a 'Heinz Guderian'. :)
i actually took it seriously that chineese have 10:1 edge and thats why a big shock. :biggrin:

hammer
04 Nov 04,, 19:56
i actually took it seriously that chineese have 10:1 edge and thats why a big shock. :biggrin:
i think that michael fellow is a troll . he is trying to start a flame war .

ajaybhutani
04 Nov 04,, 20:12
i think that michael fellow is a troll . he is trying to start a flame war .
Well i guess we can still take him like a 14 year old and be with it ;)

lemontree
05 Nov 04,, 07:28
well,Chinese abortion in sino-india war was caused by two reasons:
1.support line and support ability were extremely limited,which conditions had aslo happened in Korean war.An unindustrialization country lack of the capability to support continuous attack.....


Davis

Coming from you I think the analysis and speculation in Indian media was correct (about the reasons for PLA withdrawal in '62).

BTW, my reaserch reveals that Tawang was under Tibetan control till 1940, so China's claim on it is sort of legal. (I think this will shock many of my countrymen here). Read a USMC staff college paper on the '62 conflict. Its an unbiased research by a military professional.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm

But I have found nothing on PRC claims on Aksai Chin, on the contrary I have found old maps indicating Aksai Chin as part of the ruler of Kashmir 19th century. See the 1857 and 1893 maps. Many link dont open up, they seem to be blocked. (probably they contain info that is not in the intrest of either nation :confused: )
http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/india/indiamaps.htm

Davis_Chan
05 Nov 04,, 12:15
http://www.sinomaps.com/luntan/non-cgi/usr/22/22_35_27.gif

Davis_Chan
05 Nov 04,, 12:22
black:watershed line
green:Mcmahon line(in chine)
blue:Mcmahon line(no chine)
yellow frame:Marx Wald(translated from chinese pronunciation believe it belongs to China
red frame:internetional society believe it belongs to China.


http://www.cng.com.cn/BBS/uploadImages/200342619412168305.jpg


yellow:PLA attack path
red line:PLA arrived at 23.OCT
pink line:PLA arrived at 22.NOV
green point:chinese policement checkpoint after chinese troops withdrawed

lemontree
05 Nov 04,, 12:55
Davis,
What do the coloured lines indicate in the Arunachal maps, just elaborate a little? I don't read the chinese script?

I have enough material on the Towang sector but the maps of Aksai Chin are very hard to find. The map (of Aksai Chin) posted by you is a very simple and commonly available one. I have been hunting for a proper physical map, I did come across a satellite image but the markings were absent so I could not make head or tail of it.

Davis_Chan
05 Nov 04,, 13:01
Davis,
What do the coloured lines indicate in the Arunachal maps, just elaborate a little? I don't read the chinese script?

I have enough material on the Towang sector but the maps of Aksai Chin are very hard to find. The map (of Aksai Chin) posted by you is a very simple and commonly available one. I have been hunting for a proper physical map, I did come across a satellite image but the markings were absent so I could not make head or tail of it.

may be it is useful :)

(it's so large,i have to delect it.)

Davis_Chan
05 Nov 04,, 13:06
"Davis,
What do the coloured lines indicate in the Arunachal maps, just elaborate a little? I don't read the chinese script?"

i have something to do now,i will translated it into chinese,wait for a minutes

lemontree
05 Nov 04,, 13:14
Davis

I can understand PRC claims on Towang, but what is the basis of claims on the other eastern portions? Is it continuity of defence layout or ethnic similarity of inhabitants?
Records show that only the Towang district was under the Tibetans, and the British took it in 1940 fearing Chinese expansion, to give depth to Assam.

lemontree
05 Nov 04,, 13:18
Davis

That is a neat map, gives all the mountain features as well.

Davis_Chan
05 Nov 04,, 15:01
Davis

I can understand PRC claims on Towang, but what is the basis of claims on the other eastern portions? Is it continuity of defence layout or ethnic similarity of inhabitants?
Records show that only the Towang district was under the Tibetans, and the British took it in 1940 fearing Chinese expansion, to give depth to Assam.

lemontree.it's hard to say.what i know from the war in details were in some chinese military forum.i only know for chinese government,they rejected the exisitence of Mcmahon Line.There was a traditional line between India and Tibet for a very long time.Indian government believe the Mcmahon line is the real borderline between China and India.(m i right?)So India troops entered into the traditional line which was considered by PRC as an invasion.(i don't know it's true or not,it's the chinese majority's view to 1962 war)

i guess,as for PRC claims the other eastern portion,may be China believe it belong to herself,OR make the claim only for a positive position to the borderline negotiation.

Rahul
06 Nov 04,, 20:42
KONTAKT ERA, stop fooling around. You're nonsensical posts are giving a bad name to Americans like me who also are of Indian descent. Your posting about 400,0000000 Indians being poor or whatever such nonsense you were talking about is not really at all relevant to this discussion (and I must admit your ideas regarding them are barbarous to say the least) nor is your unfounded claims that Chinese weapons are any worse than Indian ones. Perhaps you're going through that "love-hate" relationship with the country that your parents came from that many a 2nd generation immigrant goes through. I'm not sure what exactly it is you're trying to say as the immature use of CAPITALS and the nonsense in your posts cloud any message you are trying to convey. Regardless, I suggest you don't use this forum to figure out that personal relationship of yours with India as it is a forum for serious discussion, not a place to waste space with jingoistic and immature drivel. When I was 14 (only 3 years ago), I didn't act like that whether I was talking about India's military, India's poor, or about anything that was a serious matter with other people. I would hope your parents taught you better manners than what you are showing now. I also hope and suggest that you stop flaming like this. In sum, grow up.

Kontakt Era
07 Nov 04,, 05:18
Dont Insult My Intelligence. It Is My Opinion, And I Am Entitled To One. Im Sorry I Expressed It To U, Ill Learn Next Time Not To. Yes I Know My Facts About Weapons. Dont Say I Dont Without Any Proof.

Kontakt Era
07 Nov 04,, 05:20
What Do U Mean? 4 Hundred Million Indians Are Poor. I Dont Get The Nonsense In It? Infact I Think There Is More Than 4 Hundred Million Right?

Kontakt Era
07 Nov 04,, 05:27
Isnt China Keeping The Poor Out Of The Cities Though? (important Cities Anyways) Howcome India Doesnt Move Them Out From The City Into The Wastelands? Oh Yeah, Howcome Cops Dont Get Guns? Lol

ajaybhutani
07 Nov 04,, 05:46
Dont Insult My Intelligence. It Is My Opinion, And I Am Entitled To One. Im Sorry I Expressed It To U, Ill Learn Next Time Not To. Yes I Know My Facts About Weapons. Dont Say I Dont Without Any Proof.
Well my fnd heres ur proof .
u did say that chineese have 10:1 advantage over indians in infantry warfare. did u give any proof for it?.Frankly its big nough a claim which if given without any validation can make all of have doubts on ur intelligece.Well the acts like these are bound to start flame wars which surely isnt wanted here.

ajaybhutani
07 Nov 04,, 05:58
What Do U Mean? 4 Hundred Million Indians Are Poor. I Dont Get The Nonsense In It? Infact I Think There Is More Than 4 Hundred Million Right?
Well well well. Even if there are 8 hundred million the point is they have equal rights as any other citizen of india. and u suggest us to consider 40% of our population as such a waste that it can be gifted to our enemies for free /for some shooting practice. What else do u expect frm us at least we are being more considerate in criticizing u.

ajaybhutani
07 Nov 04,, 06:05
Isnt China Keeping The Poor Out Of The Cities Though? (important Cities Anyways) Howcome India Doesnt Move Them Out From The City Into The Wastelands? Oh Yeah, Howcome Cops Dont Get Guns? Lol
What do u wanna say. If one day they start killing any poor who asks for bread whud india follow.
Well remember this - if u think that poor are a waste then my frnd u not the richest person in this world so as according to ur logic " remove the poor" lets kill a person if hes poor/not let him enter teh cities . Then my frnd one fine day it will be u who will be the poorest man in ur city and it will be ur turn to leave.

U get back only what to deliver or in terms of physics .
every action has equal and opposite reaction.

Rahul
07 Nov 04,, 16:35
Ajay, just ignore him. He is being immature and ridiculuous. That age limit you mentioned in another thread is starting to seem appealing.

KONTAKT-ERA, it is your lack of manners, your flaming, and your lack of facts that I am criticizing, not your opinions. There's a difference between flaming, SHOUTING (in netiquette, CAPITALS = SHOUTING) your opinions at everyone, and claiming things as fact that you cannot back up as opposed to expressing your opinions in reasonable, polite manner.

Also, regarding those millions of poor in India, I suggest you open a thread in the Social and Economic section or the South Asian Politics sub-section.

Now, how about getting back to the topic of an Indo-Chinese border war..eh? From India's perspective, I don't think that border is worth fighting over. I say let things be as they are. However, as China has been found to be complicit in what's going on in the N.East, India should kick into high gear infrastructure development there while simultaneously crushing the rebels. Airports should also be built there IMO to create more links with the region. That chicken's neck is vulnerable and India shouldn't let its guard down.

ajaybhutani
07 Nov 04,, 18:22
At this stage with chineese suporting india for UNSC permanent seat i guess relations are improving and frankly theresnt any major problem to worry about and again in any war neither india nor china has a significant edge and both of them are modernizing considerably taking into consideration each others plans .
So even in next few years (wth the proposed plans) there wont be one coming up with a significant edge with the other.

pinetreescanada
07 Nov 04,, 22:46
K ERA China is not keeping the poor out of the cities i just came from China to Canada 3 years ago and i'm 14. You do see beggers on the streets once in a month or so.
Also the Chinese uses relatively advanced Russian equipment. AK74s and T90s and T84s

zulu
08 Nov 04,, 09:46
Ajay, just ignore him. He is being immature and ridiculuous. That age limit you mentioned in another thread is starting to seem appealing.

KONTAKT-ERA, it is your lack of manners, your flaming, and your lack of facts that I am criticizing, not your opinions.

One cannot win a teenager in arguments on net. It's a waste of time.

ajaybhutani
08 Nov 04,, 13:46
K ERA China is not keeping the poor out of the cities i just came from China to Canada 3 years ago and i'm 14. You do see beggers on the streets once in a month or so.
Also the Chinese uses relatively advanced Russian equipment. AK74s and T90s and T84s
Well i beg to difer on this We had a discussion on this in some thread here (somethin like China a future superpower) where oen of the chineese actually admitted that it exists .though ina very onganized way .Lemme explain this. Lets take an example of india . Here anyone from any part of the country can one day stand up and go to some other part and start his life . He dsnt ahve to take any permission from anyone to do taht .Hes free to go anywhere .
Now look at china Here in the cities u ahve a limited numebr of immigrants that can come into the city in a year . No more so amongst the applicants a draw is done to select who comes in and who dsnt . Well thats the stadking difference since the chineese donot have a right to even travel & settle down freely in their own motherland.
when did chineese buy T90's ? I though they had a tank of their own some T98 or somthing. Another imp things tansk wont be of a great use in Himalyan terrain .Where will u use the tank. ?? Its all mountains and snow.
Well what chineese have as an edge is their good numerical strength in missiles that can be used to cut down supply lines.While the indians are better with their AF though not offering the same advantage,

pinetreescanada
09 Nov 04,, 05:23
Hey i'm a teenager and I'm rather flexible with things if you have facts.
I've never heard that part about not allowing you settle in specific cities but i'll do some research on that. The Chinese government shouldn't be so protective as not to post that up their official site.
The weapons part my point is Chinese weapons don't suck!

pinetreescanada
10 Nov 04,, 02:46
I was unable to find a website on it. I asked my dad and he never heard of it...

Franco Lolan
10 Nov 04,, 03:48
in no way are PRC weapons, as a generalization, poor in quality or performance.
in fact, they have surpassed US in a number of areas.

Officer of Engineers
10 Nov 04,, 04:34
in no way are PRC weapons, as a generalization, poor in quality or performance.
in fact, they have surpassed US in a number of areas.

Oh, for crying out loud, NAME ONE!

pinetreescanada
10 Nov 04,, 05:11
Oh, for crying out loud, NAME ONE!

lol I might be wrong but the Chinese made tanks that are based on Russian models are a well match for the M1A1 and 2 or perhaps surpasses them.
Generally, Chinese weapons aren't as well as the Americans but still up to world superpower standards.

Officer of Engineers
10 Nov 04,, 05:22
lol I might be wrong but the Chinese made tanks that are based on Russian models are a well match for the M1A1 and 2 or perhaps surpasses them.

Not even close and the Chinese themsevles never made such claims. Suggest you do some reading

The New Chinese Type 98 MBT: A Second Look Reveals More Details (http://www.china-defense.com/armor/type98-2/type98-2_1.html) by Maj (R) J Warford.


Generally, Chinese weapons aren't as well as the Americans but still up to world superpower standards.

Since there is only one world superpower, your statement is a contradiction.

The fact is that Chinese weapons fit Chinese needs, including financial constraints. They are good enough for Chinese needs but nowhere near what our battle reqs are.

Ray
10 Nov 04,, 09:25
Pine,

Though off topic.

They allow you to emigrate from China? As per the western stories in RD etc, they don't give the impression of a 'free' life.

Do let us know what is it there. Since you are a freshe migre, you would be more equipoised in views.

Intreging also is why did you quit China for Canada?

Franco Lolan
11 Nov 04,, 00:01
Officer of Engineers,
I read The New Chinese Type 98 MBT: A Second Look Reveals More Details by Maj (R) J Warford before, and I just read it again. I have not been able to find an area where the article states that it is inferior or "the Chinese themsevles never made such claims".

"NAME ONE! [area where they have surpassed]"

ok

Active Defense Systems on armor

Officer of Engineers
11 Nov 04,, 01:16
Active Defense Systems on armor

Do you mean ERA, though I don't know how you can state the Chinese are more effective? Otherwise, stop reading those Hong Kong fruity newspapers or their English translations.

pinetreescanada
11 Nov 04,, 02:15
Not even close and the Chinese themsevles never made such claims. Suggest you do some reading

The New Chinese Type 98 MBT: A Second Look Reveals More Details (http://www.china-defense.com/armor/type98-2/type98-2_1.html) by Maj (R) J Warford.



Since there is only one world superpower, your statement is a contradiction.

The fact is that Chinese weapons fit Chinese needs, including financial constraints. They are good enough for Chinese needs but nowhere near what our battle reqs are.

There is more than one world superpower but whatever that depends on how you see it.

Yes but still Chinese weapons are still pretty good.

Officer of Engineers
11 Nov 04,, 02:59
There is more than one world superpower but whatever that depends on how you see it.

Not this again. The United States is the ONLY world superpower.


Yes but still Chinese weapons are still pretty good.

Which does not surpasses American systems.

Franco Lolan
11 Nov 04,, 04:31
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/type-98.htm

http://www.madogre.com/Interviews/china_Tanks.htm

http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/Hard-kill.htm

Those kinds of Active Defense Systems

Officer of Engineers
11 Nov 04,, 05:18
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/type-98.htm

http://www.madogre.com/Interviews/china_Tanks.htm

http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/Hard-kill.htm

Those kinds of Active Defense Systems

The laser blinder?

HEHEHEHEHEHEHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It doesn't work and the Chinese have long since stop putting it on their tanks.

Kontakt Era
11 Nov 04,, 05:31
Well, chinese major cities do not permit villagers, the poor, or any other form of poverty. Obviously the poor that is already in there is there, and will stay there, but not completely exposed to the public, where as India's slumbs. Ive been to Couloun, Hong Kong, Bei Jing, and Tian Jin. I dont really you to correct me when i saw people try to enter the cities, and see them escorted out, when on sight. When they make it into the outskirts of the city, they get thrown out.

Kontakt Era
11 Nov 04,, 05:33
And im not saying china's army sucks, but its not the sharpest sword. THe weapons arent great, but arent tonka toys. China's army is catching up to the world in terms of weapons, and their soldiers are being propperly trained. The battalions are shortened for a more effective training and cooperation. It will take a while.

Kontakt Era
11 Nov 04,, 05:35
And lastly stop saying what i say is junk. Just cause im 14 doesnt mean my opinions arent valid. If u dont agree just say it, dont give a speech about ur self. Defending India is like defending rap music. Will it work? NO WAY! lol

Officer of Engineers
11 Nov 04,, 06:45
Officer of Engineers,
I read The New Chinese Type 98 MBT: A Second Look Reveals More Details by Maj (R) J Warford before, and I just read it again. I have not been able to find an area where the article states that it is inferior or "the Chinese themsevles never made such claims".

**** SIGH ****

Maj Warford went through extreme details showing you what we know of Chinese MBT developments. It is there to educate you. If you cannot judge for yourself when compared to the M1A2 or the Leo 2, then I am not about to get into that debate for you. There's another thread here that does just that.

World Affairs Board - M1A2 vs T-80U (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=69)

Franco Lolan
11 Nov 04,, 13:48
"The laser blinder?

HEHEHEHEHEHEHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It doesn't work and the Chinese have long since stop putting it on their tanks."

1-Why didn't it work?
2-how do you know they stopped placing on tanks?
3-I meant active defense systems also as in the plates that fire off to intercept incoming ATGMs. (I'm not referring to reactive armor)

Officer of Engineers
11 Nov 04,, 15:53
1-Why didn't it work?

It's too damn easy to put on a pair of sunglasses (ie, protective lense)


2-how do you know they stopped placing on tanks?

The new regts do not have these things anymore.


3-I meant active defense systems also as in the plates that fire off to intercept incoming ATGMs. (I'm not referring to reactive armor)

That thing? Not new and not solely Chinese. GM has been marketting the protective plate system since 2000. Does not make it any superior to ERA. Just more expensive.

dabrownguy
11 Nov 04,, 23:30
Reflective glass will do the trick. Its a stupid idea. When ever that active laser defence thing tries to blind a tank its just giving away its position. Its just saying SHOOT ME!

lemontree
12 Nov 04,, 14:37
Active Defense Systems on armor

You mean systems to defeat anti-tank weapons??

lemontree
12 Nov 04,, 14:44
Defending India is like defending rap music. Will it work? NO WAY! lol

I agree there should be rules about allowing kids in such forums? :mad:

Kontakt Era
15 Nov 04,, 03:13
Ha! lemontree ur a funny old man. I piss everyone off with my rude statements, dont take them seriously. Idk why, it just makes me laugh harder. SO......how old are u anyways?

Kontakt Era
15 Nov 04,, 03:15
Do the smoke grenades that are attached to the tanks actually work? Does it give the tank time to move away without getting seen? Cant the enemy just used thermal censors or night vision? They are meant to blind the other tank rigth? DOes it really work?

Kontakt Era
15 Nov 04,, 03:19
Lemontree, I can tell were gonna be good friends. So are u hindu or Catholic, or muslim, or somehting else? Im Catholic, wel....not really. Whats ur name? Im Michael

Ray
15 Nov 04,, 03:27
The Colonel is a informed person and his views and articles can be read in China Defense Forum, which is not a Red Chinese Board, but set up by some intellectual and ex military officers of the US and Canada.

http://www.china-defense.com

Do visit it and read up there all that you want to know about China, its Defense systems, its policies and anything and nearly everything.

lemontree
15 Nov 04,, 06:50
Ha! lemontree ur a funny old man. I piss everyone off with my rude statements, dont take them seriously. Idk why, it just makes me laugh harder. SO......how old are u anyways?

Old enough to handle people who are rude...BTW you asked for my religion, i'm Indian, so don't be rude about it again (even though you claim to be Indian origin), it will not be taken well.

You have to be civilised with people out here to get on first name basis and to ask details. Rudness will get you no where. There are many out here who have achived enough in their own right, for you to start questioning their integrity and replies.

Kontakt Era
19 Nov 04,, 06:11
I wasnt being rude about your origin. I just said India is socially backwards. I wasnt insulting the rest of it, even though economy needs to catch up. But anyways, sorry about dissing you out, and I didnt really mean it. Well, actually i did, but dont take it seriously. Think about it this way. Even if I do insult you, what are the consequences? You are 3000 something miles away from me. What are you gonna do, kick my ass over the internet? lol. But seriously, can you answer me some questions about the T-90 tank (indian version). I would like to know how the armorment compares to other land artillery in the world. This might seem stupid, but I want to design land artillery when I grow up. I like projectiles/physics, and chemistry, and I dont know why. Im planning on going to MIT.

Kontakt Era
19 Nov 04,, 06:12
Thats exactly why Im on this forum, and your gonna have to listen to my stupid opinions.

lemontree
19 Nov 04,, 06:42
Think about it this way. Even if I do insult you, what are the consequences? You are 3000 something miles away from me. What are you gonna do, kick my ass over the internet? lol.

Simple, you would just be ignored :biggrin: Nothing irritates a person more than be ignored and treated like a nobody.



But seriously, can you answer me some questions about the T-90 tank (indian version). I would like to know how the armorment compares to other land artillery in the world. This might seem stupid, but I want to design land artillery when I grow up. I like projectiles/physics, and chemistry, and I dont know why. Im planning on going to MIT.

You will have to check it with either Ray or OoE, i'm not an armourd corps officer and would not know the details to do justice to your query about the T-90.
BTW there is nothing stupid in having an ambition about designing weapons. Dreams are necessary to have a vision of the future. But try to be realistic :)

ajaybhutani
19 Nov 04,, 19:41
I wasnt being rude about your origin. I just said India is socially backwards. I wasnt insulting the rest of it, even though economy needs to catch up. But anyways, sorry about dissing you out, and I didnt really mean it.
Actually that wat u need to work on.to try not speak stuff off the topic and i mean only the rude ones.

Well, actually i did, but dont take it seriously. Think about it this way. Even if I do insult you, what are the consequences? You are 3000 something miles away from me. What are you gonna do, kick my ass over the internet? lol.

Why dont u try showing some respect before u can make fun of people. make them frnds and then noone will mind...

But seriously, can you answer me some questions about the T-90 tank (indian version). I would like to know how the armorment compares to other land artillery in the world.

i think it has been discussed to some extent in Land Warfare forum u can check it out for details

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=2511

This thread compares T90 with T80U. but gives a lot of information about T90 indina version or just google.
i suggest u to start a thread in land warfare forum and put ur questions on it.

This might seem stupid, but I want to design land artillery when I grow up. I like projectiles/physics, and chemistry, and I dont know why. Im planning on going to MIT.
Nice wish . I Hope u'll work hard to make it a reality.

Ray
19 Nov 04,, 20:07
I wasnt being rude about your origin. I just said India is socially backwards. I wasnt insulting the rest of it, even though economy needs to catch up. But anyways, sorry about dissing you out, and I didnt really mean it. Well, actually i did, but dont take it seriously. Think about it this way. Even if I do insult you, what are the consequences? You are 3000 something miles away from me. What are you gonna do, kick my ass over the internet? lol. But seriously, can you answer me some questions about the T-90 tank (indian version). I would like to know how the armorment compares to other land artillery in the world. This might seem stupid, but I want to design land artillery when I grow up. I like projectiles/physics, and chemistry, and I dont know why. Im planning on going to MIT.
Tanks and artillery are two different things.

Your question is like how does a car compare with an airplane.

Well a car is good for the roads, while an aircraft is good for moving in the air. Obviously a car can;t fly and an aircraft moving on the road would be such a waste.

k19
01 Feb 05,, 06:56
For those who were interested in the 62 war, I have something you could read about:

I just can't understand why the Indians always try to compare their army with the Chinese and see us as the threat to them; most of Chinese people won't even care what they do nor has such thought of attacking them, what is the point man? Just like the war in 62, why the hell you have to adopt English’s maps and keep pissing Chinese off when we don't really want to have such war?

Here is some articles guys, read it, it's made by westerners, neither pro-India and pro-china, hope you could learn something from it and peace alright?

http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm

Officer of Engineers
01 Feb 05,, 07:23
Maxwell has been pretty well proven to be pro-Chinese in his regards. He left out alot of details as to the operational status of the InA and the political incompetence of the Nehru administration.

And speaking as a Canadian soldier who really is neutral in this matter, like hell the Chinese didn't want war. You don't move two regiments a 1000 miles for a picnic.

k19
01 Feb 05,, 08:16
Well, we pulled back didn't we? Even our top officials were surprised with that kind of "progress". We were even consider India as one of our “the third world friends” at that time.

Who cares how a nation would act after the mouth game was over, but who started it was more important to me. Sadam played mouth game and his army got washed out, regime changed.

India’s support was pretty much based on cold war mind, communist vs. capitalism base at that time. Everyone was impressed by India’s action against the communist. you can't critisize the other side "over reacting" when you held the wrong cause.

My point is if you don’t piss somebody off, they won’t start against you, just like the rabbit could bit your finger off too. Maxwell explained the history cause pretty well. and india’s action didn’t make sense. Chinese didn't hold this as pride, we let it go, however many Indians still don’t get this; don’t learn from this kind of events, still try to seek some sort of revenge or have such mind imbedded in their head, that’s what I don’t understand about. It is a piece of junk land anyways.

lemontree
01 Feb 05,, 08:26
For those who were interested in the 62 war, I have something you could read about:....

k19,
I have answered this post of yours in the Indian Navy vs PLAN thread, where you had also posted the above post.

lemontree
01 Feb 05,, 08:28
Well, we pulled back didn't we?
PLA had to pull back. The Indian army had mobilised and winter was setting in. Had the PLA stayed put the war would have continued with a different ending.

Jay
03 Feb 05,, 00:11
My point is if you don’t piss somebody off, they won’t start against you, just like the rabbit could bit your finger off too.
Wrong analogy. China wanted Aksai Chin, regardless of India's action they wudve occupied it, just like Tibet.


Maxwell explained the history cause pretty well. and india’s action didn’t make sense.
Maxwell aint God, is he??


Chinese didn't hold this as pride, we let it go, however many Indians still don’t get this; don’t learn from this kind of events, still try to seek some sort of revenge or have such mind imbedded in their head, that’s what I don’t understand about.
Well it was India which supported China's inclusion in the UN, it was India which supported China in Korea war...India was then a leader of 3rd world countries (NAM). What India understood in 1962 war was, political will is much important to face a friend/enemy. And we learnt it very well.


It is a piece of junk land anyways.
Well if thats a piece of junk land, why occupy it, build/maintain roads and guard it ?? :biggrin:

k19
03 Feb 05,, 08:20
Wrong analogy. China wanted Aksai Chin, regardless of India's action they wudve occupied it, just like Tibet.

Aksai Chin in not an "innocent" piece of lands that was part of Indian’s “all along”, otherwise, even I would agree with you.


Maxwell aint God, is he??

You could say Maxwell is somewhat "harsh" on India, but his view might not be surly "Pro-china" since even Chinese tend to disagree with what he wrote in his book. Anyways, if you think his view is pro-china, fine, read this

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm

Seems to me people here was pretty "Pro-globalsecurity.org", were they pro-china as well? In fact, I don't even read those Pro-china stuffs from the mainland.


Well it was India which supported China's inclusion in the UN...


So? What do these have anything to do with my point here? That’s what both side should do, I mean, both sides! Constantly aiming china as an immanent threat and take the 62 war as assumption proving a further war? These two nations should have sorted out many things many years, not only politically on the top level, but the civilian level as well. Chinese history text book not even have this 62 event in it, does Indians do the same? I am criticizing both sides for not pushing it hard enough and sooner. Chinese people, mostly, have already put it back at their heads, does Indians? A search in Google would show it pretty clearly.


Well if that’s a piece of junk land, why occupy it, build/maintain roads and guard it ??

It’s the road that is important, which really isn't starting point of the war but a factor, and even the Dalai Lama is an important factor than the actual land dispute. Please read the link I provide, read every events carefully, you will get the idea. If it is important to you guys, why would it take you two years to find out there was a road on "your" "important" land? That land is as equally useless as the rest of the disputed land at other place before the road was been built! We give you 68% and kept only 32% of the disputed land which really would be settled before the war, and we were still aggressive to India? Isn’t the major dispute here was caused by the British other than India?

================================================== ====
I am somewhere agreed that it is a “That’s why I said that the '62 war was a result of diplomatic failure on both sides" said by lemotree, but after reading many documents regarding this issue, I don't know how china would further back down on Indians policy. Political position was equally important on both sides regardless on what the value of the land is. Simply you could not make china say "let's divide the land and you can have more, but I will keep the one with my construction on it". Being a land selling government would be crushed by people and criticized in the history book. Well, there were a way to settle it with international help, however china was not that "popular" in the international community with a "communist" on their head and yet has the ability to influence the world view, it was still under the cold war era; on the other hand, and India could do so. I have to say India should admit the major responsibility on this matter.

I don't really care what has happened 45 years ago, as many Chinese, and what worries me is that sense of anger and revenge and military build up toward one or another. From one side extreme (friendly) to another, the potential danger would be an over shuttled response. It is equally dangerous to have the "confidence" to have the “will” to use force in the future, but instead, link two sides with forgiving attitude to shade out that part of the history, could really change the problem from root to top.

i like this part of the article, really, finally someone, somehow, at a point of time thought like a chinese!

""China had easily won a military victory on the ground.
But Peking may have lost in terms of its international image.
Western nations, especially the United States, were already
suspicious of Chinese attitudes, motives and actions; after
all, People's Republic leader Mao had stated that "The way to
world conquest lies through Havana, Accra, and Calcutta."1
These western nations, including a suspicious United States,
appeared to minimize, or not fully to understand, the China-
India dispute background: that China believed that Aksai Chin
had been legally Chinese since 1899 or before, that no official
boundary had been agreed upon between the two nations, and
that Nehru's "forward policy" had thrusted troops even beyond
India's claim line into Tibetan/Chinese territory. These
same nations saw China's goals as monolithic intent on world
conquest, and clearly viewed China as the aggressor in the
Border War. China's first nuclear weapon test in October,
1964, and her support of Pakistan in the 1965 India-Pakistan
Bordr War tended ot confirm the American view of monolithic
communist world objectives, including Chinese influence (if
not expansionism) over Pakistan. Yet, an examination of
China's international objectives, since the Communists came
to power in 1949, shows a pattern of conservative aims and
limited objectives, rather than expansionism. China's role
in the Korea Conflict was not simply to assist North Korea,
but also to protect herself again assault from anti-Communist
western forces. China's actions in Tibet in 1950 were viewed
by India as blatant aggression; but China saw her move into
Tibet as simply reuniting what is "traditionally Chinese" ter-
ritory. The 1962 Border War, again, had only the objective
of keeping what was "traditionally Chinese"; otherwise, why
would have China given all of NEFA back to India? In 1979,
China feared increasing anti-Chinese attitude in Viet Nam.
When Viet Nam invaded Kampuchea--and after much preplanning
and thought--China launched a limited objective assault, to
punish Viet Nam. Thus, the People's Republic of China has
been historically non-expansionistic.""

lemontree
03 Feb 05,, 10:21
It’s the road that is important, which really isn't starting point of the war but a factor, and even the Dalai Lama is an important factor than the actual land dispute.
For India the road and occupation of Aksai Chin by PLA was of concern. Dalai Lama was given assistance after PRC refused to back down from Aksai Chin.

We give you 68% and kept only 32% of the disputed land which really would be settled before the war, and we were still aggressive to India?
Which is the 68% that your are referring to?

Being a land selling government would be crushed by people...
Since when did the CCP bother about the peoples opinion!..

The 1962 Border War, again, had only the objective
of keeping what was "traditionally Chinese"; otherwise, why
would have China given all of NEFA back to India?
PLA withdrew from the military point of view. If it had the means it would have stayed on. As I have mentioned earlier, the Indian army had mobilised, and winter was setting in, The PLA units in Kameng sector, were out of ammo and supplies, they would have been trapped and eliminated. They had no choice, but to withdraw.
Also, in keeping with the strategy of "teaching a lesson", the objective was to humiliate Nehru, and not to occupy land.

ajaybhutani
03 Feb 05,, 14:22
Aksai Chin in not an "innocent" piece of lands that was part of Indian’s “all along”, otherwise, even I would agree with you.


But it was under indian occupation while chineese aneaked in slowly.
Now what wud u call it if india sneaks in PoK and captures it Then is it fair from indias side.



You could say Maxwell is somewhat "harsh" on India, but his view might not be surly "Pro-china" since even Chinese tend to disagree with what he wrote in his book. Anyways, if you think his view is pro-china, fine, read this

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm

Seems to me people here was pretty "Pro-globalsecurity.org", were they pro-china as well? In fact, I don't even read those Pro-china stuffs from the mainland.

What matters is when u ask an indian. ur hear "Chineese stabbed us in the back ".




So? What do these have anything to do with my point here? That’s what both side should do, I mean, both sides! Constantly aiming china as an immanent threat and take the 62 war as assumption proving a further war? These two nations should have sorted out many things many years, not only politically on the top level, but the civilian level as well. Chinese history text book not even have this 62 event in it, does Indians do the same? I am criticizing both sides for not pushing it hard enough and sooner. Chinese people, mostly, have already put it back at their heads, does Indians? A search in Google would show it pretty clearly.

Well they dont have it bec they want to forget it .For they didnt suffer They benefitted from it using aggression. They donot want to tell their children that they sneaked in like robberers into indian territory and build a road in it.Well this act is nto good to ears is it??
While the indians suffered. Well u slap someone u can forget it . But the guy slapped will not he wil remember it and might one day if givena chance slap u back. ITs just a simple reaction and that dsnt make chineese great .They will still remain what they are the same guys who preformed an act of aggression on india . and when it comes to helping someone look at how much they did for trunami victims ???




It’s the road that is important, which really isn't starting point of the war but a factor, and even the Dalai Lama is an important factor than the actual land dispute.

China got askai chin so for china askai chin isnt imp .So but dalai lama is a pain in ur ass so hes imp to u. When it comes to india dalai lama istn anything . But askai chin is comething we wil remember.

Please read the link I provide, read every events carefully, you will get the idea. If it is important to you guys, why would it take you two years to find out there was a road on "your" "important" land?

Its "OUR LAND" In which u entered like theifs and captured it . So what if we didnt check it out. Does that mean that it gives u a full right to invade an indian ocupied territory. So what is ur china GOD that it can do anything with anyone.




That land is as equally useless as the rest of the disputed land at other place before the road was been built! We give you 68% and kept only 32% of the disputed land which really would be settled before the war, and we were still aggressive to India? Isn’t the major dispute here was caused by the British other than India?


ITs" OUR LAND " And its imp to us. If its so useless why did china robbed it in the first place .God thanks for returning our territory to us u did such and act of GODLINESS. How can u defend the chineese act by saying tha british started it . If tey started it then why didnt china attacked britain why india?? that even amkes china a bigger culprit.

Well the aggression was started by china on india . And for 110 crore indians china will remain an agressor who robbed us while calling us as frnds.

================================================== ====

I am somewhere agreed that it is a “That’s why I said that the '62 war was a result of diplomatic failure on both sides" said by lemotree, but after reading many documents regarding this issue, I don't know how china would further back down on Indians policy. Political position was equally important on both sides regardless on what the value of the land is. Simply you could not make china say "let's divide the land and you can have more, but I will keep the one with my construction on it". Being a land selling government would be crushed by people and criticized in the history book. Well, there were a way to settle it with international help, however china was not that "popular" in the international community with a "communist" on their head and yet has the ability to influence the world view, it was still under the cold war era; on the other hand, and India could do so. I have to say India should admit the major responsibility on this matter.

If china couldnt say that we can divide the land but it attacked india . Bhaai sahab its called aggression. And a faliure of diplomacy from the chineese side that they needed to use force. Admit to what responsibility. That china stabbed us on our backs . Well my frnd we adit it and we will remember it .For not all future will be chineese dominance.







I don't really care what has happened 45 years ago, as many Chinese, and what worries me is that sense of anger and revenge and military build up toward one or another.
Bec u are chineese. Come to india and u can feel the heat. fo what happened 45 years ago. WE faced the pain and so we remember it. If u dotn remember it then it shows that u dont even take such an act as any imp for ur nation. Just like the british howsoever they feel that they did nothin to colonies its the people in the colonies who know the pain.





From one side extreme (friendly) to another, the potential danger would be an over shuttled response. It is equally dangerous to have the "confidence" to have the “will” to use force in the future, but instead, link two sides with forgiving attitude to shade out that part of the history, could really change the problem from root to top.


Forgiving attitude, Ek baat batao mujhe Why doeds it always comesto india to forgive. Forgice paksitan bec its weak and idotic for all it did terorism three wars. forgive british for their atrocities .Forgive the invaders like alexander mahammad ghori etc etc etc and now forgive china for robbbing us. Well we are used to of forgiving . when will china learn to forgive, has is stopped yet. It gave the nukes to paksitan missiles etc etc . Still claims over arunachal pradesh. Add to it all It still canot accept that taiwaneese people preffered to live away from it . Well then will chine learn to forgive .. Dude Look at ur side first.


i like this part of the article, really, finally someone, somehow, at a point of time thought like a chinese!

and so i assumed that u are a chineese and so i ahve written like an indian.




""China had easily won a military victory on the ground.
But Peking may have lost in terms of its international image.

Well china just won a war . But it lost a frnd created an enemy on iboundary. Well that isnt called winning. Winning is when u get hte job done and still donot create enemies.


Western nations, especially the United States, were already
suspicious of Chinese attitudes, motives and actions; after
all, People's Republic leader Mao had stated that "The way to
world conquest lies through Havana, Accra, and Calcutta."1
These western nations, including a suspicious United States,
appeared to minimize, or not fully to understand, the China-
India dispute background: that China believed that Aksai Chin
had been legally Chinese since 1899 or before, that no official
boundary had been agreed upon between the two nations, and
that Nehru's "forward policy" had thrusted troops even beyond
India's claim line into Tibetan/Chinese territory. These
same nations saw China's goals as monolithic intent on world
conquest, and clearly viewed China as the aggressor in the
Border War. China's first nuclear weapon test in October,
1964, and her support of Pakistan in the 1965 India-Pakistan
Bordr War tended ot confirm the American view of monolithic
communist world objectives, including Chinese influence (if
not expansionism) over Pakistan. Yet, an examination of
China's international objectives, since the Communists came
to power in 1949, shows a pattern of conservative aims and
limited objectives, rather than expansionism. China's role
in the Korea Conflict was not simply to assist North Korea,
but also to protect herself again assault from anti-Communist
western forces. China's actions in Tibet in 1950 were viewed
by India as blatant aggression; but China saw her move into
Tibet as simply reuniting what is "traditionally Chinese" ter-
ritory. The 1962 Border War, again, had only the objective
of keeping what was "traditionally Chinese"; otherwise, why
would have China given all of NEFA back to India? In 1979,
China feared increasing anti-Chinese attitude in Viet Nam.
When Viet Nam invaded Kampuchea--and after much preplanning
and thought--China launched a limited objective assault, to
punish Viet Nam. Thus, the People's Republic of China has
been historically non-expansionistic.""


Sorry i dont have time to read evthin u write So i m leaving it though for a country where the next ruler burned the records of the previous one ,the country which prefers to sneak into a neighbours territory and capture it . A country which prefers to kill its students its future with bullets tanks . A country which still thinks that taiwaneese dont have a right todecede what they want. A country which takes every country as athreat to itself. Well frankly its very difficult to forgive such a country.

lemontree
03 Feb 05,, 14:33
But it was under indian occupation while chineese aneaked in slowly.
ajay,
You are wrong, there was no Indian Border Post any where along any border, except the LOC with POK in Kashmir. Blame Nehru and Krishna Menon.
Don't blame the thief if you forgot to close the door.

Now what wud u call it if india sneaks in PoK and captures it Then is it fair from indias side.

Wrong analogy, POK is different from Aksai Chin.
There was nothing stopping us from taking over POK and Aksai Chin earlier (now it too late). Why did'nt we?....

ajaybhutani
03 Feb 05,, 14:53
ajay,
You are wrong, there was no Indian Border Post any where along any border, except the LOC with POK in Kashmir. Blame Nehru and Krishna Menon.
Don't blame the thief if you forgot to close the door.

Wrong analogy, POK is different from Aksai Chin.
There was nothing stopping us from taking over POK and Aksai Chin earlier (now it too late). Why did'nt we?....
dsnt change the fact that hes still a theif.
And yes theres was nehrus fault in it for neglecting te armed forces but again the act is still an act of aggression.

Officer of Engineers
03 Feb 05,, 15:04
Regarding 1987, this is what a Chinese PLA Captain had to say
Finally regarding the Sino-India tension in 1987, I can assure you that your claim was totally groundless. There were two isolated shooting incidents buy both sides without casulties to either. The Tibet Military region was placed on 2nd degree alert. The situation developed in the summer of 1986 when the Chinese border patrol noticed in the Xia Cha-yu area buffer zone (where they patrol 3 times a year) that the Indians were building border posts in the areas they had been driven out in the 1962 border war, creating a creeping occupation, the Chinese response was to build our owns posts, pretty soon these posts started to intertwine with each other. During these times, both sides shout to the others side to get out, but nobody moved. Following these developments, both sides started to make military units closer to the border, India reportedly moved 10 battalions there as reinforcements and the PLA moved two regiments plus the only 2 dozens of Black Hawk helicopters there. I was working in the Situation Room of PLA G-2 at the time. The Chinese leadership did considered a war with India. ironically, the civilian leaders wanted the fight, but the PLA decided that PLA could not win a fight in the western sector due to logistic difficulties. At one of the meetings hosted by then prime minister Zhao Ziyang, General Xu Hui-zi, deputy chief of general staff, attended by officials from railway, telecommunication and health minisries and other PLA departemnts, PLA officers indicated that unless they were allowed to open the Eastern sector through Pakistan, PLA would be at a disadvantage. Even with the eastern sector, there would be no guarantee of victory unless the central government was totally prepared for a drwn-out full scale conflict. While all options were being considered, there came the news that the Indian foreign minister was going to visit Beijing to discuss the tense situation. One week later, Indian Foreign misister reached an agreement with his Chinese counterparts that both side would withdraw back to the post 62-war line of control, thus a crisis was avoided.

k19
03 Feb 05,, 15:55
So, Mr OOE, what is the american's thought on it at that time? and what they gona do with it when chinese official told them? and why would this happen really? do indian know china did not have the ability to do it? it is had to find more info on this since it was not "big news" at that time, so could you please give me your opinion?

Officer of Engineers
03 Feb 05,, 16:02
In 1987? Seriously, nothing. Our attention was Europe, not South Asia. Everybody was talking the talk but nobody was walking the walk.

Jay
03 Feb 05,, 17:02
Aksai Chin in not an "innocent" piece of lands that was part of Indian’s “all along”, otherwise, even I would agree with you.
Aksai Chin was never a part of China. As Lemontree said it was ruled by Kashmir kings. So China has no "historical" claims over Aksai China like they did in Tibet. Atleast if we go by "historic" Chinese maps, still southern part of Aksai China belongs to India. China was opportunitstic at that time to secure Tibet. So there are no "historical" reasons for the war, just "militaristic" and "strategic" goals.



Anyways, if you think his view is pro-china, fine, read this
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm
Seems to me people here was pretty "Pro-globalsecurity.org", were they pro-china as well? In fact, I don't even read those Pro-china stuffs from the mainland.

It’s the road that is important, which really isn't starting point of the war but a factor,


This is from the link you posted above,

The key issue was the 1956-57 construction of a Chinese military highway in the disputed territory of Aksai China just west of Tibet. India protested
the Chinese "incursion"; diplomatic exchanges continued for three years without progress or compromise. Each side firmly asserted its claim to the Aksai Chin area. Large sections of the North East Frontier Agency, east of Tibet, were also in dispute. In 1959, India initiated a forward policy of sending
Indian troops and border patrols into disputed areas. This program created both skirmishes and deteriorating relations between India and China.


Constantly aiming china as an immanent threat and take the 62 war as assumption proving a further war?
When did you last fight a war with Japan? How friendly is China with Japan?? It may be a poor analogy, but the scar still remains.


These two nations should have sorted out many things many years, not only politically on the top level, but the civilian level as well.
Chinee civilains cannot freely say their opinions to the world.


Chinese history text book not even have this 62 event in it, does Indians do the same? I am criticizing both sides for not pushing it hard enough and sooner.
When I was in school, I read about 62 war, dont know whether they still do have it. India had Nehru, a schmuck at that time. Later on, since India lost the war politically, it would be suicidal to any Indian politician to give concession to the Chinese. Atleast CCP/PLA dont have that problem, coz they dont face elections after every 5 years.


Chinese people, mostly, have already put it back at their heads, does Indians? A search in Google would show it pretty clearly.
I dont know about Chinese people, and that really doesnt count. Chinese political leadership keeps on fuelling the tensions by being in bed with Pakistan. China provided them missiles that can hit India, China provided them nukes than can be used against India. Its a clear case of aggression against India by the Chinese. So Indians are not going to let their guard down any time soon.


If it is important to you guys, why would it take you two years to find out there was a road on "your" "important" land?
So does that mean I can get in to your home and take an un-used corner under the notion that its un-used??


We give you 68% and kept only 32% of the disputed land which really would be settled before the war, and we were still aggressive to India? Isn’t the major dispute here was caused by the British other than India?
China didnt "give" India 68% of land. Chinese simply say Arunachal Pradesh is disputed and they gave away that for free. Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim were already part of India.

32% of land falls in Aksai Chin which China originally occupied from India which that still remains under China.


Simply you could not make china say "let's divide the land and you can have more, but I will keep the one with my construction on it". Being a land selling government would be crushed by people and criticized in the history book.
China is ruled by CPC. They dont have to face elections every 5 years. Its the Indian govt that will be crushed on any sovreign issues. Taiwan is already independent, did the Chinese people crushed Mao's govt for that??


I have to say India should admit the major responsibility on this matter.
See above, any concessions to China will be viewed as treachery in India. Lets say, Indian politics is too complicated for you to understand.


It is equally dangerous to have the "confidence" to have the “will” to use force in the future, but instead, link two sides with forgiving attitude to shade out that part of the history, could really change the problem from root to top.
Time can answer that better!

BTW China won a political victory in 1962. These days our politicos are hell bent in war coz of the scathing reports from 1962 that talks about command failure in the top order.

k19
03 Feb 05,, 17:38
What matters is when u ask an indian. ur hear "Chinese stabbed us in the back ".

Yeah, i would rather just taking the chinese's point, but what is the value of that? two sides make a coin, the problem will never slove if you just want to listen what you want to hear, i am willing to hear, so i post and listen.

at least i take the disputed land as "disputed" land, i don't make myself get involoved with it like Tianjing and Beijing. you take Tianjing or Beijing, i will kill you, but for "disputed" land, i might reconsider!

there were a rummer says that Mao personally ordered to destory an indian army group, reason? they were there and their ancient used to be in ShangHai policing when under British control in 1900s! If english were still there, my god we will fought even harder!


has is stopped yet. It gave the nukes to paksitan missiles etc etc .

ironically, i was reading a old topic line by line, when MR. OOE was arguing with a guy on this, paksitan made their own nuke.


Add to it all It still canot accept that taiwaneese people preffered to live away from it . Well then will chine learn to forgive

there were many dispute events around the world, from which you see a "peace goodbye" for your own land? maybe canada was the only one could do it, i am always impressed by that. (was the high court later states that have to be a "majority" agree so it can be done? and they never explain what the majority means?) however, china is not a federal formed country like canada and U.S, and we were not talking about french and english, two sets of people here neither, there is only chinese. They can live away from the communist china, i support it as well, in fact they are now, at this min! chinese people were so wanted their freedom, but there is only one china, no matter it's ROC or PRC, there is only one! keep as it is, no independence,no invasion, works best for everyone. ROC could take back PRC, i am more than happy to be a ROC citizen.



Sorry i dont have time to read evthin u write So i m leaving it though f

the last part was written by a american officier, not me, the article is from gobalsercurity.org. our textbook do have this war on record but not be told and explained in great details, just like the veinam war, when war is over and both sides somewhat normalized, we entend to play the "war" history light, but aiming more on the friendly side at persent.


A country which prefers to kill its students its future with bullets tanks

for what part you understand a bit about the 89 event? the tank was crossed in front of our home that night, army trucks were burning 30m to our window! not even mention hearing the worning shot all night long. i hope you can read chinese, so you can go to BBC's discussion board, and see what chinese say about that night, you might be just surprised! does chinese need freedom? yes, do i support such event like 89? god no! i can give you a thousand reasons for it which really off topic here, and you don't have the experience and background anyways!

k19
03 Feb 05,, 18:29
When did you last fight a war with Japan? How friendly is China with Japan?? It may be a poor analogy, but the scar still remains.

since you take Japan as a stand, i will answer it expecially. and you decide what is fair.

the following was a letter i wrote to CNN, never get their attention, not suprised, how can they put a Pro-china view on the air and it was against their "friendlys" as well..

========================
I was surprised that how American and English news Medias cover "the English Prince Harry Nazi Dressing" incidence that happened a month ago, and how people react to it, (added: in fact, there were on the CNN talking yesterday). What really confused me is that why western people see it as a very big deal, but when the pre-minister of Japan---one of the three former axis of evil's leader today, can go to the temple to honor the war criminals year after year, and the Japanese right-wing can dress up with WW2 clothes dancing on the street without any problem and never get world’s attention. (added: 7 A-class and thousands B-class crimals), also, there was a news that germany government were trying to cut down a piece of forests, because you could see it forms a "evil sign in the air. (added: it was planted by some people to impress the hitler, it was been cuted down years ago, but those trees just growing so fast and is there again.) After suffering 50,000,000 death and injures in WW2 in China alone, people's live went backwards tens of years, and billions dollars damages done by the Japanese, it's really not quite hard to understand Chinese people's anger isn't it; With the kindness of Chinese people, who even revived the entire national war indemnity, then Japanese government uses this as a excuse to deny any indemnity for any Chinese individuals' law suits who suffered so much at that time(such as force labors, women been raped...), 300,000 people in a city been reduced to less than hundreds survivors who are been left out to clean the dead, and they were denying it today (added: well, it was really have to not admit it when actually seeing the stockpiles of human skuals and bones in many holes, thousands of them in a single hole, and many holes were there); when chinese people still can accidently dig out a chemical bombs which left by them, and twice a year, tens of people died from that, and they still refuse to hand over documents that would show how many are there and where, it could be under a people's basement, or even near a water pipes..... it's really not quite hard to understand Chinese people's anger isn't it. That’s only the part of it; Japan never had peace toward china in the history before WW2 as well, Endless disturbing assaults and rubbings happened throughout the coast cities in the past 500 years

Does Japan deserve the treatments today, just because its pro-western view and all history should be forgotten? So every crime is just not that “important to remember” when was against a “communist country”? .....

Well, you be the judge, it is not just a scar, it is still opened wound! nobody cared, nobody! the same as Korean people, both north and south, but where is the world standing on those issues??? no, they were too busy to allie eachother against the commists and trade! when you blame the NK pissing off the world, why nobody noticed why they were so against Japan in the party talk? when japan was mentioning their citizen been kidnaped, why nobody cares what they had done in WW2 and never apologized? why germany has to apoligize every single years to the world but japan could walk away with such crime? and on the other hand, china has to take the "threat of the Aisan pecific" on our head when Japan was laughing in American's arm?? is that hard for them just issue an apology, somehow with their action, which, REALLY, i mean REALLY reduce the anger to the minimum, Aisa would be a much more safer place! I mean, how would a country, even gave up their national war indemnity, centries of hate, just want a peace in exchange, you just have to deny it? and where is the world opinion? Mr. American, you used to be attacked too...

how friendly? last year's trade, Japan is is the biggest trading partner even top US! but the the politics cold as stone, because of their history standing.

k19
03 Feb 05,, 20:14
[Aksai Chin was never a part of China. As Lemontree said it was ruled by Kashmir kings/quote]

Well, whoever that king was, it's clearly not part of the deal when china, india and british, even russia and Tibet played out at that time. when the british was there controling india, there was a dispute until they left. so it was a dispute land. be realistic here, the article clearly doesn't mention a "king" there arguing the land.

[quote] The key issue was the 1956-57 construction of a Chinese military highway in the disputed territory of Aksai China just west of Tibet.

i have siad, the road is a factor, but it was still 1957 and we have 5 years to deal with it peacefully. i have siad it before, both size failed i do agree the road was strategic important, the land is strategic important to china, that's why china never give up the fight for that land for three different governments, not only communist government would do so, which was really china, india and british were "dispute" about. 2 years of not knowing a road was built does show the land was not strategic important to india, expecially when they fully understand the land is on dispute, could be set aside, could be taken by both sides, really. We were having border dispute with the Russians too that time wasn't we,


In 1959, India initiated a forward policy...Indian troops and border patrols into disputed areas. This program created both skirmishes and deteriorating relations between India and China.


that's where the problem showed up, i have to say, and i have said before, it is failed by both sides could not talk to settle the problem. politically failed. china did offer the land, which can be considered a positive move, but india refused. was the russians never said a word then attacked the chinese at the border?


Chinese civilains cannot freely say their opinions to the world.

what i am doing now? perhaps, this issue is not political sensitive anyway, i can ensure you about that. and was the Maxwell's book been baned in india for a long time too? the problem is, not many people would sit down and talk peacefully, or have the willingness to talk. i do learn a lot these couple of days, and attend to agree on many points made by different people here, and a lot of details have been speake out.


Atleast CCP/PLA dont have that problem, coz they dont face elections after every 5 years.

yeah, that's true, but still, both government should pushed it forward sooner, especially on those party talks. good thing is it seems really pick up the past now. the government of china is a reality government too, nowadays, who is not.


So does that mean I can get in to your home and take an un-used corner under the notion that its un-used??


nuh, it is more like i stockpiled my firewood against your garden's wall, you told me it is your property, but i say it was outside of the garden and you don't need it anyways.


China didnt "give" India 68% of land. Chinese simply say Arunachal Pradesh is disputed and they gave away that for free. Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim were already part of India.

32% of land falls in Aksai Chin which China originally occupied from India which that still remains under China.


here we go again, blame the english people, the other part was even more clearly their "tressure" to us. and we do give it back even after the war.


China is ruled by CPC. They dont have to face elections every 5 years. Its the Indian govt that will be crushed on any sovreign issues. Taiwan is already independent, did the Chinese people crushed Mao's govt for that??

try again, Taiwan even wanted to fight back and taking over the mainland at that time, both side were pertty clear, there is only one China! people respected eachother that still have the will of unity. it is the bad apples right now which trying to sepreate Taiwan as a independent country without chinese identity. china doesn't care and never requested a immidiate unity, but as long as you are admiting 1 china, that will be fine. so their resists the communist china rule was never the case. I don't care who rules china, as long as it's 1 china, i can be a ROC citizen or a PRC citizen, but a chinese citizen, simple as that.Mao never took the Taiwan, in fact, if anyone let taiwan go independent today, you will see what chinese people would do to him, just wait for regime change...


See above, any concessions to China will be viewed as treachery in India. Lets say, Indian politics is too complicated for you to understand.


undersanding the canadians and americans politics pertty well, i am living under freedom right now anyway! name one country that let their part go with peace except canada, china is not fedeal systems anyway and we don't have french vs english peoblem, we are all chinese!

[quote][Time can answer that better!
/quote]

hope so, i hope it could be a good one, nationalism, sounds good, but often lead to bad things. if our economic ties grow stronger, people meet more often, the problem would be easier to solve, chinese people's mind changed when they grow richer, really, i can prove that. everyday shoulding the propadanda won't get your bread and milk, be realistic and work do.

Jay
03 Feb 05,, 22:07
Well, whoever that king was, it's clearly not part of the deal when china, india and british, even russia and Tibet played out at that time. when the british was there controling india, there was a dispute until they left. so it was a dispute land. be realistic here, the article clearly doesn't mention a "king" there arguing the land.
Actually neither of them disputed until India discovered the road. China printed the disputed area as their own land in their official maps, while India did the same. British added Aksai Chin in their official maps based on the fact that Kashmiri ruler had jurisdication over it and Kashmiri King was serving under the British Royalty.


i have siad, the road is a factor, but it was still 1957 and we have 5 years to deal with it peacefully. i have siad it before, both size failed i do agree the road was strategic important, the land is strategic important to china, that's why china never give up the fight for that land for three different governments, not only communist government would do so, which was really china, india and british were "dispute" about. 2 years of not knowing a road was built does show the land was not strategic important to india, expecially when they fully understand the land is on dispute, could be set aside, could be taken by both sides, really.

It may be a trivial land for India or may be not. Now Aksai Chin is very important to India, so that we can monitor the highway that connects China to Pakistan. So do you want India to attack/occupy Aksai Chin coz its strategic to them now?? When the occupation/accession is in question, it really doesnt matter whether you keep on fighting for Aksai Chin or its strategic importance. Sovreignity is a different ball game.


We were having border dispute with the Russians too that time wasn't we,
China (PLA) at that time very well know that they cannot fight a war against then USSR. It was way over their capability to fight a bloody war with Russia.
Thats why they negotiated, as soon as they got the chance.


that's where the problem showed up, i have to say, and i have said before, it is failed by both sides could not talk to settle the problem. politically failed. china did offer the land, which can be considered a positive move,
Again, what ever China thought positive didnt go well with India's stand, as the Indians thot/think that it was unfair to India.


what i am doing now? perhaps, this issue is not political sensitive anyway, i can ensure you about that.
May be, bcoz the war was fought in the poorly populated western sector.


and was the Maxwell's book been baned in india for a long time too?
I think so, not sure whether they lifted the ban now. It wud've been politically suicide for the Congress/Nehru if they dint ban it, not to mention that Nehru and his croonies were responsible for the Army's poor show.


the problem is, not many people would sit down and talk peacefully, or have the willingness to talk.
They were caught in a time warp, both Indian and Chinese leaders.


good thing is it seems really pick up the past now. the government of china is a reality government too, nowadays, who is not.
Still the people of China has no say in their foreign policy, which is (was) totally important in then Indian politics. Only the last couple federal elections had major domestic issues manifesto's.


nuh, it is more like i stockpiled my firewood against your garden's wall, you told me it is your property, but i say it was outside of the garden and you don't need it anyways.
Legally, If its my wall, (both the sides), I'll not agree to it, unless you are a nice friendly neighbour. You needed a favor from me, who's got more responsibility??


here we go again, blame the english people, the other part was even more clearly their "tressure" to us. and we do give it back even after the war.

Err, blaming them is not going to solve a thing. India inherited the land and its problems from British India.


try again, Taiwan even wanted to fight back and taking over the mainland at that time, both side were pertty clear, there is only one China! people respected eachother that still have the will of unity.
I know that they have only 1 china in the diplomatic circles. But Taiwan is a seperate entity that cannot be tied with PRC.


undersanding the canadians and americans politics pertty well, i am living under freedom right now anyway! name one country that let their part go with peace except canada, china is not fedeal systems anyway and we don't have french vs english peoblem, we are all chinese!
Actually Indian politics is way muddier than Canada or even US politics.


everyday shoulding the propadanda won't get your bread and milk, be realistic and work do.
Well, we understood that very well. Like Japan-China trade, India-China trade is booming too. Though the border disputes are cold, it does not mean that they wont flare up again.

cooldw57
23 Feb 05,, 05:02
I know that they have only 1 china in the diplomatic circles. But Taiwan is a seperate entity that cannot be tied with PRC. .

So is Kashmire, no ties with India

lemontree
23 Feb 05,, 06:02
So is Kashmire, no ties with India
You are right in a way, Pakistan occupied Kashmir(POK) and Chinese occupied Kashmir(Aksai Chin) have no ties with India. Only the Indian Jammu and Kashmir is a part of India. The problem in Kashmir involves three govts of India, PRC and Pakistan.
Whereas, Taiwan is the creation due a civil war between the KMT and CCP. Relating Kashmir with Taiwan is out of context.

Jay
23 Feb 05,, 10:19
So is Kashmire, no ties with India
Kashmire...havent heard of it.

But there is Jammu & Kashmir, a state in Northern India, which chose its rulers last year, yep the people chose their leaders by voting in the elections....may be Chinese officials blocked that news, Sorry!!

There is one more Kashmir, Pakistani Occupied (PoK) which has a seperate ruler appointed by the supreme ruler of Pakistan, and one more Aksai Chin, which MAY be at offlimits to ordinary Chinese. Either way you have to talk to the CCP propoganda officials to get more info about J&K, PoK and Aksai Chin.

cooldw57
24 Feb 05,, 05:32
Kashmire...havent heard of it.

But there is Jammu & Kashmir, a state in Northern India, which chose its rulers last year, yep the people chose their leaders by voting in the elections....may be Chinese officials blocked that news, Sorry!!

There is one more Kashmir, Pakistani Occupied (PoK) which has a seperate ruler appointed by the supreme ruler of Pakistan, and one more Aksai Chin, which MAY be at offlimits to ordinary Chinese. Either way you have to talk to the CCP propoganda officials to get more info about J&K, PoK and Aksai Chin.

To me, there's no difference between Taiwan and Kashmir. Why can't China and India let them go free?

And sorry, I have no ties to the CCP whatsoever despite your ample imagination. I am a naval engineer working for the DoD

lemontree
24 Feb 05,, 06:16
To me, there's no difference between Taiwan and Kashmir. Why can't China and India let them go free?

India is sitting in Kashmir and it rules it, but PRC is not in ROC and does not rule it.
A Big difference. You are out of context.

stratadmir
24 Feb 05,, 20:08
one thing that i was thinkin of. Pakisatan does not like India much anyway, so Chine may be able to get them to build another pipeline leading more north so that the Indians dont attack that. Another thing Chine would be able to throw in more of ots army into the fray because it does not have border problems with Pakistan or anyother country(that im aware of) so India would probably have to tie up some of it own army on the border of Pakistan just to keep them at bay. Is there any other border problems the Indians have besides China and Pakistan.

lemontree
25 Feb 05,, 05:41
one thing that i was thinkin of. Pakisatan does not like India much anyway, so Chine may be able to get them to build another pipeline leading more north so that the Indians dont attack that.
That would not be possible, since the north-western part of Pakistan is bounded by Afghanistan, which is not very comfy with Pakistan. Even if the Pak govt has a deal with the Afghani regime, the North west frontier provinces of Pakistan are a law and order nightmare. Those tribles would have a field day and would bleed the Pak govt dry over the safety of the piplines. Those NWFP tribals and Pak govt don't vibe.

Another thing Chine would be able to throw in more of ots army into the fray because it does not have border problems with Pakistan or anyother country(that im aware of) so India would probably have to tie up some of it own army on the border of Pakistan just to keep them at bay. Is there any other border problems the Indians have besides China and Pakistan.
That is not a problem with India. It has dealt with the Chinese threat of a second front, during past Indo-Pak wars. A combined Sino-Pak effort on a single front would simplify things for India.
India has no other border problems. There was a minor issue with Bangladesh but it has been sorted out.

Jay
25 Feb 05,, 12:24
Another thing Chine would be able to throw in more of ots army into the fray because it does not have border problems with Pakistan or anyother country(that im aware of)

Ever heard of Taiwan and Spratley Islands??

Jay
25 Feb 05,, 12:29
To me, there's no difference between Taiwan and Kashmir. Why can't China and India let them go free?

And sorry, I have no ties to the CCP whatsoever despite your ample imagination. I am a naval engineer working for the DoD

Last time I checked Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir had a Chief Minister, who was bounded by Indian Constitution and the state's economy/political/foreign/security rites well managed by Federal India.

But IIRC, Taiwan had democratic elections (oopsie cant find them in China), people voted (yep) to elect their President. PRC had no control over ROC's economy/Politics/Foreign policy/Military.

Either Kashmir declared independence from Indian Union in last 2 mins or Taiwan was attacked and occupied by China in the same 2 mins.

I dont care who you are, your rantings are almost similar to a PRC CCP propoganda person.

metalbeast
01 Mar 05,, 21:55
China is revamping it's army to be smaller, but better supplied, and equiped. India on the other hand has huge logistical problem that China has had and has right now with the amount of weapons which one could consider redundant in artillery for example. India has all kinds of artillery of different calibres, weights, and ranges. To minimize complexity of supply nations like the USA and Russia primarily support two kinds of gun artillery on the battlefield. India supplies all the guns of USA and Russia. Chinese are looking for better equipment, simplier supplying of it's armed forces. They thinking about increasing the Navy as well. In my opinion I think China would win. I think China is more industrialized than India. With the modernizing of the military, China will be better in logistics.

ajaybhutani
02 Mar 05,, 00:49
China is revamping it's army to be smaller, but better supplied, and equiped. India on the other hand has huge logistical problem that China has had and has right now with the amount of weapons which one could consider redundant in artillery for example. India has all kinds of artillery of different calibres, weights, and ranges. To minimize complexity of supply nations like the USA and Russia primarily support two kinds of gun artillery on the battlefield. India supplies all the guns of USA and Russia. Chinese are looking for better equipment, simplier supplying of it's armed forces. They thinking about increasing the Navy as well. In my opinion I think China would win. I think China is more industrialized than India. With the modernizing of the military, China will be better in logistics.
a good thought but it would be nice if u could add more facts to it . Like chineese current equipments and proposals along with the indian ones ( and russian and american ones) . Or else it would sound like just a view point .

Terran empire
02 Mar 05,, 01:34
a good thought but it would be nice if u could add more facts to it . Like Chinese current equipments and proposals along with the indian ones ( and russian and american ones) . Or else it would sound like just a view point .
I don't have any thing on india but this site is pretty good for the new chinese weapon systems
Including there new Attack helicopter, Rifles, Apc's, tanks, Hummer clone just about every thing
http://www.sinodefence.com/

lemontree
02 Mar 05,, 05:54
India has all kinds of artillery of different calibres, weights, and ranges. To minimize complexity of supply nations like the USA and Russia primarily support two kinds of gun artillery on the battlefield.
You better give details of the systems used by India, don't make sweeping statements. What are the "two" kinds of arty guns fielded by US and Russia? A prelminary search shows far more systems than you claim.

I think China is more industrialized than India. With the modernizing of the military, China will be better in logistics.
I agree that China has much better defence industrial capability. But do they have the money?

lemontree
02 Mar 05,, 05:58
I don't have any thing on india but this site is pretty good for the new chinese weapon systems
Including there new Attack helicopter, Rifles, Apc's, tanks, Hummer clone just about every thing
http://www.sinodefence.com/
Lol...don't go by those pictures in sinodefence. The helicopter is not Chinese made, but "photoshopped" images claimed to be prototypes.

Terran empire
02 Mar 05,, 20:03
Lol...don't go by those pictures in sinodefence. The helicopter is not Chinese made, but "photoshopped" images claimed to be prototypes.
yea it's all questionable but then again every thing in life needs a Grain or two of salt. And we have a thread going on CG WZ 10 picks so far i think we have found a A Rooivalk with a fan tail a AH 64 D with chinese Markings and of course 5 "Artist's Impressions" Heck we even have a Video Game promo version on that.

metalbeast
04 Mar 05,, 00:03
You better give details of the systems used by India, don't make sweeping statements. What are the "two" kinds of arty guns fielded by US and Russia? A prelminary search shows far more systems than you claim.

I agree that China has much better defence industrial capability. But do they have the money?

India supports Western 105mm light gun artillery, 121.92mm Eastern artillery, 130mm Eastern artillery, and 155mm Western artillery. I think they even support 8 inch guns, but I am not sure. This is the army, this is not the entire forces of naval, and marine combined. Russia does support 100mm gun systems that the navy widely supports as well as 130mm, and even 3 inch (76.2mm) guns for light boats, but on the battlefield supplying so many different artillery guns can pose a complexity problem. USA supports mainly the 105mm and 155mm. Russia 152.4mm and 120mm on the battlefield. I am no economy expert, but I think China has a stronger economy than India. China is surging up in the world economy. China realized that supporting so many artillery pieces is redundant and can pose a logistical nightmare that is why they making a move to widely support their D-30 copy and 155mm 45 calibre guns. Gun artillery is still the backbone of artillery in the world.

lemontree
04 Mar 05,, 07:03
India supports Western 105mm light gun artillery, 121.92mm Eastern artillery, 130mm Eastern artillery, and 155mm Western artillery.
The arty systems fielded by India are as per terrain requirements. The current arty systems are:-
105mm IFG - being phased out by 130mm M-46 guns.
122mm D-30 Howitzer for mech units(Russian origin).
130mm M-46 field gun (Russian origin, and will replace all 105mm units).
155mm M-46 field howitzer (Russian origin)
155mm FH-77B (Swedish)
120mm heavy mortars for mech and mountain regions.
SP arty has 105mm and 130mm on Vijayanta chassis, but are being phased out by the T-6 155mm on Arjun chassis.
So what will remain is just three systems 122mm, 130mm and 155mm. The mountain units will still need the 120mm mortars and so will the mech units.

This is the army, this is not the entire forces of naval, and marine combined.
When we talk of artillery, then it is only army. The naval guns have different requirements so leave them out, since naval and army logistics vary.
Russian arty systems use the following calibres:
100mm, 122mm, 125mm, 130mm, 152mm, and 203mm.
US arty systems use the following calibres:
Earlier the US used various calibres like the 175mm/8inch, 105mm
Heavy mortars - 107mm and 120mm.
Field/howitzer guns - 105mm, 155mm cal 39/52, 203mm(phased out).
Only the US has consolidated the type of arty systems it fields.

I am no economy expert, but I think China has a stronger economy than India. China is surging up in the world economy. China realized that supporting so many artillery pieces is redundant and can pose a logistical nightmare that is why they making a move to widely support their D-30 copy and 155mm 45 calibre guns.
No doubt PRC has a much stronger economy and industrial base compared to India. India too is consolidating its arty to 130mm and 155mm (as shown by me above). However, light and heavy mortars will remain with both Indian and China for a long time.

wangrui961
18 Oct 06,, 10:01
My view - A whole bunch of people are going to die over some bragging rights over a few pieces of rock that no one in their right mind would want. Which is precisely why both armies do not want a fight. The politicians, however, ...

Strictly from an academic PoV, the InA is in somewhat of a superior position than the Chinese. Not enough to conquer Tibet but enough to take the fight to the Chinese. Whether they can win is another question but the fight would not be on Indian territory.

please give some evidence when you give posts?
Where is the "superior position than the Chinese"?

wangrui961
18 Oct 06,, 10:04
more

lemontree
18 Oct 06,, 10:29
The very first picture in post # 141 is not from the Indo-China war, but the Korean war. Indian vehicles do not have a white star on their door.


please give some evidence when you give posts?
Where is the "superior position than the Chinese"?
That is 44 years old history, and it cannot be repeated. Same as 1937 when the Japanese ruled over China, it cannot be repeated again.

wangrui961
18 Oct 06,, 11:01
The very first picture in post # 141 is not from the Indo-China war, but the Korean war. Indian vehicles do not have a white star on their door.


That is 44 years old history, and it cannot be repeated. Same as 1937 when the Japanese ruled over China, it cannot be repeated again.

I agree with you
we should let the war past
and China or Iindia will get nothing in the war
Many soldiers will killed in 1962,both chinese and indinan ,I don't want that happen again.
China and India are both important country and can get along well with each other.

As you said ,it will not be repeated .

Officer of Engineers
18 Oct 06,, 11:33
please give some evidence when you give posts?
Where is the "superior position than the Chinese"?

The evidence has been lay out through out the site. I cited a Chinese PLA Captain who stated that the PLA cannot win unless openning a 2nd front through Pakistan.

Tokyo Drifter
20 Oct 06,, 00:12
For those who were interested in the 62 war, I have something you could read about:

I just can't understand why the Indians always try to compare their army with the Chinese and see us as the threat to them; most of Chinese people won't even care what they do nor has such thought of attacking them, what is the point man? Just like the war in 62, why the hell you have to adopt English’s maps and keep pissing Chinese off when we don't really want to have such war?

Here is some articles guys, read it, it's made by westerners, neither pro-India and pro-china, hope you could learn something from it and peace alright?

http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm

Thanks for the link

y_raj
06 Nov 06,, 18:44
i agree with you wangrui,
it would be better if they join hands and form an alliance along with russia, which is regarded as apossibility by many. but it seems a bit hard after seeing the chinese posture towards pakistan and its help to pakistan to make nukes and SRBMs as well as MRBMs.

chopchop
28 Nov 06,, 15:01
india has a military without any fighters let it be air, ground, or sea. when i say fighters, i mean men with the courage to fight and not run.

667medic
28 Nov 06,, 15:12
india has a military without any fighters let it be air, ground, or sea. when i say fighters, i mean men with the courage to fight and not run.

I invite you visit this website to discuss with like minded individuals

www.pakistanidefenceforum.com

Long Live Pak-China friendship.........

TopHatter
28 Nov 06,, 16:59
india has a military without any fighters let it be air, ground, or sea. when i say fighters, i mean men with the courage to fight and not run.

chopchopyou are coming dangerously close to getting banned for flamebaiting. Watch what you say and who you say it about.

astralis
28 Nov 06,, 19:44
Col yu, lemontree,

do you have an time estimate (as in roughly what year) the tables of military power changed? as in when it no longer became possible for the PLA to win like it did in the '62 war?

joey2
28 Nov 06,, 20:09
We simply cannot go to war its as simple as that, right now
so this is kinda hypothetical discussion about after 40 years if we went to war what will happen.

China has bigger threats to focus like taiwan etc etc and their all jets are faced that wards.
indians should not even think of going in any war now but should think how can they compete economy wise when it comes to resources like natural gas etc in africa etc with china.

recently they have made a MOU or whatever to bid jointly for most oilfields etc etc.
There is a invisible bond between india and china yet there is so many farness between the two cuz of pas memories and the way govt is playing with borders and trying with a ridicule foreign policy.

667medic
28 Nov 06,, 21:54
We simply cannot go to war its as simple as that, right now
so this is kinda hypothetical discussion about after 40 years if we went to war what will happen.

China has bigger threats to focus like taiwan etc etc and their all jets are faced that wards.
indians should not even think of going in any war now but should think how can they compete economy wise when it comes to resources like natural gas etc in africa etc with china.

recently they have made a MOU or whatever to bid jointly for most oilfields etc etc.
.

That's a pure wet dream. Why would Chinese oil companies willingly relinquish their turf wile scouting for oil. Most of the Chinese oil companies are government linked oil companies with no commitment to share holders. OTOH, Indian oil companies are answerable to share holders, so they can't simply outbid the Chinese oil companies period.....


There is a invisible bond between india and china yet there is so many farness between the two cuz of pas memories and the way govt is playing with borders and trying with a ridicule foreign policy
Not that same Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai BS again.......:rolleyes:

joey2
28 Nov 06,, 22:08
That's a pure wet dream. Why would Chinese oil companies willingly relinquish their turf wile scouting for oil. Most of the Chinese oil companies are government linked oil companies with no commitment to share holders. OTOH, Indian oil companies are answerable to share holders, so they can't simply outbid the Chinese oil companies period.....

I'll saw the news somewhere, indias oil minister's friend is chinas some very high level external affairs or whatever minister.

sorry its natural gas and not oil.

wangrui961
02 Dec 06,, 14:03
i agree with you wangrui,
it would be better if they join hands and form an alliance along with russia, which is regarded as apossibility by many. but it seems a bit hard after seeing the chinese posture towards pakistan and its help to pakistan to make nukes and SRBMs as well as MRBMs.

I don't know wether China govment helped Pakstian making nukes ,but Pakstain's nuke is much lacker than India's . India has the world's sixth nuke,No one dare to nuke India , Pakstain inculuded.

goram_vlad
25 Dec 06,, 11:19
india has a military without any fighters let it be air, ground, or sea. when i say fighters, i mean men with the courage to fight and not run.

what a lame comment!!no prizes for guessing which military has a lot of 'fighters'...i presume!!!:rolleyes: ;)

MarquezRazor
25 Dec 06,, 12:17
what a lame comment!!no prizes for guessing which military has a lot of 'fighters'...i presume!!!:rolleyes: ;)

Yup!;)

Ray
25 Dec 06,, 21:20
Col yu, lemontree,

do you have an time estimate (as in roughly what year) the tables of military power changed? as in when it no longer became possible for the PLA to win like it did in the '62 war?

The day Indian Army deployed on the borders properly acclimatised and kitted and that was after 1962 when the Defence Minister Krishna Menon, who was actually a Communist in disguise was sacked!

The mountains now being held in a military manner (unlike the knee jerk of 1962) makes it immensely difficult for large scale troop movements or so it appears logically speaking.

astralis
25 Dec 06,, 22:18
ray,

much thanks for that info!

regarding acclimatization, and other matters, is there a specific history of the '62 war that anyone can refer me to? what i'm asking is, how long did the chinese prepare for this war in advance.

pin_qinghai
26 Dec 06,, 13:43
Those who are in US and Canada are still writing for the forum during Christmas holiday. We surely need to make some contribution to the forum too. ;)



Dear Indian friends,

No offense to the Indian friends. In this article, I just wanted to present China’s view on the Sino-China border war in 1962. If you think that some part of my writings is wrong, please correct me. I do make mistake sometime.

It seems that Indians all blame China for the border conflict and accuse that “China back stabling India”. The historic records do not support your blame and accusation. Also, it seems that my Chinese friends in this forum did not present historic records on the Sino-India border conflict. I would like to make some changes here.

There are 3 disputed areas between China and India. They are:
• Disputed East section: 藏南地区 (Zang Nan Di Qu), Indian call it NEFA (North East Frontier Agency) until 1972, Arunachal Pradesh, after 1972. The 藏南地区 is ~ 90,000 square kilometers, under India’s control.
• Disputed Central section: ~ 2000 square kilometers, both China and India control part of it. China and India has exchanged the maps about each other’s LOC (Line Of Control). It seems that the dispute in this area is relatively close to be solved.
• Disputed West section: Aksai Chin (阿克赛钦), ~ 33,000 square kilometers under China’s control.

Today, I would like to concentrate my discussion on the dispute of East section, 藏南地区 (Zang Nan Di Qu). The border line claimed by China in this area is the traditional line which is the southern rim of Himalayas. Historically, Tibetans or Tibetan culture influenced people were the main residents north of this line. Today, after several dozens years of Indian’s immigrating into this area, Tibetan becomes the minority.

The border line claimed by India is the infamous McMahon Line, which was drawn by McMahon, a foreigner who colonized India. I hope that our Indian friends will not thank this colonizer for this artificial McMahon line.

The McMahon Line was a byproduct of Simla Convention in 1913-1914. The original goal of this Convention for British is to separate part of Tibet from China. The British secretly made a deal with the Tibetan negotiator. They promised that if the Tibetan gave up its 藏南地区, which means to accept the McMahon Line, they will force China to accept a border between Tibet and China. Chinese government knew the conspiracy and did not want to join the Convention. But China was so weak at that time and was forced to join the Convention. The British made a draft proposal, which separates Tibet into an inner Tibet that would be part of China and an outer Tibet that would be independent. The Chinese negotiator 陈贻范 was not very brave. Although he made lot of efforts to resist signing the draft, after months of bullied by the British, he signed the draft at early April, 1914. But 陈贻范 is smart enough to add sentences in the draft to declare that his signature is not official unless approved by Chinese government. While the Chinese government refused that draft immediately and ordered 陈贻范 not to sign any documents without the pre-approval of Chinese government.

As a Chinese, we need to thank 陆兴祺, a Chinese national hero, who was the Chinese representative in Calcutta, India at that time. He set up the Chinese negotiation strategy at Simla Convention. The strategy is that although we were forced to join the Convention, we would not accept anything. Also, he knew that Europe is on the way to WWI. British would not be able to bully China using military force. In this way, China would leave a record that China attended the Convention but not accept any agreements. The communications between 陆兴祺 and Beijing was intercepted and decoded by the British. But because the China’s strategy was so simple and straight forward, it did not help the British much. Without military backup, the British had no option but giving up the conspiracy of separating part of Tibet from China.

The greedy British still wanted to get something though. They wanted the McMahon Line to get 藏南地区 (Zang Nan Di Qu) from Tibet/China. Because of Chinese government’s firm position in border negotiation, the British can not get Chinese negotiator 陈贻范 signed the agreement. The British forced the Tibetan to sign the agreement on McMahon line. No Chinese governments accepted the McMahon line. Therefore, China always calls McMahon line illegal and 藏南地区 (Zang Nan Di Qu) a disputed area.

Even the elite Indians do not think that 藏南地区 (Zang Nan Di Qu) is part of India. A map on the first edition of “Discovery of India” published in 1946 by the later Indian PM Nehru shows 藏南地区 (Zang Nan Di Qu) is part of Tibet/China. A map in the biography of Gandhi published by Robert Payne in 1969 also shows 藏南地区 (Zang Nan Di Qu) is part of Tibet/China.

For the map signed between British and Tibetan in Simla Convention, 藏南地区 (Zang Nan Di Qu) was put into India, but on the same map, Aksai Chin (阿克赛钦) was in the Tibet/China. India’s claim on Aksai Chin (阿克赛钦) is also not any more solid compare to China’s claim. In my opinion, India’s claim is weaker. I may make a discussion on the history of Aksai Chin (阿克赛钦) dispute later in this forum if I am not too busy with my work.

With so many problems of India’s claiming of 藏南地区 (Zang Nan Di Qu) and Aksai Chin (阿克赛钦), India did not even accept the fact that those places are disputed areas. In 1957, Chinese PM Zhou Enlai proposed a solution that both sides kept the LOC (Line of Control), which means that China accepts the India’s control over 藏南地区 (Zang Nan Di Qu), while India accepts the China’s control over Aksai Chin (阿克赛钦). India did not accept any compromise. India put China’s leaving Aksai Chin (阿克赛钦) as a prerequisite condition for the peace negotiation. The China’s National Highway 219 connecting Tibet and Xinjiang goes through Aksai Chin (阿克赛钦). There is no way that China would give up Aksai Chin (阿克赛钦). But very strange, Indian believed that China would give up.

It is really India’s policies that push the Sino-India border dispute into military confrontation. India supported anti-China terrorist operations of a small group Tibetan in Tibet. I say that those operations were terrorist operations because they kill innocent Chinese people (Han, Tibetan and other minorities). India restricted anti-China terrorist operations from India after 1962 Sino-India border war.

India invented a “Forward Policy” at early 1960 to build posts around or even behind Chinese posts. Indian PM Nehru also publicly announced that he has ordered the India army to remove Chinese army from the disputed areas on 10/12/1962. General Kaul (ranked second in the Indian army) planned “Operation Leghorn” to implement Nehru’s political ambition to drive Chinese out. By the middle of 1962, India left only two options for China, retreating from all India claimed territory or striking back. China selected the later. Zhou Enlai told Indian that India can not treat China as a defeated country and force it to accept a humiliating option. China did not do the back stabbing. China made repeat warnings that China will strike back if India continues to challenge its sovereignty over its territory using “Forward Policy”. It is unbelievable that Indian government chose to totally ignore the repeat warning from Chinese government. India must have overestimated the difficulty of China. At that time China was still suffering from the disaster of the Great Leap Forward (大跃进). Even American government had learnt a lesson and did not ignore the warnings from Chinese government. In Korean War, China claimed if non-South Korean UN troop passes the 38 parallel, China will intervene. General MacArthur ignored this warning and China took the action to drive him back from Yalu River. In US-Vietnam war, China claimed if US ground force passes the 17th parallel, China will intervene. The US ground force did not pass the 17th parallel.

In the East section, following the “Forward Policy” India set Dhola Post (多拉哨所) on /06/04/1962 in the north of McMahon line that was claimed by India as its border. So, even by India’s standard, Indian army had invaded China’s territory. China protested India’s Dhola Post (多拉哨所) through diplomatic measures and also set up post in the opposite side of the Namka Chu river (克节朗河). But India claimed that the Sino-India border should be at Thagla Ridge (塔格拉山脊), which is behind Chinese post and north of McMahon line. So, India’s behavior showed that India did not even honor the McMahon line. Before setting up Dhola Post (多拉哨所), India nerve claimed that India has land north of McMahon line. Now, India wanted to even make unilateral changes on McMahon line to India’s advantage. India’s this action changed entire picture of the Sino-India border dispute. If China let this action no checked, India can make any unilateral changes as it wants. China made decision to check this India’s action.

Although, the exact date when China decided to strike back is not known. Some people believe that it is around the time when India set up Dhola Post (多拉哨所). Some Chinese articles about Sino-India border war said that when Mao and his generals heard that Indian army set up Dhola Post (多拉哨所) in north of McMahon line, they were very happy, because the striking back would be easily justified when the Indian army was invading Chinese territory. The top rank generals in the central command in Beijing are very cautious. They suggested a very limit operation to destroy only the 7th Brigade commanded by general Dalvi in the Namka Chu area (克节朗地区) to show China’s determination of protecting its territory and let India stop its “Forward Policy”. But the general 张国华 who directly commanded the east section operation in Tibet insisted a larger scale operation. He wanted at least to drive Indian army out from Tawang district (达旺地区) or even entire 藏南地区 (Zang Nan Di Qu). Mao agreed general 张国华’s plan and wanted to teach Nehru a lesson. Mao was afraid that only destroying the Indian 7th Brigade would not teach Nehru a good lesson. He said “we need this war to bring at least 30 years of peace between China and India”.

After Indian 7th Brigade was destroyed and general Dalvi was captured by Chinese army, India army gave up Tawang district (达旺地区) without a fight. The east section had mainly three fights, first fight: 10/20/1962 to 10/24/1962 in Namka Chu (克节朗) and Tawang (达旺) areas, second fight: 11/16/1962 to 11/17/1962 in Walong area (瓦弄地区), and third fight: 11/18/1962 to 11/20/1962 in Se la (色拉), Dirang Dzong (德让宗) and Bomdi La (邦迪拉) areas, which Chinese army cuts off Indian army’s retreat pass between Dirang Dzong (德让宗) and Bomdi La (邦迪拉) through Bailey Trail. By the early morning around 3:00am on 11/20/1962, the Indian army’s organized resistance in 藏南地区 (Zang Nan Di Qu) vanished. The Indian army’s organized resistance in Aksai Chin (阿克赛钦) had been vanished earlier. By then, China achieved its politic goal of the war.

China informed Indian embassy in Beijing late 11/19/1962 on China’s unilateral cease fire at 11/21/1962 morning and China’s planned withdraw at 12/01/1962. But somehow this important information did not reach Indian government until more than 24 hours later. In 11/20/1962, Indian PM Nehru forgot his non-alliance leader status and asked US to send USAF to attack Chinese troop and protect Indian cities from the air attack of Chinese air force. Finally, at early morning of 11/21/1962, Indian government got the information that Chinese has announced unilateral cease fire from Indian news papers.

In a hope of recovering Sino-China relation as soon as possible, China respected Indian POW’s dignity and released them unconditionally. China even returned the captured Indian weapons and equipments. China also withdrew its troop to its position at 11/07/1959. Someone argues that Chinese troop has to withdraw because it would be defeated if it didn’t. This argument is partly correct and partly wrong. China does not need to withdraw to its position at 11/07/1959. At least, China can set up defenses at Walong area (瓦弄地区) and Se la pass (色拉山口) where China has the logistical advantage. It would be a disaster for India army to attach these two places when winter was coming. China showed its respect to India without occupying more territory and hoped that India respects China too. Finally, both countries showed their respects to each other and accepted cease fire agreement arranged by Sri Lanka, Egypt, Cambodia, and Indonesia. The war officially ended.

On the Sino-India border, neither side can penetrate the other side very far even today. The logistical difficult over the Himalaya will bring the disaster. For China, without really penetrating very far, it will threaten Assam, the populous and developed areas. The fight over Assam will cause big damage to India. Of course, Chinese troop can not stay in Assam. It needs to withdraw when the political goal is reached. On the other hand, even if India penetrates far into Tibet, it can not destroy anything. If China block some mountain passes or bomb some mountain passes and make them impossible to pass, Indian troop will be cut off from India. Winter will do the same thing. Even if China did not win all the battles, China will win the war if Indian comes to Tibet. Listen to Mao’s military strategy, "The enemy advances, we retreat; the enemy halts, we harass; the enemy tires, we attack; the enemy retreats, we pursue.” China is guarantied to win the war. Now the railway and fuel pipe have been connected to Lhasa. They will be extended to Shigatse in near future. China’s logistical ability has been exponentially improved in Tibet. Any war in Tibet will be disaster for India. India may block the Chinese oil import fleets on Indian Ocean, which will hurt Chinese economy but would not stop Chinese war ability. China still provides 60% of its domestic oil supply. The oil supply from central Asia and Russia may still flow. Today, a Sino-India war will be hurting both sides without either side gain anything because both sides need to retreat back to its side of Himalaya. So the Sino-India war should never happen again. We should learn from our past experiences.

In fact, the 1962 Sino-India war can be avoided if India accepted China’s proposal, which is the situation now. But today, many Sino-India experts in Beijing expressed their objections on accepting a border agreement with India under the existing situation. They want that at least India returns Tawang district (达旺地区) to China, which has a very strong historic relation with Tibet. The Tawany temple (达旺寺) is important to Tibetan religion. One of the greatest Dalai Lama, the 6th Dalai Lama, was born in Tawang district (达旺地区). Tibetan ruled the Tawang district (达旺地区) until 1930s or even into 1940s.

For last several years, China and India are improving their relation. A couple of years ago, when visiting India, Chinese PM Zhu Rongji said that we trust that Indian will not shoot us and we know that we will not shoot Indian. So, there is trust between us. When we trust each other to this degree, we can seat together to discuss our problems peacefully.

Some of you may think that Neville Maxwell’s “India’s China war” is pro-China. May be you can read “The China-India Border War” written by CALVIN, James Barnard, Lieutenant Commander of US navy in 1984 at: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm

I am not sure if the US navy commander is also pro-China. If it is true, it is great. We may get help from US navy in our next war.

Ray
26 Dec 06,, 14:43
ray,

much thanks for that info!

regarding acclimatization, and other matters, is there a specific history of the '62 war that anyone can refer me to? what i'm asking is, how long did the chinese prepare for this war in advance.

They had prepared and of that there is no doubt.

The Chinese are very farsighted and their policy is deeper than what meets the eye.

Indians had no clue of 1962 and even now have no clue about the going ons within the Chinese domain before 1962. Lost in pink clouds was our venerable PM, Pt Jawahar lal Nehru!

His daughter was a leader par excellence!

Ray
26 Dec 06,, 14:47
Chop Chop,

This forum is a serious forum where intelligent interaction occurs, even if divergent in views.

Juvenile comments and rantings do jar and bring the standard of the forum to disrepute.

May I request you to bone up on the issue that you wish to project, rather than be at sixes and sevens and end up being the star attraction of Barnum and Bailey?

Ray
26 Dec 06,, 15:03
Pin,

Lamb is a pro Pakistan writer and is not quite an authority. His books debunk even facts that are axiomatic. A Colonel Brown so to say.

Neville Maxwell is tongue in cheek in his debunking of India and Indian politics.

James Barnard banks heavily on this two authors and hence obviously one could draw the conclusion that it is not beyond bias.

When one writes a dissertation for his Staff College course, one likes to be scintillating and brilliant. Hence, one prefers to be thought provoking, in other words, controversial to catch the eye of the evaluators and quoting extensively from published work, albeit biased. The evaluators have no option but to take it as read.

Been there, though avoided that!

Nonetheless, it was refreshing to hear your views. It adds to my knowledge.

My dissertation was "Communism a Threat to India". They thought that being a person from an Indian State ruled by the Communists, I would have a better idea of the shenanigans of the Indian Communists!

BTW, my state continues to be run by Communists, but they have now turned captialists like China.

667medic
26 Dec 06,, 15:17
Those who are in US and Canada are still writing for the forum during Christmas holiday. We surely need to make some contribution to the forum too. ;)



Dear Indian friends,

No offense to the Indian friends. In this article, I just wanted to present China’s view on the Sino-China border war in 1962. If you think that some part of my writings is wrong, please correct me. I do make mistake sometime.

It seems that Indians all blame China for the border conflict and accuse that “China back stabling India”. The historic records do not support your blame and accusation. Also, it seems that my Chinese friends in this forum did not present historic records on the Sino-India border conflict. I would like to make some changes here.

There are 3 disputed areas between China and India. They are:
• Disputed East section: 藏南地区 (Zang Nan Di Qu), Indian call it NEFA (North East Frontier Agency) until 1972, Arunachal Pradesh, after 1972. The 藏南地区 is ~ 90,000 square kilometers, under India’s control.
• Disputed Central section: ~ 2000 square kilometers, both China and India control part of it. China and India has exchanged the maps about each other’s LOC (Line Of Control). It seems that the dispute in this area is relatively close to be solved.
• Disputed West section: Aksai Chin (阿克赛钦), ~ 33,000 square kilometers under China’s control.

Today, I would like to concentrate my discussion on the dispute of East section, 藏南地区 (Zang Nan Di Qu). The border line claimed by China in this area is the traditional line which is the southern rim of Himalayas. Historically, Tibetans or Tibetan culture influenced people were the main residents north of this line. Today, after several dozens years of Indian’s immigrating into this area, Tibetan becomes the minority.

The border line claimed by India is the infamous McMahon Line, which was drawn by McMahon, a foreigner who colonized India. I hope that our Indian friends will not thank this colonizer for this artificial McMahon line.

The McMahon Line was a byproduct of Simla Convention in 1913-1914. The original goal of this Convention for British is to separate part of Tibet from China. The British secretly made a deal with the Tibetan negotiator. They promised that if the Tibetan gave up its 藏南地区, which means to accept the McMahon Line, they will force China to accept a border between Tibet and China. Chinese government knew the conspiracy and did not want to join the Convention. But China was so weak at that time and was forced to join the Convention. The British made a draft proposal, which separates Tibet into an inner Tibet that would be part of China and an outer Tibet that would be independent. The Chinese negotiator 陈贻范 was not very brave. Although he made lot of efforts to resist signing the draft, after months of bullied by the British, he signed the draft at early April, 1914. But 陈贻范 is smart enough to add sentences in the draft to declare that his signature is not official unless approved by Chinese government. While the Chinese government refused that draft immediately and ordered 陈贻范 not to sign any documents without the pre-approval of Chinese government.

As a Chinese, we need to thank 陆兴祺, a Chinese national hero, who was the Chinese representative in Calcutta, India at that time. He set up the Chinese negotiation strategy at Simla Convention. The strategy is that although we were forced to join the Convention, we would not accept anything. Also, he knew that Europe is on the way to WWI. British would not be able to bully China using military force. In this way, China would leave a record that China attended the Convention but not accept any agreements. The communications between 陆兴祺 and Beijing was intercepted and decoded by the British. But because the China’s strategy was so simple and straight forward, it did not help the British much. Without military backup, the British had no option but giving up the conspiracy of separating part of Tibet from China.

The greedy British still wanted to get something though. They wanted the McMahon Line to get 藏南地区 (Zang Nan Di Qu) from Tibet/China. Because of Chinese government’s firm position in border negotiation, the British can not get Chinese negotiator 陈贻范 signed the agreement. The British forced the Tibetan to sign the agreement on McMahon line. No Chinese governments accepted the McMahon line. Therefore, China always calls McMahon line illegal and 藏南地区 (Zang Nan Di Qu) a disputed area.

Even the elite Indians do not think that 藏南地区 (Zang Nan Di Qu) is part of India. A map on the first edition of “Discovery of India” published in 1946 by the later Indian PM Nehru shows 藏南地区 (Zang Nan Di Qu) is part of Tibet/China. A map in the biography of Gandhi published by Robert Payne in 1969 also shows 藏南地区 (Zang Nan Di Qu) is part of Tibet/China.

For the map signed between British and Tibetan in Simla Convention, 藏南地区 (Zang Nan Di Qu) was put into India, but on the same map, Aksai Chin (阿克赛钦) was in the Tibet/China. India’s claim on Aksai Chin (阿克赛钦) is also not any more solid compare to China’s claim. In my opinion, India’s claim is weaker. I may make a discussion on the history of Aksai Chin (阿克赛钦) dispute later in this forum if I am not too busy with my work.

With so many problems of India’s claiming of 藏南地区 (Zang Nan Di Qu) and Aksai Chin (阿克赛钦), India did not even accept the fact that those places are disputed areas. In 1957, Chinese PM Zhou Enlai proposed a solution that both sides kept the LOC (Line of Control), which means that China accepts the India’s control over 藏南地区 (Zang Nan Di Qu), while India accepts the China’s control over Aksai Chin (阿克赛钦). India did not accept any compromise. India put China’s leaving Aksai Chin (阿克赛钦) as a prerequisite condition for the peace negotiation. The China’s National Highway 219 connecting Tibet and Xinjiang goes through Aksai Chin (阿克赛钦). There is no way that China would give up Aksai Chin (阿克赛钦). But very strange, Indian believed that China would give up.

It is really India’s policies that push the Sino-India border dispute into military confrontation. India supported anti-China terrorist operations of a small group Tibetan in Tibet. I say that those operations were terrorist operations because they kill innocent Chinese people (Han, Tibetan and other minorities). India restricted anti-China terrorist operations from India after 1962 Sino-India border war.

India invented a “Forward Policy” at early 1960 to build posts around or even behind Chinese posts. Indian PM Nehru also publicly announced that he has ordered the India army to remove Chinese army from the disputed areas on 10/12/1962. General Kaul (ranked second in the Indian army) planned “Operation Leghorn” to implement Nehru’s political ambition to drive Chinese out. By the middle of 1962, India left only two options for China, retreating from all India claimed territory or striking back. China selected the later. Zhou Enlai told Indian that India can not treat China as a defeated country and force it to accept a humiliating option. China did not do the back stabbing. China made repeat warnings that China will strike back if India continues to challenge its sovereignty over its territory using “Forward Policy”. It is unbelievable that Indian government chose to totally ignore the repeat warning from Chinese government. India must have overestimated the difficulty of China. At that time China was still suffering from the disaster of the Great Leap Forward (大跃进). Even American government had learnt a lesson and did not ignore the warnings from Chinese government. In Korean War, China claimed if non-South Korean UN troop passes the 38 parallel, China will intervene. General MacArthur ignored this warning and China took the action to drive him back from Yalu River. In US-Vietnam war, China claimed if US ground force passes the 17th parallel, China will intervene. The US ground force did not pass the 17th parallel.

In the East section, following the “Forward Policy” India set Dhola Post (多拉哨所) on /06/04/1962 in the north of McMahon line that was claimed by India as its border. So, even by India’s standard, Indian army had invaded China’s territory. China protested India’s Dhola Post (多拉哨所) through diplomatic measures and also set up post in the opposite side of the Namka Chu river (克节朗河). But India claimed that the Sino-India border should be at Thagla Ridge (塔格拉山脊), which is behind Chinese post and north of McMahon line. So, India’s behavior showed that India did not even honor the McMahon line. Before setting up Dhola Post (多拉哨所), India nerve claimed that India has land north of McMahon line. Now, India wanted to even make unilateral changes on McMahon line to India’s advantage. India’s this action changed entire picture of the Sino-India border dispute. If China let this action no checked, India can make any unilateral changes as it wants. China made decision to check this India’s action.

Although, the exact date when China decided to strike back is not known. Some people believe that it is around the time when India set up Dhola Post (多拉哨所). Some Chinese articles about Sino-India border war said that when Mao and his generals heard that Indian army set up Dhola Post (多拉哨所) in north of McMahon line, they were very happy, because the striking back would be easily justified when the Indian army was invading Chinese territory. The top rank generals in the central command in Beijing are very cautious. They suggested a very limit operation to destroy only the 7th Brigade commanded by general Dalvi in the Namka Chu area (克节朗地区) to show China’s determination of protecting its territory and let India stop its “Forward Policy”. But the general 张国华 who directly commanded the east section operation in Tibet insisted a larger scale operation. He wanted at least to drive Indian army out from Tawang district (达旺地区) or even entire 藏南地区 (Zang Nan Di Qu). Mao agreed general 张国华’s plan and wanted to teach Nehru a lesson. Mao was afraid that only destroying the Indian 7th Brigade would not teach Nehru a good lesson. He said “we need this war to bring at least 30 years of peace between China and India”.

After Indian 7th Brigade was destroyed and general Dalvi was captured by Chinese army, India army gave up Tawang district (达旺地区) without a fight. The east section had mainly three fights, first fight: 10/20/1962 to 10/24/1962 in Namka Chu (克节朗) and Tawang (达旺) areas, second fight: 11/16/1962 to 11/17/1962 in Walong area (瓦弄地区), and third fight: 11/18/1962 to 11/20/1962 in Se la (色拉), Dirang Dzong (德让宗) and Bomdi La (邦迪拉) areas, which Chinese army cuts off Indian army’s retreat pass between Dirang Dzong (德让宗) and Bomdi La (邦迪拉) through Bailey Trail. By the early morning around 3:00am on 11/20/1962, the Indian army’s organized resistance in 藏南地区 (Zang Nan Di Qu) vanished. The Indian army’s organized resistance in Aksai Chin (阿克赛钦) had been vanished earlier. By then, China achieved its politic goal of the war.

China informed Indian embassy in Beijing late 11/19/1962 on China’s unilateral cease fire at 11/21/1962 morning and China’s planned withdraw at 12/01/1962. But somehow this important information did not reach Indian government until more than 24 hours later. In 11/20/1962, Indian PM Nehru forgot his non-alliance leader status and asked US to send USAF to attack Chinese troop and protect Indian cities from the air attack of Chinese air force. Finally, at early morning of 11/21/1962, Indian government got the information that Chinese has announced unilateral cease fire from Indian news papers.

In a hope of recovering Sino-China relation as soon as possible, China respected Indian POW’s dignity and released them unconditionally. China even returned the captured Indian weapons and equipments. China also withdrew its troop to its position at 11/07/1959. Someone argues that Chinese troop has to withdraw because it would be defeated if it didn’t. This argument is partly correct and partly wrong. China does not need to withdraw to its position at 11/07/1959. At least, China can set up defenses at Walong area (瓦弄地区) and Se la pass (色拉山口) where China has the logistical advantage. It would be a disaster for India army to attach these two places when winter was coming. China showed its respect to India without occupying more territory and hoped that India respects China too. Finally, both countries showed their respects to each other and accepted cease fire agreement arranged by Sri Lanka, Egypt, Cambodia, and Indonesia. The war officially ended.

On the Sino-India border, neither side can penetrate the other side very far even today. The logistical difficult over the Himalaya will bring the disaster. For China, without really penetrating very far, it will threaten Assam, the populous and developed areas. The fight over Assam will cause big damage to India. Of course, Chinese troop can not stay in Assam. It needs to withdraw when the political goal is reached. On the other hand, even if India penetrates far into Tibet, it can not destroy anything. If China block some mountain passes or bomb some mountain passes and make them impossible to pass, Indian troop will be cut off from India. Winter will do the same thing. Even if China did not win all the battles, China will win the war if Indian comes to Tibet. Listen to Mao’s military strategy, "The enemy advances, we retreat; the enemy halts, we harass; the enemy tires, we attack; the enemy retreats, we pursue.” China is guarantied to win the war. Now the railway and fuel pipe have been connected to Lhasa. They will be extended to Shigatse in near future. China’s logistical ability has been exponentially improved in Tibet. Any war in Tibet will be disaster for India. India may block the Chinese oil import fleets on Indian Ocean, which will hurt Chinese economy but would not stop Chinese war ability. China still provides 60% of its domestic oil supply. The oil supply from central Asia and Russia may still flow. Today, a Sino-India war will be hurting both sides without either side gain anything because both sides need to retreat back to its side of Himalaya. So the Sino-India war should never happen again. We should learn from our past experiences.

In fact, the 1962 Sino-India war can be avoided if India accepted China’s proposal, which is the situation now. But today, many Sino-India experts in Beijing expressed their objections on accepting a border agreement with India under the existing situation. They want that at least India returns Tawang district (达旺地区) to China, which has a very strong historic relation with Tibet. The Tawany temple (达旺寺) is important to Tibetan religion. One of the greatest Dalai Lama, the 6th Dalai Lama, was born in Tawang district (达旺地区). Tibetan ruled the Tawang district (达旺地区) until 1930s or even into 1940s.

For last several years, China and India are improving their relation. A couple of years ago, when visiting India, Chinese PM Zhu Rongji said that we trust that Indian will not shoot us and we know that we will not shoot Indian. So, there is trust between us. When we trust each other to this degree, we can seat together to discuss our problems peacefully.

Some of you may think that Neville Maxwell’s “India’s China war” is pro-China. May be you can read “The China-India Border War” written by CALVIN, James Barnard, Lieutenant Commander of US navy in 1984 at: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm

I am not sure if the US navy commander is also pro-China. If it is true, it is great. We may get help from US navy in our next war.

BG Ray has already answered as to why the three authors are not credible. So please shove your moralist preachings in some other place.
If you want a better account of why China attacked India read this by Garver, a well respected Sinologist....

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~johnston/garver.pdf

PS: I don't buy the story of the "backstabbing" by China. Indian Foreign Minister Patel had correctly predicted in 1949 that China would be belligerent towards India over Tibet but Nehru chose to ignore him. The rest is history.....

Ray
26 Dec 06,, 15:48
ibet and China: Two Distinct Views*

Chinese History of Tibet | Tibetan History of Tibet
World Governments Do Not Recognize Tibet | World Governments Do Recognize Tibet Tibet Was Liberated | Tibet Was Not Liberated

The Chinese History of Tibet
Tibet has been part of China since the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368). Centuries ago Mongol and Manchu Emperors ruled or influenced large parts of Asia. During the Tang period (618-907), the Tibetan King, Songsten Gampo, married Princess Wen Cheng. The Princess is thought to have had alot of influence in Tibet. During the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368), Tibet was part of the Mongol Empire which was under Yuan rule. At this time, the Yuan Government implemented residence registration, levied taxes, and imposed corvee duties in Tibet. China's "White Paper" claims that the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) "replaced the Yuan dynasty in China and inherited the right to rule Tibet." During the Manchu rule (1644-1911), the Qing army on a number of occasions entered Tibet to protect it. Finally, in 1951, China and the Tibetan Local Government signed a 17-point agreement concerning the peaceful liberation of Tibet. During this time, The 14th Dalai Lama supported this liberation and acknowledged Tibet is one part of China.

The Tibetan History of Tibet
Tibet has a recorded history of statehood extending back to 127 B.C. In the seventh to ninth centuries, the Tibetans often bested the Tang dynasty in battle. Additionally, during this dynasty, the marriage of Princess Wen Cheng and King Gampo was viewed as a strategic move to achieve cooperation and peace between Tibet and China. In 821, after centuries of periodic fighting, China and Tibet signed a treaty where boundaries were confirmed, and each country promised respect for the other's territorial sovereignty. During the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368), the Mongol leader, Genghis Khan, conquered most of Eurasia including China. Thus, instead of China claiming a right to Tibet, Mongolia could assert claim to both China and Tibet. There is no historic evidence to support the assumption that the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) ruled Tibet. In fact, the Qing Emperor in 1652 not only accepted The Fifth Dalai Lama as a leader of an independent state, the Emperor also treated Him as a Divinity on Earth. During this period, Tibet was known in Chinese as Wu-si Zang or Wu-si Guo (guo meaning country). During the Manchu rule (1644-1911), the Qing army was asked by Tibetans to settle disputes. But, this does not support China's right to Tibet. If it did, then the U.S.A. should claim Kuwait and Haiti since it assisted these countries. In fact, on a number of occasions, Tibet exercised power over China, suggesting that perhaps Tibet should claim China! At the time of China's invasion in 1949, Tibet possessed all the attributes of an independent country recognized by international law, including a defined territory, a government, tax system, unique currency, unique postal system and stamps, army, and the ability to carryout international relations. Two years later, the 17-point agreement was imposed on the Tibetan Government by the threat of arms after 40,000 PLA troops had already seized Tibetºs eastern provincial capital, Chamdo. The Tibetan delegates were threatened. The seal of the Tibetan Government was forged by Peking. In Tibet, The 14th Dalai Lama could not freely express His disapproval. However, soon after arriving in India, He repudiated this Agreement stating it was "thrust upon the Tibetan Government and people by the threat of arms." If Tibet had always been a part of China, why was there a need for the 17-point agreement? Finally, the Atlas of Chinese History Maps (published by Chinese Social Science Institute in Beijing) depicts Tibet as an independent country that was never part of China at least before 1280.

Chinese History of Tibet | Tibetan History of Tibet
World Governments Do Not Recognize Tibet | World Governments Do Recognize Tibet Tibet Was Liberated | Tibet Was Not Liberated

World Governments Do Not Recognize Tibet: China's Perspective
China asserts that no country has ever recognized Tibet. China also contends that Britain masterminded the Simla Conference (1913-1914) in collusion with Tibetan pro-British individuals. Both wanted to separate Tibet from China. At the time of the Simla Conference, even though the "McMahon Line" was negotiated between Tibet and Britain, at the end of the tripartite conference on Tibet's status and boundaries, Chinese officials who were present refused to recognize the "Line" on the grounds that Tibet was subordinate to China and had no power to make any treaties.

World Governments Recognize Tibet: The Tibetan Perspective
International law states that recognition can occur by explicit or implicit acts including treaties, negotiations, and diplomatic relations. Mongolia and Tibet signed a formal treaty of recognition in 1913. Historically, Nepal and Tibet had peace treaties. Tibetºs independence was also confirmed at the Treaty of Simla (1914) which was concluded by Tibet and British India. In 1949, Tibet maintained diplomatic, economic, and cultural relations with such countries as Nepal, Sikkim, Mongolia, China, British India, and to some extent, Russia and Japan. Further, Nepal maintained an Ambassador in Lhasa and told the U.N. in 1949 that it conducted international relations with Tibet. In fact, Britian, Bhutan, India, and even China also maintained diplomatic missions in Tibet's capitol, Lhasa. The Tibetan Foreign Office conducted talks with President Franklin D. Roosevelt when he sent representatives to Lhasa to discuss the allied war effort against Japan during World War II. In 1950, El Salvador formally requested that China's aggression against Tibet be placed on the agenda of the U.N. General Assembly. The issue was not discussed. However, during four U.N. General Assembly debates on Tibet (1959, 1960, 1961, & 1965), many countries (e.g., Philippines, Nicaragua, Thailand. United States, Ireland) openly stated that Tibet was an independent country illegally occupied by China. In fact, the U.N. passed three resolutions (1959, 1961, & 1965) concerning Tibet stating that Tibetans were deprived of their inalienable rights to self-determination. Even Mao Zedong during the Long March admitted that Tibet was an independent country when he passed through the border regions of Tibet remarking, "This is our only foreign debt, and some day we must pay the Mantzu (sic) and the Tibetans for the provisions we were obliged to take from them." Tibetans clearly constitute a people under international law, as described, for instance, by the UNESCO International Meeting of Experts on Further Study of the Concept of the Rights of Peoples. They are a distinct people and fulfill all the characteristics of this concept: commonality of history, shared language, culture, and ethnicity.

Chinese History of Tibet | Tibetan History of Tibet
World Governments Do Not Recognize Tibet | World Governments Do Recognize Tibet Tibet Was Liberated | Tibet Was Not Liberated

Tibet Was Liberated: Chinaºs Perspective
China states that its invasion and occupation of Tibet was designed to liberate Tibetans from medieval feudal serfdom and slavery. Tibetan serfs were thought to have no freedoms. They were regarded by their masters as talking animals. China argues that the masses of Tibetan serfs lived in extreme poverty. Since the liberation in 1959, China asserts that Tibetans have enjoyed all rights of equality and they have embarked on the road of freedom and happiness. China claims that Tibet is now a modernized community benefitting from economic growth and social progress. Millions of serfs are now the masters of their fate, and large numbers of Tibetan workers, intellectuals, and officials have taken up the task of building and managing Tibet. China argues that all Tibetans now have equal rights in politics, the economy, and in their daily life. Tibetans are also thought to enjoy full religious freedom. China claims that Tibetans have greatly benefitted from their presence. There are now over 2,500 primary schools in Tibet. Moreover, according to Chinaºs White Paper, China has invested 1.1 billion yuans to develop education in Tibet. Big strides have been made in education, science, culture, and public health. For instance, China argues that it has rebuilt Tibetan Monasteries, Nunneries, and monuments. Further, it asserts that the Tibetan population has soared to 2 million from 1 million in the 1950's. China also claims that the Tibetans fully support the Communist Party and Government officials in Tibet. China argues that negotiation is the only solution for Tibet, stating that The 14th Dalai Lama should size up the situation, go with the tide of historical development and make a correct choice.

Tibet Was Not Liberated: The Tibetan Perspective
Old Tibet was not perfect. The current Dalai Lama has admitted this. However, The 14th Dalai Lama initiated far-reaching reforms in Tibet as soon as He assumed temportal authority. Throughout Tibet's history, the mistreatment of peasants was forbidden by law and social norms. The largest portion of land in Tibet was held by peasants. Famine and starvation were unheard of in Tibet. The "liberation" has resulted in the death of over 1.2 million Tibetans and the destruction of over 6,000 Tibetan Monasteries and cultural centers. Before the "liberation" in 1959, the population of Tibet was 6 million. Prior to the invasion, Tibet was a simple and self-reliant nation with a very rich cultural heritage. Tibetºs citizens, in comparison to its' neighbors, enjoyed much greater freedom. Currently, Tibetans have become veritable serfs. In independent Tibet, over 6,000 Monasteries and Nunneries served as schools. Most were destroyed, and many have been reconstructed as result of Tibetan finances and labor. The teachers in China's "new schools" are unqualified to teach the Tibetan language, culture, or history. Chinese students are the main beneficiaries of these schools. Since 1980, over 15,000 Tibetan children have fled Tibet to receive education in India.The primary beneficiaries of Chinaºs presence in Tibet have been the Chinese settlers, their government and military, and their business enterprises. Former Communist Party Secretary, Hu Yaobang, even admitted in 1980 that the living standard of Tibetans had declined since 1959 and that the large Chinese presence was an obstacle to development. China's policies in Tibet do not even receive full support from Tibetan cadres, let alone the Tibetan people. China has never found a trustworthy Tibetan to serve in a key government post in Tibet. For the past 21 years, The Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government In-Exile have offered a number of proposals for negotiations for the mutual benefit of Tibet and China. All have been ignored or rejected by China.

*Note. These views were extracted from various Tibetan and Chinese printed materials.

TIBET: A Brief History

Home


Why Independence? | Why is Tibet Important? | What Can I Do? | Archive
links | Important Addresses | Merchandise | E-Mail | Asian Map

Where's The Panchen Lama?

Ray
26 Dec 06,, 17:53
http://www.rangzen.org/history/views.htm

TIBET: A Brief History

Dragon Attacks 1949-1959
Taking the first step toward what has become 50 years of oppression, China's People's Liberation Army invades Tibet, killing more than 10,000. Repeated attempts by The Dalai Lama to negotiate with China are dismissed. In 1950, the 15-year-old Dalai Lama is forced into full leadership of Tibet, while in 1951 a Tibetan Delegation is forced to sign the 17-Point Agreement, promising "Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet." During 1959, The Dalai Lama went to China to speak with Chairman Mao Zedong. Mao told him, "Religion is poison. ... Tibet and Mongolia have both been poisoned by it." Also during this year, the Chinese retaliate against the Tibetan resistance, killing more than 87,000. On March 17, 1959, The Dalai Lama escapes His sacred homeland, seeking political asylum in India. The Chinese declare martial law as thousands of Tibetan refugees begin pouring into India.

Smash the Four Olds 1958-1976
During Chairman Mao Zedong's "Great Leap Forward," Tibetans suffered through the Tibetan Cultural Revolution experiencing some of the worst human rights abuses ever known, under the slogan "Smash the Four Olds:" old ideas, old culture, old customs and old habits. Before the Chinese occupation, there are 6,000 Tibetan monasteries in Tibet. After the Cultural Revolution, there are six. Hundreds of thousands of Monks, Nuns and civilians are imprisoned or killed for wearing traditional hairstyles and clothing, engaging in traditional song or dance, or voicing their religious beliefs. Rituals such as prostrations, mantras, prayer wheels, circumambulation, throwing tsampa and burning juniper or incense are strictly prohibited. Anything representing the cultural identity of the Tibetan people is eradicated.

Dragon Attacks 1949-1595 | Smash the Four Olds 1958-1976
A Prison State 1950-Present | Environmental Apocalypse 1960-Present

A Prison State 1950-Present
More than 250,000 Tibetans die in prisons and labor camps. Tibetan women are raped, sterilized and forced to have abortions. Children are shut off from Tibetan culture and subjected to beatings by teachers and authority figures. Nun's accounts of their prison experiences indicate they are targeted by the Chinese. They are subjected to extreme methods of torture: Dogs are used to bite them; their faces and torsos are burned with cigarettes; and electric batons are used on their genitals. Tibetan refugee children report that teachers and other authority figures subject them to beatings using rubber clubs, whips, belts, chairs, electric wires and other instruments.

Environmental Apocalypse 1960s-Present
China has inflicted severe damage to Tibetºs environment: Toxic waste is dumped into rivers; forests are clear-cut; endangered species are hunted for sport; and nuclear-testing facilities are built. Hundreds of thousands of Tibetans die from famine and disease. The Chinese begin building facilities for the development of nuclear weapons and begin nuclear testing in the Tibetan plateau. In just 30 years, 25 percent of Tibet's forests are clear-cut, putting $54 billion into Chinese pockets. In the 1980s, this rapid deforestation causes 5 billion tons of soil to be lost to erosion every year, making the Yellow River flood. China currently has at least 300 to 400 nuclear warheads, many of which are in the Tibetan plateau. China declares in 1991 the "Year of Tibet" and begins bulldozing historic Tibetan buildings and homes in the Barkhor, the central square of Lhasa, Tibet's capital.

Ray
26 Dec 06,, 17:55
In short, history remains to be the perspective that one wants to view it from!

Every country has its own perspective to suit its requirements.

667medic
28 Dec 06,, 16:16
In short, history remains to be the perspective that one wants to view it from!

Every country has its own perspective to suit its requirements.

The stance of both the countries is irritating. India should stop playing the backstabbed underdog and also strictly tell China to stuff its moralistic preachings:mad: :mad:

Ray
28 Dec 06,, 17:13
Actually, they are playing a great game of deception together.

667medic
28 Dec 06,, 18:56
Actually, they are playing a great game of deception together.

Fortunately Sir, the majority of the public still considers pakistan to be our enemy. Thus any so called deal with pakistan would be under strict public scrutiny. I believe not so for China ....

percentage_plyr
28 Dec 06,, 20:38
Chop Chop,

This forum is a serious forum where intelligent interaction occurs, even if divergent in views.

Juvenile comments and rantings do jar and bring the standard of the forum to disrepute.

May I request you to bone up on the issue that you wish to project, rather than be at sixes and sevens and end up being the star attraction of Barnum and Bailey?


lolol......so british!

pin_qinghai
29 Dec 06,, 13:14
Dear Ray,

Happy new year !

If possible, could you put your dissertation "Communism a Threat to India" online and I would like to have the honor of studying it. Thanks.

I have tremendous respect to you, OOE, zraver, 667medic and all Military Professionals. I also have tremendous respect to gunnut, astralis, Jay and all Senior Contributors. Arguing with this group of people, I feel a little bit impolite and offensive. Chinese people do respect betters.

I would like to ask your forgiveness if I argue with you about Sino-India war and China/Tibet issues.

First, I think that the Sino-India war is a separate issue from the China/Tibet history. Second, Tibet is part of China and Chinese brought great progress to the Tibet society economically, socially and politically.

The life of most Tibetan has been improved greatly. Of course, those Masters of the Serfs and radical religious persons would not like to see this happen.

Before 1950, the Tibet was a theocratic society that still exercises Serfs and Masters social system. I am not sure if there are any other places on the earth to practice this very inhuman and brutal system by Law in 20th century. In early 1950s, China did not want to weak the stability of Tibet overnight and did not make sudden change on this system. It made gradual change until 1959. In 1959, China required to stop all Serfs and Masters Practices and then the Masters and Lamas started uprising.

When a British trained chief military officer wanted to do some reform in Tibetan army, he offended some Lamas and got a sentence of taking both of his eye balls out. I can not even explain the brutality here. Take out eye balls, cut nose, cut ear, cut hand or arm, cut feet or lag were the Tibet Laws before 1950 for many offenses. Ask Dalai Lama to see if he can deny these charges I made here.

Before 1950, the Tibet law clearly stated that people are not equal. If a high class people hurt a low class people, he only needs to pay the medicine to treat that low class people. If a low class people hurt a high class people, his hand or arm may be cut as a punishment. The law says the life of lowest people worth a piece of rope, the life of the highest people worth the gold of his weight. I am not sure if this is similar to the India's Caste System.

Those Tibetans in exile and radical lamas want to describe Tibet before 1950 as paradise; I would like to challenge them. It may be paradise for the Lamas and Masters, but it was hell on the earth for most Tibetans.

I hope that some Tibetans in exile or some radical Lamas who may look through this forum dare to come out to deny the charges I made here. I really want to make some argument with them.

Thos propaganda of huge number of Tibetan died, raped or whatever are totally lies. Because they lied too many times for too long, people do not care about them any more. One or two Tibetan were shot have become a huge event. How can hundred of thousands people died or raped without any proof. In fact, although several prestige anti-China human right organizations accused China for not enough religious freedom for those radical lamas, but no of them accused China for massive death and rape.

For the family planning, Tibetan enjoys privilege. In China, if both parents are Han Chinese, they can have only one kid. If one parent is minority, they can have two kids. If both parents are minority, they can have 3 kids. Today, the limit has been loosing for all people because not many people in city want to have more kids.

I was born and grew up in Qinghai province, which is considered by Dalai Lama to be part of his great Tibet. I know what happens in Tibet.


BTW, the record of India’s treating its minorities is quite questionable. Even at the height of Sino-India confrontation, India sill needed to divert substantial military force to suppress the uprising of its minorities.

Draconion
29 Dec 06,, 13:34
BTW, the record of India’s treating its minorities is quite questionable. Even at the height of Sino-India confrontation, India sill needed to divert substantial military force to suppress the uprising of its minorities.

Yup...They call themselves minorities...

The second largest Muslim population in the world.

A sizeably Christian population.(Ask lemontree wether he's been ever mistreated, or Samudra)

Or even ask Tronic(hes a sikh I believe)

Our President is a Muslim, whom everybody respects and admires...our Prime minister is a Sikh(thats only 1-2% of the population)

The country in reality is run by a catholic Italian...I mean how much more liberal people do you want?

Dont speak BS...dont speak at all if you dont know something...but dont speak BS...

667medic
29 Dec 06,, 13:39
AFA Tibet is concerned, both sides reneged after 1959. Chinese failed on the promise they made to Nehru and Nehru on his part either ignored or even assisted the insurgency in Tibet.....

Draconion
29 Dec 06,, 13:42
For the family planning, Tibetan enjoys privilege. In China, if both parents are Han Chinese, they can have only one kid. If one parent is minority, they can have two kids. If both parents are minority, they can have 3 kids. Today, the limit has been loosing for all people because not many people in city want to have more kids.


YIPEEE....They are allowed three children...I am sure they are dancing wildly in thier lil tibetian huts butt naked freezing themselves to death.

What freedom you'll enjoy...I mean the govt is allowing you Three...****...Three...(are you sure they said three...i mean thats too much...)...!!!Three....

In India, people can(and some do) have more children than the number of lil pups most *****es produce....thats freedom...just have a look at our quasi-illiterate, wannabe-simpleton jackass Laloo Prasad..the bastard has 9 children..and has singlehandely spoiled the entire economy of an entire state...thats freedom...

*Sniff*

I Salute the Great Indian Democracy...;)

pin_qinghai
29 Dec 06,, 13:59
667medic:
BG Ray has already answered as to why the three authors are not credible. So please shove your moralist preachings in some other place.
If you want a better account of why China attacked India read this by Garver, a well respected Sinologist....

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~johnston/garver.pdf



Dear 667medic,

Happy new year !

Have you ever read this John Garver’s article that you recommended to me? I read it and liked it very much. It proved that my moralist preaching (China's view) written in #160 is correct. You are more than welcome to present your India's view.

John Garver’s article gives China the moral superiority in the Sino-India 1962 war.

John Garver’s article is even more pro-China than Neville Maxwell and James Barnard’s stuffs. In fact, I should say, John Garver is pro-China, and Neville Maxwell and James Barnard are anti-India to the issues about Sino-India border conflict.

The biggest difference is that John Garver wrote about Sino-India 1962 war from China side. He described the Chinese decision making process. While, Neville Maxwell and James Barnard did not have so much Chinese side information at that time and only described Indian decision making process. John Garver did not tough the historic roots of the border disputes. He added one argument that China mistakenly thought that India wanted to take Tibet from China or let Tibet go back to it status in 1949. He assumed that misunderstanding helped China to make the decision of striking back.

He also put Dhola Post (多拉哨所) and Thagla Ridge (塔格拉山脊) confrontation as the key event to start the war.

According to his writing, China had made great effort to avoid the war until the last minute (10/06/1962). India’s offense of attacking Thagla Ridge (塔格拉山脊) had started at 09/1962, but failed. Then, China striked back on 10/20/1962. Although, China considered letting India to go into Chinese territory a little bit further. But winter was coming and they could not wait any more.

Some interesting writings of John Garver’s article are:

[page 33] Thus, Chinese forces were ordered to withdraw 20 kilometers from what China felt was the line of actual control, and to cease patrolling in that forward zone. --- to avoid confrontation

[page 34] when Indian forces initially began implementing Forward Policy, Chinese forces withdrew when they encountered the newly advanced Indian outputs.

[page 35] 02/26/1962 Beijing delivered a lengthy and conciliatory sounding note to India. 03/13/1962 India replied. It reiterates India’s standard position that Chinese withdrawal from Aksai Chin was an essential precondition for negotiations.

[page 36] (after 03/1962) the CMC (Central Military Commission) decided that PLA absolutely should not retreat before Indian advances. By then, China resume patrol suspended since October 1959. Accelerated construction of roads to forward areas.

[page 41] 07/23/1962 in Geneva, India foreign minister Menon was very rude to Chinese foreign minister Chen Yi and refused any discussion on the border dispute.

[page 47] by 10/6/1962, Ten Chinese personnel had been killed or wounded, but Chinese force had strictly followed the principle of not firing the first shot.

[page 50] Ye Jianying tell his impression of General Kaul to Mao, no combat experience, rigid, impressive looking soldier, one of India’s most outstanding commanders. “Fine,” Mao interjected, “he’ll have another opportunity to shine.”

[page 51] 10/06/1962, India rejected a Chinese proposal of 10/03/1962 to start a peaceful negotiation to settle the border issue. ---- India lost its last chance to avoid the war

[page 51] 10/06/1962, Mao and CMC decided in principle for a large scale attack to severely punish India.

[page 51] 10/06/1962, the CMC staff was then directed to draw up a detailed operational plan *** .

Inst
29 Dec 06,, 14:42
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush

Lawlt.

Just one question. What advantages would China have gained if it could further press its advantages in the Sino-Indian war? The supply failure story only makes sense if China had further targets.

Officer of Engineers
29 Dec 06,, 14:46
The supply failure story only makes sense if China had further targets.

It also meant that they can't hold onto their gains.

pin_qinghai
29 Dec 06,, 14:48
YIPEEE....They are allowed three children...I am sure they are dancing wildly in thier lil tibetian huts butt naked freezing themselves to death.

What freedom you'll enjoy...I mean the govt is allowing you Three...****...Three...(are you sure they said three...i mean thats too much...)...!!!Three....

In India, people can(and some do) have more children than the number of lil pups most *****es produce....thats freedom...just have a look at our quasi-illiterate, wannabe-simpleton jackass Laloo Prasad..the bastard has 9 children..and has singlehandely spoiled the entire economy of an entire state...thats freedom...

*Sniff*

I Salute the Great Indian Democracy...;)


Dear Draconion

Happy New Year !

Are you writing Indian-English? It is hard for me to understand your comments.

I hope that you can understand my Chinese-English.

I Salute the Great Indian Democracy too ...... wait a minute, not Today’s Indian Premature Democracy, more than 40% women’s illiterate rate and children’s malnutrition rate :confused: I thought that the Great Indian Democracy got to do something better than that ;) Do you agree with me? Oh, yes, they can have more babies and vote :tongue:

Please go to read the first comment in the China’s democratization and reunification. In that comment, I suggested that China should learn from Great Indian Democracy.

Apparently, you still got lot to learn. You know your country’s recent history even less than me. The minority I talked about in my comment is not Muslim. Could other Indians give him a lesson on recent Indian history? I don’t want to teach you your country’s history.

pin_qinghai
29 Dec 06,, 14:54
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush

Lawlt.

Just one question. What advantages would China have gained if it could further press its advantages in the Sino-Indian war? The supply failure story only makes sense if China had further targets.

Dear Inst,

You should read more comments in this thread before. They blame China for the border conflict and accuse that “China back stabling India. We don't want to be accused for something that we didn't do.

Tronic
29 Dec 06,, 17:44
I Salute the Great Indian Democracy too ...... wait a minute, not Today’s Indian Premature Democracy, more than 40% women’s illiterate rate and children’s malnutrition rate :confused: I thought that the Great Indian Democracy got to do something better than that ;) Do you agree with me? Oh, yes, they can have more babies and vote :tongue:
So you're saying that if there is illiteracy and poverty in a country, then it automatically isn't a Democracy??? Wait... so that means even America, which claims to represent Democracy for the world, hasn't been a democracy for the past 300 or so years they claim??? :eek: Sure, with ruling dictators in power, it is easier to make snap decisions for the country; since post-1980s, China was economically behind India and now is leading. Sure, I'll give that to the Communists, but saying that illetracy and poverty determines Democracy? That sounds like some Communist propoganda since even China has not gotten rid of its poverty yet.


Apparently, you still got lot to learn. You know your country’s recent history even less than me. The minority I talked about in my comment is not Muslim. Could other Indians give him a lesson on recent Indian history? I don’t want to teach you your country’s history.

What about recent Indian history? Because some fanatics wanted to create a seperate religious land for muslims? What exactly does that have to do with modern India? More then half of the subcontinent's Muslims chose to stay in India instead and have reached to become Presidents of this country....

MarquezRazor
29 Dec 06,, 18:01
I Salute the Great Indian Democracy too ...... wait a minute, not Today’s Indian Premature Democracy, more than 40% women’s illiterate rate and children’s malnutrition rate :confused: I thought that the Great Indian Democracy got to do something better than that ;) Do you agree with me? Oh, yes, they can have more babies and vote :tongue:


What do you know about democracy?From the time you were a child you have been fed with a red spoon on the order of your red leadership..

You could have checked out about Democracy in Wikipedia though...but wait that is also blocked by your leadership.

Poor soul.

:tongue:

MarquezRazor
29 Dec 06,, 18:03
Oops...I forgot to add "I come in peace".;)

pin_qinghai
29 Dec 06,, 19:07
Tronic and MarquezRazor,


You are correct; we are not familiar with Democracy and we are learning Democracy now. India is always our example here. If you only read the comments I gave to Draconion, it seems that I can not see any thing good from Great Indian Democracy. Please go to read the first comment in the China’s democratization and reunification. In that comment, I put a more balanced view on the Great Indian Democracy. In fact, I suggested that China should learn from Great Indian Democracy.

China and India should be friend. These two great civilizations are good neighbors in most time of their histories. China learnt great Buddhism philosophy from India. It added depth to the Chinese culture.

We had border dispute inherited from evil British colonizer. The dispute should be solved in peaceful manner.

Both China and India are poor third world countries and both are experiencing great progresses through different paths. I am sure we can learn a lot from each other.

As Chinese, we really want to see the success of Indian Democracy because it will be the best push for Chinese Democracy.

I come in peace too.

Ray
29 Dec 06,, 20:48
Pin,

I leave it to others to answer you.

The Master relation also exists in China between the Politburo and the common man!

They dictate and you obey.

Jay
29 Dec 06,, 22:25
We had border dispute inherited from evil British colonizer. The dispute should be solved in peaceful manner.
Does that include arming Pakistan to the teeth and then playing them against India?? Thats has worked well so far.

As Chinese, we really want to see the success of Indian Democracy because it will be the best push for Chinese Democracy.
China or any other nation in the earth cannot replicate Indian democracy. People 's republic of China infact shud become "People's" own republic, not the politburo's. Thats real democracy for China.

pin_qinghai
29 Dec 06,, 23:20
First, I want to thank Ray for his good manner. I respect that very much.


Jay,

I think that your question is fair and your suggestion is good.

For the China/Pakistan/India relation, China is toward taking a fairer position between Pakistan and India. China expressed its objection to Pakistan for the Kargil War. As the China/Pakistan/India relation improved, I am sure that all three of these countries will become more trust with each other. Right now, the most important thing for this three countries is developing economy, which can improve their citizen’s life.

There is not such thing as “arming Pakistan to the teeth”. As OOE and some experts have said in this forum, China itself doesn’t even have the same level of advanced arms as India does. So, you can understand that India’s neighbors feel the threat from India.

China is trying to improve its relation with India in order to remove this threat. I think that Pakistan is trying to do the same thing. It is a very good thing for the Asia.


For a backward country in democracy like China, good example is always needed. India can be that good example because the similarity in population and economical development stage.

Ray
30 Dec 06,, 11:17
Pin

If there is real democracy in China, then China will not progress at the rate it is doing right now.

Draconion
30 Dec 06,, 15:03
Dear Draconion

Happy New Year !

Are you writing Indian-English? It is hard for me to understand your comments.

Happy new year to you too!:)

It may have been...but rest be assured, it was not Indian-English, but rather very normal english...perhaps the finer points like sarcasm can only be understood after some time, though I think I clearly mentioned I was being sarcastic on both Indian democracy and Chinese Communisiom...


I hope that you can understand my Chinese-English.

You my dear Sir write more than understandable english!




Pray do tell me which recent history are you talking about, which I donot know of? I daresay, I am really confused as to what you mean by recent history, since the term itself is very relative. Also, I always liked to believe I was more than well read than your average hippy teenager and hence am deeply mystified over what I donot know of.

I beseech you, do educate me on my countries recent Hisrtory which I donot know of, for you have really confused me.

[QUOTE=pin_qinghai;318954]
For the China/Pakistan/India relation, China is toward taking a fairer position between Pakistan and India. China expressed its objection to Pakistan for the Kargil War. As the China/Pakistan/India relation improved, I am sure that all three of these countries will become more trust with each other. Right now, the most important thing for this three countries is developing economy, which can improve their citizen’s life.

My dear man, you must have heard of a dude going by the name of Napoleon.

He had once said 'There are no permanent friends or enemies in international diplomacy, but only permament interests'

Going by that, I donot see China ever comming close to India...that was the reson why China befriended Pakistan in the first place. Dont you see that the goals and ambitions of both India and China will always clash and that will always be a matter of concern to both India and China...China is simply reducing its headache over India, by engaging it with Pakistan.


There is not such thing as “arming Pakistan to the teeth”.

Yes there is. J-17's for once are..then all the russian copied Chinese versions of missiles are...then the chinese made other arms are...So, in all...there is infact a thing like arming Pakistan to the teeth.



As OOE and some experts have said in this forum, China itself doesn’t even have the same level of advanced arms as India does. So, you can understand that India’s neighbors feel the threat from India.

where has OOE said anything like that?(OoE is working for the commies now..eh...is he..?:biggrin: )

BS. So, your ICBM's are less technological advanced than our Prithivi, which is only capable of operating in a radius of 180Km?

India is threatned by the chinese railroad advance in Lhasa.

China is the more threatning one..hell your defence spendings are many times ours...we the threat? BS!!!!


China is trying to improve its relation with India in order to remove this threat. I think that Pakistan is trying to do the same thing. It is a very good thing for the Asia.

No its not. China wants peace with India for the time being so that it can concentrate on its economic development and then later on perhaps economically attack indias interests.

I would like to again emphasize that China's the threat here, not
India.

Pakistan trying for peace?(nice joke dude...I see you got a really cheeky sense of humor!!!)

Do you know that pakistan also tried for "peace" a few months before the Kargil and it also tried for "peace" in 1966, after 5 years we had another war...yeah sure....Pakistans trying for peace...I think the Indian intel guys are sleeping again and soon we'll here about another war...peace...hahaha.



For a backward country in democracy like China, good example is always needed. India can be that good example because the similarity in population and economical development stage.

Arent you being a lil lineant on China.

I mean what do you mean by calling China "backward country in democarcy"?

The word's "communist"..not backward in democracy...thats an itsy-bitsy diffrence there.


Pin

If there is real democracy in China, then China will not progress at the rate it is doing right now.

Agreed Sir!

pin_qinghai
31 Dec 06,, 01:34
Dear Draconion, Happy New Year again!

First, I would like to apologize to you about my loosing temper when I reply your comment.

I was talking about the Christian Naga people in my comment. Please go to read the comment I gave to Jay in the China’s democratization and reunification thread.

You are very pessimistic about the future China/Pakistan/India relations. But we are more positive about the future China/Pakistan/India relations. We have learnt the hard way on the tensions among China/Pakistan/India relations. None of us gain anything from this tension. But as the China/Pakistan/India relations begin to improve, we really gain something from our economic corporations. Improving the China/Pakistan/India relations need forward thinking.

I talk about improving China/Pakistan/India relations and put three countries together. China needs help from Pakistan and can not sacrifice its relation with Pakistan while improving its relation with India. Hence, the final China/India relation relies on India/Pakistan relation. We are seeing that India/Pakistan relation is improving.

Every country would make some mistakes in their history. Pakistan did (in Kargil War), China did many and India did some too. We believe that people can correct their mistakes. Also, no one asked you to drop your guard or drop your weapon to improve the relation.

You said that “you don’t see China ever coming close to India”. Have you ever seen the Chinese President and Prime Minister visiting India in recent years? Have you ever seen that the trade between India and China soared in recent years?

Even if you are a true believer of Napoleon, you should see that it is in the best interest for China/Pakistan/India to improve their relations now. Besides India, ask the world, who believe that Pakistan threatens India. I bet many believe that India threatens Pakistan.

About China’s Defense Corporation, China did not accuse India/Russia Defense Corporation as a threatening to China. Why India accuse Pakistan/China Defense Corporation as a threatening to India?

Your comments about “perhaps economically attack India’s interests” are nonsense. You got to be more confident. India has many business sectors that are ahead of China. China did not set so many limits for India’s investing in China. India should do the same to China too. India needs to heal its victim syndrome. In fact, India was not even the victim in most of its conflicts. BTW, China need to heal its victim syndrome too.

As Chinese, we believe that democracy is a process. China is on its way to democracy although in its backward stage. That is why I call it “backward in democracy”. Comparing to Mao’s era, Chinese democracy has been improved a lot. Let’s look at the “best democracy" in the world, the American democracy. It experienced the democracy of whites male, the democracy of whites, the democracy of all American by appearance and the improving democracy for all American. Democracy is still a going on process even for America.

I am not sure if I agree or not with Ray’s statement: “If there is real democracy in China, then China will not progress at the rate it is doing right now.” But I am sure that Mao’s era wasted lot of time in China’s economic, social and political development.

About your statement: "OoE is working for the commies now..eh...is he..?" I will leave it for OoE to answer you.

Officer of Engineers
31 Dec 06,, 03:16
Pin,

Let's get something straight. You don't speak for the CCP and you have absolutely no idea as to how policy and state matters are dealt with. None of your statements carries any weight - unless you're a member of the Politburo.

Pakistan is right now in a world of hurt ... and the Chinese have done nothing.

pin_qinghai
31 Dec 06,, 03:34
Sir. OOE,

As an ordinary Chinese, I feel that some of new CCP’s policy starts to reflect our opinion. That policy carries weight, such as Taiwan policy, such as reforming policy. Today, I don’t think that CCP can implement a policy that objected by most of ordinary Chinese people.

Pakistan is a poor sovereignty country like China. They deserve respect and did not get that. If you want, you can come to help them to correct their problem. Today, in China there are several hundred thousand foreigners who are helping China to correct its problems.

gilgamesh
31 Dec 06,, 03:44
You are very pessimistic about the future China/Pakistan/India relations. But we are more positive about the future China/Pakistan/India relations.

Yeah, as one Indian jounalist put it, after forcebly occupying our lands, occupying Tibet, arming our enemy neighbour(Pakistan) to the teeth, in the process of arming the other problem neighbour Bangladesh, arming the maoists in Nepal and bullying againist our other neighbours like Bhutan, Burma etc., China can appear and afford to look like a beacon of fairplay and reasonableness.



We have learnt the hard way on the tensions among China/Pakistan/India relations. None of us gain anything from this tension. But as the China/Pakistan/India relations begin to improve, we really gain something from our economic corporations. Improving the China/Pakistan/India relations need forward thinking.

China gains everything. That is why China arms Pakistan. It ties down India and provides a lucrative market in Pakistan for its arms trade.


I talk about improving China/Pakistan/India relations and put three countries together. China needs help from Pakistan and can not sacrifice its relation with Pakistan while improving its relation with India. Hence, the final China/India relation relies on India/Pakistan relation. We are seeing that India/Pakistan relation is improving.

Been readin' too many fantasy novels, eh? Power is the only language China understands. The final India/China equation depends on how much power India yields, to counter Chinese power. We are 50 years late in realising this. Better late than never.


Every country would make some mistakes in their history. Pakistan did (in Kargil War), China did many and India did some too. We believe that people can correct their mistakes. Also, no one asked you to drop your guard or drop your weapon to improve the relation.

Like I mentioned before, China corrects her 'mistakes' only in favorable circumstances.


You said that “you don’t see China ever coming close to India”. Have you ever seen the Chinese President and Prime Minister visiting India in recent years? Have you ever seen that the trade between India and China soared in recent years?

Because, again, it suits China. They get raw materials from India and which in turn provides a huge market for cheap manufactured goods in India and thats supposed to be good for India?:rolleyes:


Besides India, ask the world, who believe that Pakistan threatens India. I bet many believe that India threatens Pakistan.

Vast majority secretly crave for India finishing off Pakistan once and for all, by destroying Pak's military-industrial-terrorist infrastructure and split the country into insignificant units. But then, they would come out from all of this as hypocrites and also India might not yield post-breakup strings of control to them, so the reluctance.


About China’s Defense Corporation, China did not accuse India/Russia Defense Corporation as a threatening to China. Why India accuse Pakistan/China Defense Corporation as a threatening to India?

Russia did not attack India(and never attacked Pakistan as well), China did. China is both an enemy by proxy and also a DIRECT ENEMY.


Your comments about “perhaps economically attack India’s interests” are nonsense. You got to be more confident. India has many business sectors that are ahead of China. China did not set so many limits for India’s investing in China. India should do the same to China too. India needs to heal its victim syndrome. In fact, India was not even the victim in most of its conflicts. BTW, China need to heal its victim syndrome too.

China wants to learn from India in those sectors where its lagging behind, so she craves to join India in the so called "free trade" and then try sponging-off Indian expertise in those sectors and give back nothing in return.


As Chinese, we believe that democracy is a process. China is on its way to democracy although in its backward stage. That is why I call it “backward in democracy”. Comparing to Mao’s era, Chinese democracy has been improved a lot. Let’s look at the “best democracy" in the world, the American democracy. It experienced the democracy of whites male, the democracy of whites, the democracy of all American by appearance and the improving democracy for all American. Democracy is still a going on process even for America.

China never believed in democracy throughout her illustrous history. In fact she believed/believes in a strong center and in maintaining a sphere of influence in her periphery regions/countries, firmly under her grip acting as a buffer against neighbours.

pin_qinghai
31 Dec 06,, 06:29
Unfortunately, not many my countrymen come out giving me a help to argue with you guys. We don’t normally speak English, you know. Writing in English is quite a burden for me.

It is really sad for Indian journalists that one of them can not even see that China/Pakistan/India relation is improving and the benefit of improving China/Pakistan/India relations. I thought that the journalist should at least not be blind of what is happening now.


Yeah, as one Indian jounalist put it, after forcebly occupying our lands, occupying Tibet, arming our enemy neighbour(Pakistan) to the teeth, in the process of arming the other problem neighbour Bangladesh, arming the maoists in Nepal and bullying againist our other neighbours like Bhutan, Burma etc., China can appear and afford to look like a beacon of fairplay and reasonableness.
China arming maoists in Nepal? Are you sure that you passed Indian journalists qualification test? Otherwise, the qualification of your qualification test is questionable.

China solved its border disputes with Nepal, Burma, Pakistan and Russia through negotiation with respect with each other. Bhutan? oh better not to talk about it now. If I want to negotiat with Bhutan, I go to New Delhi.

Ask Nepal, Burma and Pakistan, who is the bully, India or China? I bet more people choose India. China’s foreign policy is “No interfering with other country’s internal affairs.”

About Tibet issue, I will write an article about why Tibet was not independent before 1950 by international law and why there is not even one government (including your Indian government) in the entire world claims that Tibet is not part of China. India is a democratic country; I hope that your government can honor your opinion unless it is not a popular opinion.

About your claiming “China occupying Indian land”, please read my comments #160 and #176 in this thread. Inst (#177) asked why we need to bring out Sino-India border war issue. Now, I think that he can understand the reason. I need to give an answer to someone like gilgamesh.


Been readin' too many fantasy novels, eh? Power is the only language China understands. The final India/China equation depends on how much power India yields, to counter Chinese power. We are 50 years late in realising this. Better late than never.
What is the anguage India understand? Please have some confindent. China acknowledges that India is a powerful country and may even become a super power in the future.


Like I mentioned before, China corrects her 'mistakes' only in favorable circumstances.
China is confident to acknowledge its problems and correct them. are you?


Vast majority secretly crave for India finishing off Pakistan once and for all, by destroying Pak's military-industrial-terrorist infrastructure and split the country into insignificant units. But then, they would come out from all of this as hypocrites and also India might not yield post-breakup strings of control to them, so the reluctance.
You see, that is what I am talking about, you guy’s attitude toward Pakistan. Please learn to live with your neighbors peacefully.


Russia did not attack India(and never attacked Pakistan as well), China did. China is both an enemy by proxy and also a DIRECT ENEMY.
If Russia attack India, it is India's affair. China may support India or Russia according to which side's action can be justified.

Both Russia and India had border wars with China. As a Chinese, I can say that both Russia and India attacked China. Keep looking yourself as a victim attacked by other. I don’t know what good comes out of it. Please let's forgive and don't forget.


China wants to learn from India in those sectors where its lagging behind, so she craves to join India in the so called "free trade" and then try sponging-off Indian expertise in those sectors and give back nothing in return.

Because, again, it suits China. They get raw materials from India and which in turn provides a huge market for cheap manufactured goods in India and thats supposed to be good for India?:rolleyes:
How come in your eyes, all the economical cooperation is only benefiting China. Does China force India to sign unfair agreement? Do you understand win-win principle? Do you know globalization? I thought that India is already a global power.


China never believed in democracy throughout her illustrous history. In fact she believed/believes in a strong center and in maintaining a sphere of influence in her periphery regions/countries, firmly under her grip acting as a buffer against neighbours.
I am a Chinese and live in China although travel out frequently. Don’t be so sure that your know more China than me? China believes in democracy and is working on it.

Ask China’s and India’s neighbors, I am not sure if India can get the popular votes.

In your comments, you look China so negative. You are also against relation improvement and economical cooperation between India and China. Fortunately, you have a good democratic government. They are setting up India's China policy without affected by the opinions like yours. Is it still democracy when your government did not care about your opinion toward China? Think about it for a while please;)

y_raj
31 Dec 06,, 06:45
You see, that is what I am talking about, you guy’s attitude toward Pakistan. Please learn to live with your neighbors peacefully.

what are you talking about? India NEVER attacked pakistan. It,s India who tries to maintain good relations with neighbours.
In its known history of more than 2000 years India has never invaded any country.
and for china , they invaded tibet , occupied it , attacked India, and continue to threaten taiwan.
it's for the US pressure that they hesitate to go to war with taiwan , coz they cant survive a conflict with united states. or they might have taken away the whole of tibet.

pin_qinghai
31 Dec 06,, 07:22
Guys, happy new year and go to prepare your New Year Party. I am going to leave.


what are you talking about? India NEVER attacked pakistan.
I hope that a Pakistani can come out to reply your comment. I am in no position to reply it.


It,s India who tries to maintain good relations with neighbours.
In its known history of more than 2000 years India has never invaded any country.
Are you sure that all credits can be given to only one side if both side having peace for 2000 years?


and for china , they invaded tibet , occupied it , attacked India.
I already answered these questions in the comments I give to gilgamesh.


and continue to threaten taiwan. it's for the US pressure that they hesitate to go to war with taiwan , coz they cant survive a conflict with united states.
Please go to read the first comment in the China’s democratization and reunification thread about my discussion on Taiwan issue.


or they might have taken away the whole of tibet.
China can not take away the whole of Tibet because India illegally occupied 藏南地区 (Zang Nan Di Qu) that you call NEFA (North East Frontier Agency) until 1972, Arunachal Pradesh after 1972. Even under this illegally occupation, China still wants to live with India peacefully. We prefer to negotiate our dispute in a way of respecting with each other.

gilgamesh
31 Dec 06,, 07:45
[LEFT]Writing in English is quite a burden for me.

Drop that act, please.


It is really sad for Indian journalists that one of them can not even see that China/Pakistan/India relation is improving and the benefit of improving China/Pakistan/India relations. I thought that the journalist should at least not be blind of what is happening now.

That journalist is a renowned one, Arun Shourie.



China arming maoists in Nepal? Are you sure that you passed Indian journalists qualification test? Otherwise, the qualification of your qualification test is questionable.

Here, I apologize, I meant monarchists. Well Maoists too(philosophical support)?


China solved its border disputes with Nepal, Burma, Pakistan and Russia through negotiation with respect with each other. Bhutan? oh better not to talk about it now. If I want to negotiat with Bhutan, I go to New Delhi.

Pak Junta bribed China with Aksai Chin. China bribed the Burmese Junta with weapons and moral support. Yeah, China is an expert in dealing with juntas.:)


Ask Nepal, Burma and Pakistan, who is the bully, India or China? I bet more people choose India.

In Nepal, people fear and dislike China(not Chinese). Same in Burma. They, especially Nepal, have closer cultural ties to India than to China. I have lived close to Nepal and Burma for a few years. India was unable to engage Burma because of its Junta credentials. Only now, with a power hungry China crossing the threshold of our patience by stepping into our neighbourhood with an intention to subdue us, has India painfully taken steps to engage Burma.


China’s foreign policy is “No interfering with other country’s internal affairs.”

...only "to teach them a lesson".:rolleyes: Vietnam gave China the reply she deserved.




About Tibet issue, I will write an article about why Tibet was not independent before 1950 by international law and why there is not even one government (including your Indian government) in the entire world claims that Tibet is not part of China. India is a democratic country; I hope that your government can honor your opinion unless it is not a popular opinion.

Why not ask Tibetans(in Tibet) themselves? Unless according to you(or Hu):biggrin: , Han chinese are Tibetans as well.


About your claiming “China occupying Indian land”, please read my comments #160 and #176 in this thread. Inst (#177) asked why we need to bring out Sino-India border war issue. Now, I think that he can understand the reason. I need to give an answer to someone like gilgamesh.

See the suitable responses by Indian posters.



What is the anguage India understand? Please have some confindent. China acknowledges that India is a powerful country and may even become a super power in the future.

We naively spoke the language of India-China Bhai-Bhai(brother-brother), until we got stabbed in the back by Mao and Enlai.




China is confident to acknowledge its problems and correct them. are you?

You can bet on that one. Let China try its stunts on India nthis time around...



You see, that is what I am talking about, you guy’s attitude toward Pakistan. Please learn to live with your neighbors peacefully.

Sure, like China does with Vietnam, Taiwan etc. :rolleyes:



If Russia attack India, it is India's affair. China may support India or Russia according to which side's action can be justified.

...and the point being? China takes sides based only on its political expediency and we should trust China for that?


Both Russia and India had border wars with China. As a Chinese, I can say that both Russia and India attacked China. Keep looking yourself as a victim attacked by other. I don’t know what good comes out of it. Please let's forgive and don't forget.

Indeed are we blessed to have China as a neighbour!


How come in your eyes, all the economical cooperation is only benefiting China. Does China force India to sign unfair agreement? Do you understand win-win principle? Do you know globalization? I thought that India is already a global power.

Oh yeah, we learnt than in Kazakhstan, Ecuador, Angola, Nigeria, and Myanmar. When we were outbid by Chinese financial/trading muscle which was tied to its national interests rather than economics. Sure, a win-win situation
ie. for the Chinese trading prowess and national security objectives.


I am a Chinese and live in China although travel out frequently. Don’t be so sure that your know more China than me? China believes in democracy and is working on it.

We believe ya!:biggrin:


Ask China’s and India’s neighbors, I am not sure if India can get the popular votes.

Only, thugs like Kim and other assortment of "Democratic Republics" support China.


In your comments, you look China so negative. You are also against relation improvement and economical cooperation between India and China. Fortunately, you have a good democratic government. They are setting up India's China policy without affected by the opinions like yours. Is it still democracy when your government did not care about your opinion toward China? Think about it for a while please;)

Our govt-in-power has an alliance with third rate commies who worship Mao and Enlai. Which probably explains China's new found fondness for Indian democracy.

And happy holidays to you too.

pin_qinghai
31 Dec 06,, 10:38
Dear Arun Shourie,

I really feel the honor to talk to a renowned journalist, but sorry for never heard of you.

Most of your comments are quite opinionated. In order to show the pride and professionals as a renowned journalist, I think that you may want to make some improvement on your comments in the following aspects:

1. Base your comments on facts like what I did in #160 and #176.
2. Get your wording well organized.
3. Make your wording a little bit more humors.

They are just my recommendations. You are welcome to ignore them. But I do think that if you take these recommendations, you will be a more renowned journalist.

I will only respond to a couple of your comments because the rest of them are quite opinionated.


See the suitable responses by Indian posters.
I did not see any Indian posters that made claims to the specifics. For example, you can argue whether India built a Dhola Post (多拉哨所) and whether this post is in the north of McMahon line. Are you going to argue with me about that?


We naively spoke the language of India-China Bhai-Bhai(brother-brother), until we got stabbed in the back by Mao and Enlai.
Are you going to claim that China did not give India any warnings before taking action? If it is true, I will agree with you that China back stabbed India.

Are you going to claim that “Forward Policy” is an India-China Bhai-Bhai (brother-brother) action?

Are you going to claim that Indian PM Nehru’s public announcement of “he has ordered the India army to remove Chinese army from the disputed areas on 10/12/1962” is an India-China Bhai-Bhai (brother-brother) action?


Indeed are we blessed to have China as a neighbour!
Like it or not, China will not go anywhere. We want to be a good neighbor to others. If you don’t want that it is your issue.


Oh yeah, we learnt than in Kazakhstan, Ecuador, Angola, Nigeria, and Myanmar. When we were outbid by Chinese financial/trading muscle which was tied to its national interests rather than economics. Sure, a win-win situation ie. for the Chinese trading prowess and national security objectives.
I really respect India and thought that the mighty India can have a little bit more confidence. It is almost laughable that you think that India is always losing out in any trades with China. When trading in the areas where India is ahead, India is losing. When trading in the areas where India is behind, India is losing too. The renowned journalist does have an outstanding losing philosophy.


Our Democratic govt has an alliance with third rate commies who worship Mao and Enlai. Which probably explains China's new found fondness for Indian democracy.
I didn’t know that some Indians are so angry with its democratic government. I thought that it only happens in the authoritarian countries such as um…… China.

Let me give you two Chinese proverbs here:

Neighbors are more important than the far away relatives (远亲不如近邻).

Get one more friend then you get one more way to success (多个朋友多条路).

Sorry for my Chinese friends in this forum, my translations of these two Chinese proverbs may not be very good, but I think that I translate their meaning correctly.

If you have time, please read the first comment in China’s democratization and reunification thread. I talked some lessons that China should learn from India experience.

Please release some of your angry toward China and Indian government, then you can have better New Year holidays.

I sincerely invite you to visit China. You will see that Chinese people are very friendly toward India and Indians. We also appropriate India’s teaching us the Buddhism philosophy.

Please give Christian Naga people some bless and hope that they can get their freedom.

Hope you have a better 2007 :)

gilgamesh
31 Dec 06,, 12:27
Dear Arun Shourie,

Actually call me Chan Siu Ming and I am not a journalist, just your regular guy


I really feel the honor to talk to a renowned journalist, but sorry for never heard of you.

Remember, you live in China. No real press freedom, no wikipedia. Only Tianmann.:)


Most of your comments are quite opinionated. In order to show the pride and professionals as a renowned journalist, I think that you may want to make some improvement on your comments in the following aspects:

1. Base your comments on facts like what I did in #160 and #176.
2. Get your wording well organized.
3. Make your wording a little bit more humors.

I'll make sure in following politburo's writing guidlines when I visit China.


They are just my recommendations. You are welcome to ignore them. But I do think that if you take these recommendations, you will be a more renowned journalist.

If it makes you feel happy and safe...absolutely! We wouldn't want me to go to a peoples prison, do we?


I will only respond to a couple of your comments because the rest of them are quite opinionated.

...and uncomfortable to defend?


Are you going to claim that China did not give India any warnings before taking action? If it is true, I will agree with you that China back stabbed India. Are you going to claim that Indian PM Nehru’s public announcement of “he has ordered the India army to remove Chinese army from the disputed areas on 10/12/1962” is an India-China Bhai-Bhai (brother-brother) action?

China drank beer with us when she was a puny, mal-nuitritioned girl. We (India, China) got merrily drunk in a bar thinking we could all live peacefully ever after.

Then unbeknownst to us, China quietly became a muscle girl, before we could recover from our hangover.

When we open our eyes, Chou Enlai, that fat, muscular broad warns us, "Okay bud, here comes the punch". NOW DUCK!

That half asleep, drunk ba$tard Nehru, was like, "What? A Pecking duck? For moi?!?"

BAM! And before we knew it, we was sucker punched.


Like it or not, China will not go anywhere.

Oh yeah, I believe ya!


I really respect India and thought that the mighty India can have a little bit more confidence. It is almost laughable that you think that India is always losing out in any trades with China. When trading in the areas where India is ahead, India is losing. When trading in the areas where India is behind, India is losing too. The renowned journalist does have an outstanding losing philosophy.

Thats called 'Heads we win, tails you lose' China policy.



I didn’t know that some Indians are so angry with its democratic government. I thought that it only happens in the authoritarian countries such as um…… China.

Because we openly can!:)


Let me give you two Chinese proverbs here:

Neighbors are more important than the far away relatives (远亲不如近邻).

Get one more friend then you get one more way to success (多个朋友多条路).

Here's an Indian saying:
Kandhe pe bithaya to kaan main moota

You make him sit on your shoulder and he pisses in your ears.

Draconion
31 Dec 06,, 13:21
[Please give Christian Naga people some bless and hope that they can get their freedom.

Oh please quit your save the poor and the minorities' spiel.

I can too say that you Chinese are raping, killing and being "bad" in Tibet, but I am not...why?

Because its bloody stupid to rant on about something which is not entirely true and even if it is so...so bloody what?

Those Nagas have given the Indian Army enough problems...if sometime they have to suffer, then they more than bloody deserve it.


[B]Remember, you live in China. No real press freedom, no wikipedia. Only Tianmann.:)

Aahh...well...Chinese backward democracy is going on forward in full steam!

No they dont publically kill democracry supporters...only kill extra babies;) (anyone seem Oprah?)




China drank beer with us when she was a puny, mal-nuitritioned girl. We (India, China) got merrily drunk in a bar thinking we could all live peacefully ever after.

Then unbeknownst to us, China quietly became a muscle girl, before we could recover from our hangover.

When we open our eyes, Chou Enlai, that fat, muscular broad warns us, "Okay bud, here comes the punch". NOW DUCK!

That half asleep, drunk ba$tard Nehru, was like, "What? A Pecking duck? For moi?!?"

BAM! And before we knew it, we was sucker punched.

Sir...how can you put things so clearly and concisly and so simply!!!

Marvelous!:)



[Here's an Indian saying:
Kandhe pe bithaya to kaan main moota

You make him sit on your shoulder and he pisses in your ears.

This one was the bloody best!!!

True..very true.

My salutations!:)

dabrownguy
31 Dec 06,, 21:22
Pin before you say India should make peace with unfortunate Pakistan. Have you ever met a Pakistani or are you just talking out of your butthole?

pin_qinghai
31 Dec 06,, 22:26
First, I would like to make a refinement in my last comment #198 for the sentence “The renowned journalist does have an outstanding losing philosophy”. I would like to change it to “The renowned journalist does have an extraordinary losing philosophy”.

You see, I really care about rhetoric in my wording. When I gave someone recommendations, I always take these recommendations first.

Please don’t hesitate to correct my Chinese-English if I made any mistakes in my comments.


Dear Chan Siu Ming,

You got a Chinese name. Are you studying Chinese or doing something with China? You will love Chinese people when you know them. They will love you too, because Chinese are ease going people. They wouldn’t keep so much anger in their hearts like you guys. They are really friendly people. I met so many guests who come to China from allover the world. Although some of them got bad experiences of being overcharged by a greed business man or tax diver, they still love China and Chinese people. Of cause, you will get some extremists who will always hate China and Chinese people no matter how China and Chinese people behave. I hope that you are not those extremists.

I still love India and Indian people despite I am arguing with you guys in this forum. I respect India’s great civilization but not the Caste system. Someday, I will definite visit India. Taj mahal is really an ancient marvel that I eager to see. I hope that besides expressing your anger, please introduce some great India wonders here in this forum for us to enjoy.

Sorry, my bad English. I made mistake and thought that you were that renowned journalist. But it doesn’t matter, because you agree with his idea and cite his words. So, talking to you is almost equal to talking to that renowned journalist.

In your last comment, you did not give any points to argue about. So, I have to make lot of statements myself.

I heard that there are great debating masters and theories in India and really want to have the honor to meet them and learn from them.

For your Indian saying:


Kandhe pe bithaya to kaan main moota
You make him sit on your shoulder and he pisses in your ears.
Chinese also have a saying with similar meaning but more concise and using more civilized words.
Got 寸 then want 尺 (得寸进尺). Both 寸 and 尺 are Chinese measures for distance. I think that 1 尺 is 10 寸. But I could be wrong because my generation has been pretty much internationalized. We don’t use Chinese measures any more.

I think that 得寸进尺 can be translated into English as “Got an Inch then want a foot”. Sorry for my ignorance on English, somehow I feel that “Got an Inch then want a foot” is also an English saying. Am I right?



Dear Draconion,

My response to Chan Siu Ming also applies to you. Besides, I got other two points to specifically respond to you.

1. I thought that you are a well educated and lenity person as you claimed to be. But somehow you need my education on your country’s history.

You did not know or did not care the suffering of Christian Naga people. That is really not showing that you are a well educated or lenity person.

gilgamesh did not respond my comment on Christian Naga people. That is really not showing that he is a well educated or lenity person.

If both you are really well educated and lenity people, you got to find a way to show your knowledge and lenity to the Christian Naga people. I really think that you are well educated and lenity but you are certainly not showing them well.

2.
Sir...how can you put things so clearly and concisly and so simply!!!

Marvelous!
When I read these words, I thought that you must have been reading some great writings of Shakespeare or Rabindranath Tagore.

Dear Chan Siu Ming, do you feel comfortable with these flattering words?

With the courage of saying these flattering words towards some drunk beer talking and with the courage of feeling flattered with these words, I really want to say that we Chinese do have a lot to learn from you Indian guys.

BTW, I really like the great writings of Tagore. But I read them in Chinese when I was in school, very long time ago. If I can read them in the language he wrote them, I will be even more moved by his great philosophy and love toward entire human being. He is also a good friend of Chinese people. You guys really should read his great writings more.

Finally, about Chinese/Indian sayings, you see, I chose Chinese sayings about Making Friends. You india guy gilgamesh chose Indian saying about Pissing in Someone’s Ears and Draconion hailed him for that. I thought that you guys could at least choose some words from great Tagore’s writings. Everyone in this forum will enjoy it.

May be I am ignorant, I don’t even think that there is a Chinese saying that has a word “Piss” in it.

Did you guys see any problems here? Are other Indians proud of you guys? I am afraid that there is lot of well educated, lenity and smart Indians out there feel sorry for you two guys. Although, other Chinese may feel sorry for me too, I am really not a smart one among Chinese people.



Pin before you say India should make peace with unfortunate Pakistan. Have you ever met a Pakistani or are you just talking out of your butthole?

Dear dabrownguy,

When I read great Tagore's writtings, I thought that Indians always use the most beautiful and civilized words. Somehow, you guys prefer to use "Piss" or even "butthole" kind of words. Same recommendation for you, please read more great Tagore's writings.

When I was living in a college camps in US, our left neighbor is a very nice Indian family with a young kid; our right neighbor is a very nice Pakistan family with three young kids. My kid becomes good friend with both the Indian and Pakistan kids. They got so many birth day parties every year to celebrate together. We all become helping neighbors. God made most people on earth are good people.


Talk to you guys next year. Happy new year !

Archer
31 Dec 06,, 22:37
I respect India’s great civilization but not the Caste system.

If not for the Varna system (the Caste system is a British construct, when they mucked around and decided who was loyal/martial/ethnically pure blah di blah communities), there would have been no resistance to the Islamic invasion, and you would have had another expansive Islamic empire sitting on your borders. Think about that. And secondly, its not that China was any better- you communist gentlemen seem unaware of your own history, but your history had clear class divisions as well, which moreorless mimicked how it was in other countries. Get off your high-horse, pretty please. This is not CMF where a bunch of PRC kids can sit around and engage in their usual diatribes about casteist India or whatever.



If both you are really well educated and lenity people, you got to find a way to show your knowledge and lenity to the Christian Naga people. I really think that you are well educated and lenity but you are certainly not showing them well.

There is a Naga regiment in the Indian Army. Delhi has been negotiating with Naga rebels for ages. What leniency did the PRC show the Falun Gong? Or the Tibetans? Fact is you are speaking out of your @rse. Nobody with any knowledge of the matter would claim that the PRC is even half as lenient as any democratic structure. BTW, Christians in India can openly worship, hold office, wear their religion on their sleeve, what does the PRC do? It drives churches underground, so wheres the comparison!


Finally, about Chinese/Indian sayings, you see, I chose Chinese sayings about Making Friends. You india guy gilgamesh chose Indian saying about Pissing in Someone’s Ears and Draconion hailed him for that. I thought that you guys could at least choose some words from great Tagore’s writings. Everyone in this forum will enjoy it.

Its called free speech, and its something you need to get used to. I can go out in the street and call my Prime Minister and the Govt a bunch of jerks and campaign against them. And nor will my family disappear into a labour camp.

You can moralise all you want. We respect ancient China and the Chinese people. But dont sell us the PRC's might makes right behaviour under the garb of "culture", politeness and blah-di-blah.

dabrownguy
31 Dec 06,, 22:50
Go ahead. Give your Pakistani friends a visit. See how much they like India. Infact they like India as much as you guys like Japan.


Pakistanis can be kind. God knows i've known many and I am friends with a Kashmiri Muslim from POK! They like Indians or rather the bollywood crap. But you'll learn eventually that the Pakistani's are dictated by either the Army, militants and the ISI. Who don't want to be friends with Kafirs. So you see. Just because Pakistanis don't cross the border to China doesn't mean they won't if they get the chance to fight a jihad. You obviously need to learn more on the Pakistani POV. Visit this board. I implore you to visit. Posting would be usless.
http://www.pakistanidefenceforum.com/


If you want the Indian POV. Go to BR.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/index.php

CIAO and happy new year.

Draconion
01 Jan 07,, 08:33
Please don’t hesitate to correct my Chinese-English if I made any mistakes in my comments.


I must infact compliment you on your English. It is quite extrodinary for a Chinese.

Let me tell you that some people are a little sarcastic to your arguements, do ignore them. As for me reading Shakeshere is concerned; it is alas something I cannot do due to my inproficiency in the language.

It is very difficult to understand the finer details of the plays and the stories of Shakeshpere without somebody to guide you, because there are apparently many things which are not what they seem to be!


I still love India and Indian people despite I am arguing with you guys in this forum. I respect India’s great civilization but not the Caste system. Someday, I will definite visit India. Taj mahal is really an ancient marvel that I eager to see. I hope that besides expressing your anger, please introduce some great India wonders here in this forum for us to enjoy.

I do certainly admire your civilisation too. Perhaps this anti-commies thing the Americans have got has seeped into us Indians too, but you see we have a Communist party too, which seems to be hell bent on dragging the country backwards! Those bloody bastards didnot even condemn China when they attacked India (I am not argueing here whos at fault, but ultimately there was a war.)



Dear Draconion,

My response to Chan Siu Ming also applies to you. Besides, I got other two points to specifically respond to you.

1. I thought that you are a well educated and lenity person as you claimed to be. But somehow you need my education on your country’s history.

You did not know or did not care the suffering of Christian Naga people. That is really not showing that you are a well educated or lenity person.

There are many things about the Naga Christians that you will not be able to understand. You will not be able to understand not because of any other reason, but because you are not an Indian. Theres always more to it that what strikes the eye.



BTW, I really like the great writings of Tagore. But I read them in Chinese when I was in school, very long time ago. If I can read them in the language he wrote them, I will be even more moved by his great philosophy and love toward entire human being. He is also a good friend of Chinese people. You guys really should read his great writings more.

I have not read his works, though we have some of his poems in our English book. The english he uses is very victorian, more victorian than even the unabridged english translation of 'The three musketeers', and hence I donot uncerstand him very properly. As a matter of fact, I donot generally understand philosophy and spiritulism they write off in books!


Finally, about Chinese/Indian sayings, you see, I chose Chinese sayings about Making Friends. You india guy gilgamesh chose Indian saying about Pissing in Someone’s Ears and Draconion hailed him for that. I thought that you guys could at least choose some words from great Tagore’s writings. Everyone in this forum will enjoy it.

No offence Pin, but that was funny.

I hailed him because of some other reason.You see the real meaning of phrases is lost in translation and if you did understand Hindi, then you'd perhaps to find it funny too!

Nothing more.


May be I am ignorant, I don’t even think that there is a Chinese saying that has a word “Piss” in it.

Certainly a most pious language!:tongue:


Did you guys see any problems here? Are other Indians proud of you guys? I am afraid that there is lot of well educated, lenity and smart Indians out there feel sorry for you two guys. Although, other Chinese may feel sorry for me too, I am really not a smart one among Chinese people.

I dont know about you but I think I feel bad about that defeat we suffered from the hands of the PLA. Moreso because we (read Mr. A-Hole Nehru) didnot even use our resources, the army offciers and Jawans(Other ranks) kept on dying by the dozens, but the Air force was not used. The poor chaps were on freezing mountains in summer clothes. I guess I feel bad, and hence I blame somebody....and that somebody happens to be the PLA and the Chinese Govt. .Again I'd like to point out that I am not argueing about the war itself, but of what I think.

I hope that clears the misunderstandings between us!:)

And dabrownguy, you should politely educate people about things, not render them with titles!;)

Seriously!

We must infact all try to do that!

Draconion
01 Jan 07,, 08:38
No. There is no Naga regiment in the Indian Army.

There are two battalions and they are a part of the Kumaon Regiment, theres no seperate Naga regiment.

There is the NAGA Regiment. There are two battalions as has been correctly stated by you.

For convenience sake they have a common Regimental Centre with the Kumaon Regiment and likewise a common Colonel of the Regiment.

pin_qinghai
02 Jan 07,, 02:58
When I read Archer’s comments, I wanted to make an aggressive response. But after I read Draconion’s comments that had a very good manner, I changed my mind. We have a Chinese saying “(礼尚往来) that means if you received respect from your opponent, you should show respect to your opponent. But if you received attack from your opponent, you should give attack back to your opponent.

I respect the manner of Draconion’s comments. I will respond with the same manner. I am in a vacation trip until the end of this week and will make my response by then.

Best wishes to India and China to have a better 2007.

Archer
02 Jan 07,, 05:28
No. There is no Naga regiment in the Indian Army.

There are two battalions and they are a part of the Kumaon Regiment, theres no seperate Naga regiment.

Incorrect.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Regiments/Naga.html

THE NAGA REGIMENT

They are affiliated to the Kumaon regiment, but are separate.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/rgt-naga.htm

Their formation itself was part of the political rapprochment between New Delhi. They served at Kargil as well.

The above link has details.

Archer
02 Jan 07,, 05:35
When I read Archer’s comments, I wanted to make an aggressive response. But after I read Draconion’s comments that had a very good manner, I changed my mind. We have a Chinese saying “(礼尚往来) that means if you received respect from your opponent, you should show respect to your opponent. But if you received attack from your opponent, you should give attack back to your opponent.

I respect the manner of Draconion’s comments. I will respond with the same manner. I am in a vacation trip until the end of this week and will make my response by then.

Best wishes to India and China to have a better 2007.

You wouldnt receive an aggressive response unless you made condescending remarks to begin with.

I mean, seriously, making comments on 'dem poor Christian Naga's when the PRCs record with the Church , and for that matter its suppression of any organized religion is well catalogued.

If you are seeking a dialogue, please speak to the point, not engage in this shuffle-dance. Even politeness does not mark political statements which appear obnoxious, as the above were.

lemontree
02 Jan 07,, 06:00
Col yu, lemontree,

do you have an time estimate (as in roughly what year) the tables of military power changed? as in when it no longer became possible for the PLA to win like it did in the '62 war?
Some time around 1967. We would have not got the beating we got in 1962, had the reasonable modernisation programme prevailed and had politicians been more pragmatic instead of ethopian in their out look.

lemontree
02 Jan 07,, 06:57
india has a military without any fighters let it be air, ground, or sea. when i say fighters, i mean men with the courage to fight and not run.
I shall let figures speak for themsleves; in all wars the number of wounded are more that the number of dead, but in 1962 the IA cas figures are as under:-
KIA - 3250
Wounded - 548

The men stood and fought to the "last man, last round", that is why you have more dead than wounded.

Contrast this with other IA ops
1947 Indo-Pak war: KIA - 1104, Wounded - 3152
1965 Indo-Pak war: KIA - 3264, Wounded - 8623
1971 Indo-Pak war: KIA - 3843, Wounded - 9851
WWI: KIA - 53,468, Wounded - 64,350
WWII: KIA - 24,338, Wounded - 64,354

SOURCE: http://164.100.24.219/rsq/quest.asp?qref=60605

lemontree
02 Jan 07,, 07:27
Oh please quit your save the poor and the minorities' spiel.

Those Nagas have given the Indian Army enough problems...if sometime they have to suffer, then they more than bloody deserve it.

Two Corrections,
One - the Nagas or for that matter the people from the Seven Sister states are not our enemies, many of their political problems are genuine and need addressing. Today the NSCN and other groups are more of a money making racket. Our political leadership has failed them, and so have the general public in the treatment of Naga students, when they study in other states in India.

The erstwhile Mizo MNF was the deadliest guerilla outfit till 80s and the peace accord during Rajiv Gandhi's tenure brought peace and quiet to the state. Today the MNF is a political organization.

Two - The Naga Regiment is a separate entity, I say it with confidence as I am part of the extended regimental family. My father was part of the raising of 1 Naga in Nov 1970 and served as their RMO during the 1971 war. We have very close associations with officers and men of 1 Naga.

Their affiliation with the Kumaon Regt is only because they do not have a separate regimental centre. A separate regt centre is authorosed only when there are more that 4-5 battalions in the regiment. The proposed location of the Naga Regt centre is Dimapur.

gamercube
03 Jan 07,, 00:18
Archer,

I think pin has a point when he talks about the Naga movement. It is not fair to compare the actions of the Indian government concerning the separatist movements in the Northeast with the Chinese government's actions in Tibet, because the Indian government is representative. Pin has no say in how the CCP is running China, but we in India do have a say in how our so-called "democratic" government is run. The fact is that most of the northeast, except maybe for Assam, was never historically a part of India. When we gained independence, we maintained our right to preserve our borders prior to independence, and since the people in the Northeast were too weak to fight India for independence, we could maintain our control there.

We tried to do the same in case of the Macmohan Line, but obviously, the Chinese are not the same as the Nagas, and they forcibly asserted their right to the region in the 1962 war. That war, I now think, was purely a result of India's (most importantly Nehru's) lack of foresight and lack of strategic depth in conducting foreign policy. The Macmohan line was disputed, and the dispute dated as far back as when the border agreement was signed. Nehru should have wisely accepted that and begun negotiations on the issue.

Pin_qinghai,

Having said that, I do not regard the Chinese as a threat simply because of the 1962 war. As I said, the Chinese had no option but to go to war due to Nehru's forward policy of setting up posts along the disputed border. What does irritate me though, is China's transfer of nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan. I have read that China provided Pakistan one complete design of a fission based nuclear weapon in the late 1980s, which greatly speeded up Pakistan's nuclear program. That's like India providing Taiwan with a nuclear weapon design, and missiles to hit every part of mainland China. I'm sure that the Chinese would hate India if we ever did that.

Not only that, but every time there was an India-Pak conflict, the Chinese would threaten to start a war with us too. This is what drove India to make nuclear weapons-to counter China's threats. Against Pakistan, we had overwhelming conventional superiority, so a nuke was not needed. But the next time an Indo-Pak war erupts, you'll see that we won't receive nearly as many threats from China because they will know that we are able and willing to use the nuclear option if pushed too hard.

Ray
03 Jan 07,, 05:16
Admins!

Post 203 was written by me and it says it is by Draconian!

How come?

Officer of Engineers
03 Jan 07,, 05:30
Sir?

lemontree
03 Jan 07,, 07:53
I think Brig Ray sir mean't #206.

Draconion
03 Jan 07,, 10:01
Admins!

Post 203 was written by me and it says it is by Draconian!

How come?

And, my post 206 has is not present, the one in which I wrote about the Naga regiment!:rolleyes:

So, I guess Sir, My post vanashed and my user title thingy didnt, but your post was put up without your user title...and thats why I was wondering why in the hell did I quote myself and say something to the contrary of what I said earlier!!:biggrin: :confused: :mad: :tongue: (I'm a teenager...I got all my feelings "mixed up"!)

Draconion
03 Jan 07,, 10:04
is it only me or are all others not able to multi-quote aswell??:confused:

Archer
03 Jan 07,, 11:51
Archer,

I think pin has a point when he talks about the Naga movement. It is not fair to compare the actions of the Indian government concerning the separatist movements in the Northeast with the Chinese government's actions in Tibet, because the Indian government is representative. Pin has no say in how the CCP is running China, but we in India do have a say in how our so-called "democratic" government is run.

Unless you are being sarcastic, I fail to see what point Pin has. For one, India's issues with the Nagas have not been driven by religion- religious identity has been used by some Naga orgs to justify their repression of those who dont belong to their creed- including other Christians, and why they cant identify with mainland India, since their christian identity is mostly separate from the mainland christian indian denominations. But from New Delhi's pov, their religion has not mattered- the conflict is merely a continuation of the NEFA troubles that began in British times, to pure criminalism. Have a gun, have some daos? You now run a Naga freedom movement. :rolleyes: Expecting any Govt to buy that is insane.
Second, for Pin to allege that India is repressing the christian nagas- emphasis on religion as it is mentioned, is high farce, especially given how the PRC has behaved vis a vis any organized religion or cult or anything that is deemed as a threat to the state. Take Falun Gong for instance, in India it would be yet another loony sect somewhere. Or even Christianity- how many churches are overground, and practising openly?
Third, did the PRC negotiate with the Dalai Lama? India has negotiated with the NSCN-IM for several years now and maintained a tendentious peace (which will blow up in Delhis face since the NSCN-IM is stockpiling arms and cash) - but it goes to show the efforts Delhi makes.
Yaseen Malik in Kashmir- with the blood of IAF men, whose men were rapists, murderer- GOI is talking to him. Hurriyat conference- a group whom Mao, Deng or Stalin would have strung from the rafters - Delhi takes care of their medical bills even while they curse India in the vilest terms. Dalit movements, several of which rabble rouse against india everywhere- GOI lets them be.
Fact is you will not find a SINGLE country in the world, which is as tolerant of dissension as India is. Even when insurgencies erupt, GOI always seeks a political solution, come what may. Take the recent Afzal Guru case..if the media/ opposition and servicemen had not intervened, he would have been pardoned. The point is that several times Delhi goes to extremes to accomodate extremists, but it is consistent in trying to seek a resolution via politics, not force- something which Pin will simply not understand.



The fact is that most of the northeast, except maybe for Assam, was never historically a part of India. When we gained independence, we maintained our right to preserve our borders prior to independence, and since the people in the Northeast were too weak to fight India for independence, we could maintain our control there.


Nope, this doesnt work. First, define India. Does it begin when the British came? Or did it exist before that? And if it did, when are you going to draw the line? Many parts of the NE, did share a strong connection- cultural and religious with other parts of India. The troubles in the Indian North east stem from a variety of issues, not least of which is New Delhis own political mistakes. On the other hand, New Delhi also successfully resolved the Mizo insurgency. The Naga insurgency has gone on for donkeys years partly because Delhi tends to forget about the NE till it blows up in its face. Take the illegal Bangla immigration debacle for instance. If a consistent policy had been followed both hammer (military) and political, with less politicking- the NSCN-IM would have been on the ropes, sounding the bell. But then the babus do tend to sleep, till the problem looms.


We tried to do the same in case of the Macmohan Line, but obviously, the Chinese are not the same as the Nagas, and they forcibly asserted their right to the region in the 1962 war. That war, I now think, was purely a result of India's (most importantly Nehru's) lack of foresight and lack of strategic depth in conducting foreign policy. The Macmohan line was disputed, and the dispute dated as far back as when the border agreement was signed. Nehru should have wisely accepted that and begun negotiations on the issue.

Again, pure revisionism. Just because one side disputes something, you dont walk away. The bad blood between India and the PRC does not date from the border agreement alone, or because some area was not delineated. It stemmed from the fact that Indian troops under British control were used in China, and the PRC leadership thought of India as a colonial construct. Add to that Nehrus apparent claim to fame of being a leader of the developing world, something Mao thought Nehru to be a pompous popinjay for aspiring to, and the Indian support of Mustang guerrillas with the CIA, and the ground was set up for the clash. Nor was Nehru a complete dotard. For his part, he had a belief that if the chips were down, the US would intervene and save India's bacon. But the Cuban missile crisis happened - October 1962 (same as the Indo-China war) and the US was more occupied with that, then something so far away.



Pin_qinghai,Having said that, I do not regard the Chinese as a threat simply because of the 1962 war. As I said, the Chinese had no option but to go to war due to Nehru's forward policy of setting up posts along the disputed border.

Sure, they had no other option! Read Col. Anil Athales accounts, and its clear that the PRC was preparing for a clash much before 1962. If it hadnt been the forward policy, it would have been because Nehru winked at Mao's favourite booty call. Call it whatever you wish, but a conflict was coming, and it was inevitable- Mao had made up his mind long before to teach India a lesson.


What does irritate me though, is China's transfer of nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan. I have read that China provided Pakistan one complete design of a fission based nuclear weapon in the late 1980s, which greatly speeded up Pakistan's nuclear program. That's like India providing Taiwan with a nuclear weapon design, and missiles to hit every part of mainland China. I'm sure that the Chinese would hate India if we ever did that.

What you completely and utterly fail to understand is that these actions stem from what the PRC makes of India. A view which has not changed much in some ways from what Mao & co thought of India.



Not only that, but every time there was an India-Pak conflict, the Chinese would threaten to start a war with us too. This is what drove India to make nuclear weapons-to counter China's threats. Against Pakistan, we had overwhelming conventional superiority, so a nuke was not needed. But the next time an Indo-Pak war erupts, you'll see that we won't receive nearly as many threats from China because they will know that we are able and willing to use the nuclear option if pushed too hard.

Well I sure hope so, thats the point of deterrence.

Ray
03 Jan 07,, 13:40
Colonel,

For '203', read '206'.

Officer of Engineers
03 Jan 07,, 18:32
Sir,

I recommend you delete that post and repost again.

Ray
03 Jan 07,, 20:12
Too much of a bother.

Let bygones be bygones! ;)

gamercube
05 Jan 07,, 03:02
Archer,

Sorry for not responding for two days, but when I saw your post, I was thinking to myself..."aargh, this is going to probably take me around 40 minutes to type a long reply", and being the lazy guy that I am, decided to put it off. Now that I finally have some time, here goes. :)


For one, India's issues with the Nagas have not been driven by religion- religious identity has been used by some Naga orgs to justify their repression of those who dont belong to their creed- including other Christians, and why they cant identify with mainland India, since their christian identity is mostly separate from the mainland christian indian denominations. But from New Delhi's pov, their religion has not mattered- the conflict is merely a continuation of the NEFA troubles that began in British times, to pure criminalism. Have a gun, have some daos? You now run a Naga freedom movement.

It's not just a question of their christian identity. The Naga problem has existed since before the time of independence, when the majority of the Nagas were not even christian. Only in the last decade or so, around 90% of them have been found to be Christians.

Their contention is that Nagaland was never a part of India, which is true. During its 5000 year old history, nagaland was never a a part of any major Indian empire: not the Mauryas, Guptas, Mughals, or the Marathas. They were subjugated only by the British and then added as part of British India. Now, the British added a lot of territories external to India to their empire and claimed it part of British India. Myanmar was also part of British India at one point. But Myanmarese have nothing in common with the rest of India.

Similarly, the Nagas have a strong case for having their own separate country, or at least, a case for breaking away from India. However, the way I see it is Might is Right. Since we have had control of that area, there is no reason why we should let it go. If we dispute Tibet's occupation by China, we must also analyse the occupation of the north eastern states (again, excluding Assam, because Assam was part of many Indian empires) by India.

This has little or nothing to do with the religion of the Nagas. They have a separate identity, and were a separate people until Britain's conquest. Their fight for independence has been going on from before India' independence.


Second, for Pin to allege that India is repressing the christian nagas- emphasis on religion as it is mentioned, is high farce, especially given how the PRC has behaved vis a vis any organized religion or cult or anything that is deemed as a threat to the state. Take Falun Gong for instance, in India it would be yet another loony sect somewhere. Or even Christianity- how many churches are overground, and practising openly?

Two wrongs don't make a right. It is pointless to counter Chinese allegations of Indian wrongdoing by pointing out that they're doing the same, because it only shows that we're no better than them. We don't have the right to say that they're doing something wrong, when we're doing the same.


Third, did the PRC negotiate with the Dalai Lama? India has negotiated with the NSCN-IM for several years now and maintained a tendentious peace (which will blow up in Delhis face since the NSCN-IM is stockpiling arms and cash) - but it goes to show the efforts Delhi makes.

That's because the Chinese don't need to negotiate with the Dalai Lama! The Dalai Lama doesn't lead a terrorist movement in Tibet which is hampering the economic growth of Tibet and neighbouring provinces, like the NSC-IM was doing in India. Since they hold all the bargaining chips in their hand, why should they pay any attention to him?


Yaseen Malik in Kashmir- with the blood of IAF men, whose men were rapists, murderer- GOI is talking to him. Hurriyat conference- a group whom Mao, Deng or Stalin would have strung from the rafters - Delhi takes care of their medical bills even while they curse India in the vilest terms. Dalit movements, several of which rabble rouse against india everywhere- GOI lets them be.

Fact is you will not find a SINGLE country in the world, which is as tolerant of dissension as India is. Even when insurgencies erupt, GOI always seeks a political solution, come what may. Take the recent Afzal Guru case..if the media/ opposition and servicemen had not intervened, he would have been pardoned. The point is that several times Delhi goes to extremes to accomodate extremists, but it is consistent in trying to seek a resolution via politics, not force- something which Pin will simply not understand.


That's debatable. Also, the government's stand varies from situation from situation. Against the Khalistanis, you know how the insurgency was wiped out by the government in a little more than 10 years. In Kashmir though, and in places like the northeast, where the claims of the rebels have far more weight, the issue is tricker because often the majority of the population supports them. In that case, the government has to take a more cautious approach, because they cannot afford to take on a confrontationist attitude against the population of the entire state.


Nope, this doesnt work. First, define India. Does it begin when the British came? Or did it exist before that? And if it did, when are you going to draw the line? Many parts of the NE, did share a strong connection- cultural and religious with other parts of India. The troubles in the Indian North east stem from a variety of issues, not least of which is New Delhis own political mistakes. On the other hand, New Delhi also successfully resolved the Mizo insurgency. The Naga insurgency has gone on for donkeys years partly because Delhi tends to forget about the NE till it blows up in its face. Take the illegal Bangla immigration debacle for instance. If a consistent policy had been followed both hammer (military) and political, with less politicking- the NSCN-IM would have been on the ropes, sounding the bell. But then the babus do tend to sleep, till the problem looms.

India existed long before the British came, and its boundaries are even mentioned in the Vedas.

Nagaland in particular, is culturally nothing like India. They did not even follow Buddhism at the time of independence, but had their own tribal, animist religions. They belong to the Mongolian race, not the Aryan-Dravidian mix that exists in India. Finally, they were never a part of a single Indian empire before the British. That's more than enough reasons for them having a separate identity.

In fact, if the Tibetians and the Chinese/Japanese have more in common with us because they at least follow Buddhism, which is derived from Hinduism. So, by your argument, most of East Asia should be part of India. :tongue:


Again, pure revisionism. Just because one side disputes something, you dont walk away. The bad blood between India and the PRC does not date from the border agreement alone, or because some area was not delineated. It stemmed from the fact that Indian troops under British control were used in China, and the PRC leadership thought of India as a colonial construct. Add to that Nehrus apparent claim to fame of being a leader of the developing world, something Mao thought Nehru to be a pompous popinjay for aspiring to, and the Indian support of Mustang guerrillas with the CIA, and the ground was set up for the clash. Nor was Nehru a complete dotard. For his part, he had a belief that if the chips were down, the US would intervene and save India's bacon. But the Cuban missile crisis happened - October 1962 (same as the Indo-China war) and the US was more occupied with that, then something so far away.



Regardless of Mao's contempt of Nehru (it is well known), it is a FACT that the Macmohan Line was fraudulently delineated by the British. Sure, there may be a host of other issues to add to the mix, but the core issue remains the same. The other factors are aggravating the dispute, but the dispute exists. No one can deny that......but Nehru tried to. He acted as if there was no dispute, and took unilateral steps, which (coupled with Mao's contempt for him) worsened the situation.


Sure, they had no other option! Read Col. Anil Athales accounts, and its clear that the PRC was preparing for a clash much before 1962. If it hadnt been the forward policy, it would have been because Nehru winked at Mao's favourite booty call. Call it whatever you wish, but a conflict was coming, and it was inevitable- Mao had made up his mind long before to teach India a lesson.


I have read Brigadier J P Dalvi's book, "Himalayan Blunder" on the subject. Brig Dalvi was one of the first casualties of the war, and was taken as a POW for seven months. His book was banned in India.

In it, he described in detail the failure of defence planning and the lack of preparedness in the Army, and puts the blame solely on Nehru, Krishna Menon (the then defence minister), and General Kaul.

Jay
05 Jan 07,, 04:09
Nagaland in particular, is culturally nothing like India.
There are multiple states in India and none of them is culturally similar. Just because everyone are branded as hindus does not make rest of the states culturally similar. I will go ahead and say Tamil Nadu is not culturally similar to Bihar, Punjab or Kashmir.

They did not even follow Buddhism at the time of independence, but had their own tribal, animist religions.
Actually there are zillions of religions in India, I can start one and start "canvassing". It does not matter to the Indian constitution.

They belong to the Mongolian race, not the Aryan-Dravidian mix that exists in India.
Again needless point for the topic being discussed. There are many groups in the rest of India that do not belong to Aryan-Dravidian mix. So Nagas will not get a special distinction based on race.

Finally, they were never a part of a single Indian empire before the British. That's more than enough reasons for them having a separate identity.

What constitutes Indian empire? The present political entity, Republic of India was a direct descendent from British Indian empire, so Nagaland does not carry any special rights.

In fact, if the Tibetians and the Chinese/Japanese have more in common with us because they at least follow Buddhism, which is derived from Hinduism. So, by your argument, most of East Asia should be part of India.
No, cultural identity does not just mean the religion they follow, if yes, then Sweden should be a part of Ethiopia as both the nations follow Christianity.

You reasoning for a seperate Nagaland is very hollow.

gamercube
05 Jan 07,, 05:16
Jay, what in your opinion constitutes an independent state/country? Is it national borders prior/during to colonization? Is it ethnicity, language, religion, or something else? At what point would you say that a region is different enough to be a separate country? Are you in favour of Tibet being a separate country?


There are multiple states in India and none of them is culturally similar. Just because everyone are branded as hindus does not make rest of the states culturally similar. I will go ahead and say Tamil Nadu is not culturally similar to Bihar, Punjab or Kashmir.

Every single state in India (not considering the north eastern states) is majority Hindu except for Kashmir and Punjab. Hinduism itself, is much more than a religion, I would say, and any Hindu would tend to agree. The basic culture of most states, for example the wearing of the sari/salwar kameez for example, or the celebration of Diwali, or the Ramayana/Mahabharata that any Hindu would know etc are things that are constant across state boundaries, whether it be Tamil Nadu, or Maharashtra or Bihar. You have to acknowledge that there is a certain degree of commonality between most Indians, regardless of the subcultures within India. This is what is called "Indian culture". Sure, there may be regional variations of this culture, but in general, when you talk about "Indian culture", most will imagine pictures of the sitar, the namaste greeting with folded hands, and women having bindis on their forehead etc.

Even in Punjab and Kashmir, Hindu/Buddhist culture has had far reaching implications. Sikhism was born partly as a reformed version of Hinduism. In Kashmir, as someone mentioned here a few days ago, there is a custom of Muslims not eating beef as courtesy to their Hindu neighbours.

What I'm arguing is that while this commonality exists between all the states in mainland India (for lack of a better word), it doesn't when we talk about the Seven Sisters. I can honestly say that a person from Nagaland has nothing in common with me (a person from Maharashtra). Can I say that about a person from Karnataka or Bihar? Of course not.

They are religiously, ethnically, historically and culturally different from the rest of India. That's a fact, whether you accept it or not.

The sole reason that they are now part of India is because the British annexed them in the late 1800s.

Let me as you another question. I do not know if you know this, but Myanmar was a part of India from the middle of the 1800s to 1937. Since your sole point of argument seems to be that "we should keep Nagaland because it was part of British India", would you recommend that we also take over Myanmar?

667medic
05 Jan 07,, 05:33
Every single state in India (not considering the north eastern states) is majority Hindu except for Kashmir and Punjab. Hinduism itself, is much more than a religion, I would say, and any Hindu would tend to agree. The basic culture of most states, for example the wearing of the sari/salwar kameez for example, or the celebration of Diwali, or the Ramayana/Mahabharata that any Hindu would know etc are things that are constant across state boundaries, whether it be Tamil Nadu, or Maharashtra or Bihar. You have to acknowledge that there is a certain degree of commonality between most Indians, regardless of the subcultures within India. This is what is called "Indian culture". Sure, there may be regional variations of this culture, but in general, when you talk about "Indian culture", most will imagine pictures of the sitar, the namaste greeting with folded hands, and women having bindis on their forehead etc.

That's a stupid arguement.
If a bunch of people are intent on killing eachother, then they will do it irrespective of the so called similarities. Ever heard of the Hutu-Tutsi blood bath, or the Dayak-Mudarese blood bath, hell or even the Bangladesh genocide.:rolleyes:

Jay
05 Jan 07,, 05:37
Jay, what in your opinion constitutes an independent state/country? Is it national borders prior/during to colonization? Is it ethnicity, language, religion, or something else? At what point would you say that a region is different enough to be a separate country? Are you in favour of Tibet being a separate country?
Demanding for a seperate country coz you are culturally and ethnically different in my oinion does not hold water. I could care less for Tibet, if they have the might to be independent and if they can rally the whole of Tibetians then so be it.

Every single state in India (not considering the north eastern states) is majority Hindu except for Kashmir and Punjab. Hinduism itself, is much more than a religion, I would say, and any Hindu would tend to agree.
Hinduism is more like a concept. Say, my customs and culture to an extent is entirely different from yours. We offer animals to our God while not many do that in the North. Our family Gods are not remotely similar to Shiva, Ganesha or Ram or Seetha, and they have entirely different names, faces and rituals to pray.

The basic culture of most states, for example the wearing of the sari/salwar kameez for example, or the celebration of Diwali, or the Ramayana/Mahabharata that any Hindu would know etc are things that are constant across state boundaries, whether it be Tamil Nadu, or Maharashtra or Bihar.
Pakistanis do not wear Saris anymore, so you mean to say they are culturally different than say Punjabis? Do you in Maharshtra wear Veshtis like us in TN or prolly like the women in Kerala? Ramayana is prevelant in Thailand as well, does that make them culturally similar to Indians? No. India is an amalgamation of races, culture, customs and beliefs. Some of the customs that we have in the south permeated from the north, same holds true for every other region including the seven sisters. The Jarawas in Andamans have a much better claim than Nagas.

Even in Punjab and Kashmir, Hindu/Buddhist culture has had far reaching implications. Sikhism was born partly as a reformed version of Hinduism.
Again, Sikhism took bits and pieces from several religions not just Hinduism. Hinduism itself is a group of several such sub continental beliefs.

What I'm arguing is that while this commonality exists between all the states in mainland India (for lack of a better word), it doesn't when we talk about the Seven Sisters.
What Im arguing is lack of commanality does not warrant a seperate nation, coz most of the regions in India are not similar.

I can honestly say that a person from Nagaland has nothing in common with me (a person from Maharashtra). Can I say that about a person from Karnataka or Bihar? Of course not.
I can say that a Bihari muslim has less in common with me, do you disagree?

They are religiously, ethnically, historically and culturally different from the rest of India. That's a fact, whether you accept it or not.
Again, it does not matter. As I said there are plenty of groups in India who are religiously, etnically and culturally different from the majority, yet they seem to get along fine.

The sole reason that they are now part of India is because the British annexed them in the late 1800s.
Political India descended from British Empire and we have every rights to govern Nagaland as much as they want freedom.


Let me as you another question. I do not know if you know this, but Myanmar was a part of India from the middle of the 1800s to 1937. Since your sole point of argument seems to be that "we should keep Nagaland because it was part of British India", would you recommend that we also take over Myanmar?
Was Myanmar part of British Indian empire in 1947? If not, its a moot point.

667medic
05 Jan 07,, 05:39
What I'm arguing is that while this commonality exists between all the states in mainland India (for lack of a better word), it doesn't when we talk about the Seven Sisters. I can honestly say that a person from Nagaland has nothing in common with me (a person from Maharashtra). Can I say that about a person from Karnataka or Bihar? Of course not.

They are religiously, ethnically, historically and culturally different from the rest of India. That's a fact, whether you accept it or not.

Nice, so let's assume that the Seven Sister states secede, then the differences between a Maharashtran and a Tamil would become more pronounced. Hell we look different, have different eating habits and even speak different languages, so would you say that Tamil Nadu has the right to secede...

And so what if we are both Hindus, Bali is predominantly Hindu and so would it become a part of India:rolleyes:

Tronic
05 Jan 07,, 06:00
Heh, yeah, you're right. If people started pulling out just because they look different, have different culture and tradition, then India wouldn't be well... India; since every single state in India is different... thats why its called the Indian Union... ;)

gamercube
05 Jan 07,, 06:27
That's a stupid arguement.
If a bunch of people are intent on killing eachother, then they will do it irrespective of the so called similarities. Ever heard of the Hutu-Tutsi blood bath, or the Dayak-Mudarese blood bath, hell or even the Bangladesh genocide.

You're missing the point entirely. The question here is, what constitutes "India?" Is the basis of the existence of "India", in its present form, solely the British Raj? If you answer in the affirmative, then you'd be holding the same opinion as the British, who dismissed the claims of independence of the Indian National Congress on the grounds that no country called "India" ever existed, that the British India was an artificial construct created by them, and so any notion of an independent country called "India" was utterly deluded.

Jinnah used this exact same argument to make a case for Pakistan, because if there was no such thing as "India", but just a bunch of warring kingdoms, then a few kingdoms could be joined together to form Pakistan.

On the other hand, if you accept that the notion of India is a historical reality, dating from the time of the Vedas, then you would know that this notion never included what's currently known as the Seven Sisters.


Demanding for a seperate country coz you are culturally and ethnically different in my oinion does not hold water. I could care less for Tibet, if they have the might to be independent and if they can rally the whole of Tibetians then so be it.

You have not answered my question.

What in your opinion constitutes a separate country?

As for Tibet, let me rephrase the question. Do you feel that Tibetians have a legitimate claim to form a separate country?


India is an amalgamation of races, culture, customs and beliefs. Some of the customs that we have in the south permeated from the north, same holds true for every other region including the seven sisters.

You're right until "same holds for every region", but wrong about the part about the seven sisters. You say that some customs from the North have influenced Tamil culture. Tell me, what customs from the NE have influenced TN, or Bihar, or AP, or any of the other Indian states. Aha, got you there...:)


I can say that a Bihari muslim has less in common with me, do you disagree?

Of course I would disagree! As for what you have in common with a Bihari Muslim, you share history! Parts of Tamil Nadu and Bihar were both under the Maratha empire. You also belong to the same racial mix as the rest of India (Aryan-Dravidian), just in varying amounts.

If you say that a Bihari Muslim has less in common with you than a Naga does, then I'd be quite interested in knowing what commonalities you share with the Naga! :biggrin:


Political India descended from British Empire and we have every rights to govern Nagaland as much as they want freedom.

Yes, but you see, the Nagas were forcibly annexed by the British as part of British India. So all I'm saying is that their claim to independence is legitimate. On the other hand, if TN decides to ask for independence tomorrow, I'd be against it tooth and nail.


Was Myanmar part of British Indian empire in 1947? If not, its a moot point.

Fine. Then you view India solely as a political entity created out of the British Raj.

I, on the other hand, view India as a much ancient construct, conceived as Bharatvarsha in the Vedas and which many people lost their lives trying to protect from invaders of every sort from Alexander to the Muslim Arabs/Afghanis.

I think therein lies the difference. I do not think that India began only when the British arrived, and hence, my views of consolidating the entire region from the Afghanistan border to the Bay of Bengal and everything south of the Himalayas under one rule.

----------------------------------------------------

I wish to clear one thing up here. I am not advocating secession of the Seven Sisters. What I am trying to say is that just as many posters have tried to be morally and righteously indignant at China for annexing Tibet and committing atrocities there, we must also bear the responsibility of acknowledging our own occupation of the north eastern states. The AFSPA that has been implemented in the NE is responsible for alienating the already hostile people to a large degree. The Army has shoot at sight orders in those parts-we cannot morally accuse China of human rights violations when we're doing the same.

Archer
05 Jan 07,, 06:36
t's not just a question of their christian identity. The Naga problem has existed since before the time of independence, when the majority of the Nagas were not even christian. Only in the last decade or so, around 90% of them have been found to be Christians.

Sorry, thats incorrect,- I didnt say it was only religion- but religion is one of the causes the insurgents use to define their "separateness"; the NSCN-IM themselves state that they dont "belong" on account of their Baptist identity, which conversion process began in the 19th century.


Their contention is that Nagaland was never a part of India, which is true. During its 5000 year old history, nagaland was never a a part of any major Indian empire: not the Mauryas, Guptas, Mughals, or the Marathas. They were subjugated only by the British and then added as part of British India. Now, the British added a lot of territories external to India to their empire and claimed it part of British India. Myanmar was also part of British India at one point. But Myanmarese have nothing in common with the rest of India.

Which is fairly pointless, since the Ahoms also resisted inclusion into major empires including the Mughal ones, and if the Ahom empire has been incorporated into the Indian Union, so will they. Furthermore, if you go back all the way to the Vedas- as you point out in another part of your post, the Mahabharata which comes much much later, makes clear reference to warriors from the region. So they were culturally in touch with the rest of ancient India, and "not being conquered" has little to do with it. Present day Myanmar also includes parts of territory that are claimed by the Naga nationalists- so does that mean that they are now correct, and would get their wish?



Similarly, the Nagas have a strong case for having their own separate country, or at least, a case for breaking away from India. However, the way I see it is Might is Right. Since we have had control of that area, there is no reason why we should let it go. If we dispute Tibet's occupation by China, we must also analyse the occupation of the north eastern states (again, excluding Assam, because Assam was part of many Indian empires) by India.

Again, incorrect. The premise you should be looking at it, is that has Delhi been supplanted by a more humane, more rational Govt, that can serve the Nagas right? The answer is quite clearly, no. In fact, the NSCN-IM has spent much of the truce period slaughtering its rivals. The simple point is that they are a quasi-criminal organization motivated more by the lure of power. And which is why Delhi will never and should never walk away, since it will merely lead to anarchy and a quasi-criminal state ruled by a junta.

This is the recurring fact of most so called insurgencies in the Indian union- their quick resort to criminalization- see ULFA for eg, even whilst ostensibly trumpeting local grievances against an uncaring center. Sure, the "secular" JKLF whose troops raped Pandit women, the Khalistanis who set new standards in wine, women, song and violence till they were brought to heel, or the new revolutionaries of organizations such as the NSCN-IM who are basically, at their heart, tinpot tyrants.

That is the crux of the matter- Delhi, or any sane Govt will never accede to their demands as long as they continue on a path to violence.



This has little or nothing to do with the religion of the Nagas. They have a separate identity, and were a separate people until Britain's conquest. Their fight for independence has been going on from before India' independence.

Sorry, thats wrong, because the Nagas themselves consider their religion a central part of their identity. Talk to any person with any remote connection with the NSCN-IM, and they will hammer out how they are not like the mainland Christian denominations, and indulge in a fair bit of catholic bashing (not that they know much beyond propoganda). Its a fact of life that religion reinforces a sense of "identity" wherever a person hails from, and the NSCN-IM and several other orgs have played upon that.




Two wrongs don't make a right. It is pointless to counter Chinese allegations of Indian wrongdoing by pointing out that they're doing the same, because it only shows that we're no better than them. We don't have the right to say that they're doing something wrong, when we're doing the same.


This is a complete misreading of what I said, and this is perhaps the third time I have had to restate it. Do get it right this time, please. First, I never said India did a wrong and that China does it, which makes it ok for India to persist.

Perhaps you should reread my post. What I did point out was that India DOES NOT do what the PRC does, and it is infact ironic to have someone from the PRC talk of religion and individualism, when the PRC goes out of its way to suppress it, whereas in India religious movements are dime a dozen.
New Delhi for instance, cares two hoots whether the Nagas are Klingon or Baptists, but the NSCN-IM does, because it allows them an arrow in a propoganda war, which the likes of Pin glibly state. IF India had followed the PRC template, then there would be a state idealogy and organized religion itself would be suppressed.



That's because the Chinese don't need to negotiate with the Dalai Lama! The Dalai Lama doesn't lead a terrorist movement in Tibet which is hampering the economic growth of Tibet and neighbouring provinces, like the NSC-IM was doing in India. Since they hold all the bargaining chips in their hand, why should they pay any attention to him?

Which again goes to show how different the PRC is from India- something which Pin would understand, were it not you tilting at windmills in between.

In India's case, India also holds the bargaining chips in several regions by dint of its military and fiscal muscle, yet it attempts to negotiate with any disenfranchised constituent, once the matter gains attention. That is the very nature of a democracy vs an autocracy.


That's debatable. Also, the government's stand varies from situation from situation. Against the Khalistanis, you know how the insurgency was wiped out by the government in a little more than 10 years. In Kashmir though, and in places like the northeast, where the claims of the rebels have far more weight, the issue is tricker because often the majority of the population supports them. In that case, the government has to take a more cautious approach, because they cannot afford to take on a confrontationist attitude against the population of the entire state.

Sorry, here you are again wrong, and massively so. The claims of the rebels have had little weight in either the NE, or the Kashmir or the Punjab- in each case, a strident and extremely violent group of religious reactionaries started an insurgency with external support and were sustained by it. If you knew about the Punjab insurgency in detail, you would also realise that India is yet to formalize the Punjab lessons in detail- something which even KPS Gill hammers on. Only in the NE, did the insurgency start without significant external support tho' later (and even today), it has received substantial aid- financial and material from Pak, Bangla and even the PRC (which is said to have ended, but then again..) and as usual, violence became an end by itself, and the movement became a criminal one.

As regards GOI solutions: the simple point is of PRIORITIES.

In the case of Kashmir and Punjab, both of these were high-profile and directly caught New Delhi's eye and were addressed. In the case of Kashmir, Delhi was never able to come up with an adequate response to the situation as they developed with the Punjab (hint: it was outside India), and the wound festered, as India just threw manpower at it. In the North East, the simple and basic fact is and always has been that it has been too far away for Delhi to bother. The average IAS waalah regards a tenure to the NE as a punishment posting. In such a vein, only the military solution has been pursued, and that too in an ad-hoc manner. Operations are launched, then the Army is called off- because the local politicians claim they will cause "unrest", and then re-launched a few months thence. The simple fact is that a combination of incentives- monetary and political, and military force- defeats an insurgency. Only the last never works, and Delhi has never quite got around to the first.



India existed long before the British came, and its boundaries are even mentioned in the Vedas.

If you are willing to look that far back, then so do the Nagas come into the mix..



Nagaland in particular, is culturally nothing like India. They did not even follow Buddhism at the time of independence, but had their own tribal, animist religions. They belong to the Mongolian race, not the Aryan-Dravidian mix that exists in India. Finally, they were never a part of a single Indian empire before the British. That's more than enough reasons for them having a separate identity.

First, the Aryan and Dravidian nonsense is no longer accepted as a valid theory. Genetic evidence states that the AIT is a hoax, apart from the evidence on the likes of Mueller. Beyond that, ethnic considerations of the kind you are referring to are pointless- by the same standards significant sections of the NE, including Assam dont belong in India. Coming to tribal animist religions- even the tribals in Chattisgarh and Jhabua are animist with a fair bit of Hindu folklore mixed in between, so does that make them "non-Indian"?



In fact, if the Tibetians and the Chinese/Japanese have more in common with us because they at least follow Buddhism, which is derived from Hinduism. So, by your argument, most of East Asia should be part of India. :tongue:


No, by your arguement only religion and ethnicity matter - which is patently false. The fact is that you are categorically making statements on the lines of that the Nagas had little in common with the rest of India, which is again incorrect, when one sees the amount of diversity that is in India. Finally, the Naga identity itself developed in the 1890's, and the Naga insurgents continue to insist on a greater nagaland, which runs counter to all the other NE's states wishes.


Regardless of Mao's contempt of Nehru (it is well known), it is a FACT that the Macmohan Line was fraudulently delineated by the British. Sure, there may be a host of other issues to add to the mix, but the core issue remains the same. The other factors are aggravating the dispute, but the dispute exists. No one can deny that......but Nehru tried to. He acted as if there was no dispute, and took unilateral steps, which (coupled with Mao's contempt for him) worsened the situation.

The core issue business is bunkum- one has heard the same old, same old "core issue" thing wrt Kashmir and every other situation, and the point remains- an attempt to use force, to negotiate a dispute does not mean that the dispute is automatically valid. All it means is that one side is either desparate or arrogant enough to assume that its able to change the status quo, without negotiating it. The simple fact about the Mc Mahon line is that the PRC were unable to make any claim at the time, because they themselves were pushing their luck. Where was the Chinese attempt, as far back as 1892 to jointly discuss the issue of Aksai Chin? Hardly- they put a marker there, and declared it theirs. They didnt attend the 1914 conference between Tibet and British India, because of their issues with Tibet, but once they claimed Tibet, off they were to renegotiate using force. Nehrus mistakes dont automatically mean that the PRC was correct in what it did. The PRCs position is a simple case of might makes right. Irrespective of how much they tout the core issue, thats what it boils down to.


I have read Brigadier J P Dalvi's book, "Himalayan Blunder" on the subject. Brig Dalvi was one of the first casualties of the war, and was taken as a POW for seven months. His book was banned in India.

In it, he described in detail the failure of defence planning and the lack of preparedness in the Army, and puts the blame solely on Nehru, Krishna Menon (the then defence minister), and General Kaul.

Dalvi should be one of the sources you read, but he is by no means the only one to comment on the affair. There is evidence to state that Mao was firmly in favour of a "lesson" vis a vis India, and that attitude is perpetuated today vis a vis the aggressive patrolling undertaken by PLA patrols as a means of pressure. Fact of life is that India and China are rivals by virtue of their strategic position alone, but the differing political systems and past bad blood (wherein India is seen as an inheritor to the British) is a recurring leitmotif in relations, and will remain so, till the PRC political leadership changes.

gamercube
05 Jan 07,, 06:38
Bali is predominantly Hindu and so would it become a part of India

When was Bali ever a part of India? The major emphasis here is on a shared history.....the other things are just extras. That is why Britain is a country, China is a country, and Egypt is a country.

Indonesia is not part of Egypt just because they share the same religion.

gamercube
05 Jan 07,, 06:39
Awww crap..... Hey Archer, just asking, how long did it take you to type that post? :biggrin:

Archer
05 Jan 07,, 06:49
I, on the other hand, view India as a much ancient construct, conceived as Bharatvarsha in the Vedas and which many people lost their lives trying to protect from invaders of every sort from Alexander to the Muslim Arabs/Afghanis.

I think therein lies the difference. I do not think that India began only when the British arrived, and hence, my views of consolidating the entire region from the Afghanistan border to the Bay of Bengal and everything south of the Himalayas under one rule.

This is idealistic at best. India is a modern state which draws upon its ancient heritage, but there is no point in accomodating those who loathe it- which includes vast sections of what is today Pak, and even Afghanistan. The day they demonstrate a degree of moderation, where they can share space with "idolators" and "polytheists"- perhaps that day, a federation of sorts can be imagined. In the case of the NE, there are many groups that want to remain within the Indian Union, including the Mizos and the Assamese- and the other "sisters" who in fact look upon the Nagas territorial claims as crazy. Even amongst the Nagas, there are groups that want to be within India, as the insurgents want out. So even the Pak case does not hold parallel wrt the NE, were you to proceed on that strawman next.



I wish to clear one thing up here. I am not advocating secession of the Seven Sisters. What I am trying to say is that just as many posters have tried to be morally and righteously indignant at China for annexing Tibet and committing atrocities there, we must also bear the responsibility of acknowledging our own occupation of the north eastern states. The AFSPA that has been implemented in the NE is responsible for alienating the already hostile people to a large degree. The Army has shoot at sight orders in those parts-we cannot morally accuse China of human rights violations when we're doing the same.

The fact that you are even comparing the two, shows you to be totally deluded. I have spoken to enough Tibetans, including those who actually escaped from PRC control, to know the situation there. The term "HR violations" is a joke, when compared to whats gone on in Tibet. The Tibetan culture has all been but wiped out in several ways, and grown men break down about how a small hamlet in the Indian south has more original Tibetan culture left, in someways, than in the homeland. Comparing this to India's domain in the NE- where for all its hamhanded policies, New Delhi has never tried to erase the cultural history or engage in mass depredation, is a sick joke. Which does not mean that India can do much about it, but have some sense of proportion, kindly.

The Army has had shoot at sight orders in several parts of India (including where I have lived)- so please spare me the indignation on that account. I rather welcomed those rules, because what they meant was that law and order was maintained and that I didnt have to get mugged and killed and become a statistic. If the Nagas could stop their bloodletting - and that extends to other insurgents such as those from the Bodos, the Army wouldnt have to enforce such orders to begin with. The basic fact is that if all sectarian hatreds are allowed to play out, there is no point in having a state.
Intertribal warfare has consumed far more lives than any Indian rule, or law.

Archer
05 Jan 07,, 07:13
When was Bali ever a part of India? The major emphasis here is on a shared history.....the other things are just extras. That is why Britain is a country, China is a country, and Egypt is a country.

Indonesia is not part of Egypt just because they share the same religion.

The OIC is entirely that attempt, to forge a common goal. The biggest obstacle to it, are all the tinpot dictators that run their individual countries, bar a few like Malaysia, which ensure that nationalism dominates, at the cost of the "Ummah"! :biggrin:

667medic
05 Jan 07,, 07:27
When was Bali ever a part of India? The major emphasis here is on a shared history.....the other things are just extras. That is why Britain is a country, China is a country, and Egypt is a country.

Indonesia is not part of Egypt just because they share the same religion.

Hey genius, so why can't I claim that SriLanka, Bali, Cambodia and even Malaysia belong to India, they had been invaded by the Tamil kings in the past. So yeah, there is shared history amongst these places:rolleyes:

gamercube
05 Jan 07,, 07:33
Sorry, thats incorrect,- I didnt say it was only religion- but religion is one of the causes the insurgents use to define their "separateness"; the NSCN-IM themselves state that they dont "belong" on account of their Baptist identity, which conversion process began in the 19th century.

The NSCN-IM did not even exist at the time of independence. The NSCN-IM is not the only group fighting for Naga independence, there are scores of others. At one point in time, even Indira Gandhi had promised them that the government would not forcibly keep them in the Indian union if they did not want to stay.

Some important facts:


Though the British brought the Nagas and the other tribal areas in the Northeast under political control, they were declared "excluded areas" and "backward tracts". The British adopted a policy of non-interference in local tribal affairs. The Naga leaders claim that when the Simon Commission came to India in 1927 some Nagas met it and asked that they may be "left alone". They point out that the Nagas under the aegis of the Naga National Council led by Angami Zapu Phizo declared their independence on August 14, 1947, a day before India's independence. This was ratified by a 99 per cent affirmative vote in a referendum held in May 1951, according to them. They believe that these two actions provide firm legal and ethical basis for their claim of separateness. At present, the majority of the Nagas and their leaders realise that outright independence is unachievable. But they still insist on recognition and respect for their uniqueness and honour, for which thousands of Nagas sacrificed their lives.


Which is fairly pointless, since the Ahoms also resisted inclusion into major empires including the Mughal ones, and if the Ahom empire has been incorporated into the Indian Union, so will they.

That is why I insisted in all my posts that I was talking about the rest of the North east excluding Assam. Assam's status has never been in question.


Furthermore, if you go back all the way to the Vedas- as you point out in another part of your post, the Mahabharata which comes much much later, makes clear reference to warriors from the region.

What are these "clear references?" I don't remember anything like that in the Mahabharata.


Again, incorrect. The premise you should be looking at it, is that has Delhi been supplanted by a more humane, more rational Govt, that can serve the Nagas right? The answer is quite clearly, no.

That's not the point. We're not debating what India will/will not do, because we already know the answer. The point is what we should/should not do. And IMO, we should at least admit to the fact that the Nagas are a distinct people with their own history, language etc.


Sorry, thats wrong, because the Nagas themselves consider their religion a central part of their identity. Talk to any person with any remote connection with the NSCN-IM, and they will hammer out how they are not like the mainland Christian denominations, and indulge in a fair bit of catholic bashing (not that they know much beyond propoganda). Its a fact of life that religion reinforces a sense of "identity" wherever a person hails from, and the NSCN-IM and several other orgs have played upon that.


Alright, but religion is only one of the reasons they want independence, and certainly not the sole one. The main reason is their history. Do some research, and you'll find out.


First, the Aryan and Dravidian nonsense is no longer accepted as a valid theory. Genetic evidence states that the AIT is a hoax, apart from the evidence on the likes of Mueller.

It does not matter whether the Aryans invaded India, or "migrated" into India, and I never said that they invaded anybody. The point is, they came to India, regardless of whether they fell from the sky or came from underground.


Beyond that, ethnic considerations of the kind you are referring to are pointless- by the same standards significant sections of the NE, including Assam dont belong in India. Coming to tribal animist religions- even the tribals in Chattisgarh and Jhabua are animist with a fair bit of Hindu folklore mixed in between, so does that make them "non-Indian"?
Why are you ignoring my repeated statements that there should be a goddamn SHARED history? Religion alone does not make a country, but a host of factors, including religion, culture, and most importantly, a SHARED HISTORY does. And no point in f**king time were the Nagas ever a part of India.


No, by your arguement only religion and ethnicity matter - which is patently false. The fact is that you are categorically making statements on the lines of that the Nagas had little in common with the rest of India, which is again incorrect, when one sees the amount of diversity that is in India. Finally, the Naga identity itself developed in the 1890's, and the Naga insurgents continue to insist on a greater nagaland, which runs counter to all the other NE's states wishes.


********. Where the hell did I say that only religion and ethnicity matter? Show me.



They didnt attend the 1914 conference between Tibet and British India, because of their issues with Tibet, but once they claimed Tibet, off they were to renegotiate using force. Nehrus mistakes dont automatically mean that the PRC was correct in what it did. The PRCs position is a simple case of might makes right. Irrespective of how much they tout the core issue, thats what it boils down to.

******** again. They did attend the conference. A Chinese representative was at the conference, but refused to sign on the border deal. The British pressurised him into signing it, but not before he worded it so that if the central government in Beijing dissapproved of it, then the agreement would not stand. When he returned to the capital, the central government did not approve the deal, so it was cancelled.

Shows how much you know of the history of the conflict.

gamercube
05 Jan 07,, 07:35
Hey genius, so why can't I claim that SriLanka, Bali, Cambodia and even Malaysia belong to India, they had been invaded by the Tamil kings in the past. So yeah, there is shared history amongst these places

Sure, go ahead, they would constitute part of the Tamil empire, or whatever. They wouldn't constitute India.

Archer
05 Jan 07,, 07:58
The NSCN-IM did not even exist at the time of independence. The NSCN-IM is not the only group fighting for Naga independence, there are scores of others. At one point in time, even Indira Gandhi had promised them that the government would not forcibly keep them in the Indian union if they did not want to stay.

The NSCN-IM and NSCN-K are the only two groups of consequence fighting the Indian Union today. For once do some research on the topic if you are so interested in it, and between the two- the NSCN-IM has been in truce with the GOI since 1997. All that time, K has been killing IM, and IM has been killing K. :rolleyes:


Some important facts:

Yes, thats the Naga claim, and that too by some. Merely having some blockheads declare themself independent does not decide the matter, otherwise Junagadh would be independent too.




That is why I insisted in all my posts that I was talking about the rest of the North east excluding Assam. Assam's status has never been in question.

Why? Merely because it is mentioned in the Vedas? What of the mongoloid Ahoms who ruled it? What of the fact that it defeated Mughal invasion after invasion? So wouldnt that make it independent by itself?
Face it, you are picking at straws. A hundred years from now, with ample funding, if some historian discovers Nagaland was part of some ancient kingdom, then will it satisfy you?



What are these "clear references?" I don't remember anything like that in the Mahabharata.

Where does the term Naga come from? Who were the Nagas? If you are willing to go back, all the way into the Vedas and even into periods which were not well defined, then one can as glibly state that the Naga people have a link to the Naga state and that makes it Indian or whatever.



That's not the point. We're not debating what India will/will not do, because we already know the answer. The point is what we should/should not do. And IMO, we should at least admit to the fact that the Nagas are a distinct people with their own history, language etc.

Once again, what makes them so different from everyone else? Each of your trial balloons has been shot down. Ethnicity, zip. Animists, zip. Etc. All that "distinguishes" them, is the insistence of some dolts in the insurgency who insist that they have nothing in common with anyone else and want Myanmar, three other Indian states to hand over territory for their greater Nagalim. In the meanwhile, they kill their own tribesmen and that makes them credible? Please understand, the INC gained credibility because they showed the ability to forge a nation- the Naga insurgents have merely demonstrated violence. Murder does not a nation make.



Alright, but religion is only one of the reasons they want independence, and certainly not the sole one. The main reason is their history. Do some research, and you'll find out.

For one who didnt even know the impact religion has on the NSCN-IM and their supporters beliefs, that doesnt speak volumes for research. Were you even aware of the bloodletting between the Khaplang group and Muivah's? If so, you wouldnt be stating their aims are credible. I do know of their "we are unique" claims, I just dont consider them credible. INC, they arent.


It does not matter whether the Aryans invaded India, or "migrated" into India, and I never said that they invaded anybody. The point is, they came to India, regardless of whether they fell from the sky or came from underground.

Really, where are these Aryans from? Where did they come from? Who were the Dravidians then, for your statement on the Aryan/ Dravidian mix? Face it, for one who is so insistent upon the "Vedas" and that India being recreated, you just made a mistake.



Why are you ignoring my repeated statements that there should be a goddamn SHARED history? Religion alone does not make a country, but a host of factors, including religion, culture, and most importantly, a SHARED HISTORY does. And no point in f**king time were the Nagas ever a part of India.

Shared history does not mean squat by itself. Shared history does not mean that India and Pakistan will become one, and sing the kumbaya.

Second, you have no time machine to go back in time and absolutely predict the history of India. Again, an area in which you are being absolutely facetious here.

First, Indian history itself has so many gaps that a historian would shudder before making claims like you did. Even the Naga history before the 19th century is sparsely documented- guess what, does that mean they came into being then? You think that in all these thousands of years no Indian kingdom ever held sway there or had cultural links?:rolleyes:

A few other regions of India can claim to have broken away or never been in central rule - but they signed onto the Indian charter. Thats it! The same exists today in Nagaland. Some Nagas have agreed to the Indian charter, others havent. To state that one is above the other, because there is no "shared history" is pointless.

Why are Andaman and Nicobar a part of India? Want to take a look at the US, they purchased territory. By setting an unrealistic benchmark vis a vis ancient India alone, you ignore the fact that borders themselves vary.




********. Where the hell did I say that only religion and ethnicity matter? Show me.

What then, all your statements on Hindu identity, vedas or "mongoloid" Nagas were grandstanding? The above were but a couple of the bits you focused on. Via shared history, lets claim SEAsia, makes sense!



******** again. They did attend the conference. A Chinese representative was at the conference, but refused to sign on the border deal. The British pressurised him into signing it, but not before he worded it so that if the central government in Beijing dissapproved of it, then the agreement would not stand. When he returned to the capital, the central government did not approve the deal, so it was cancelled.

So cry me a river. Thats what is meant by negotiations! So the Chinese Govt of the time doesnt agree to the deal, and walks off in a fit of pique and Mao re-ignites the conflict decades thence when he could. And we are supposed to believe this is perfectly acceptable behaviour and Nehru alone is to blame.



Shows how much you know of the history of the conflict.

No, it actually shows how much you know. Tell you what, for one silly enough to insist that just because the Vedas or whatever included Pakistan, and Afghanistan- and hence that Indian union should be refounded on that basis, please dont make me laugh. Live in your dreamworld, but dont ask that everyone else join you in that potsmokers paradise!

Archer
05 Jan 07,, 07:58
Sure, go ahead, they would constitute part of the Tamil empire, or whatever. They wouldn't constitute India.

Why? Then how come Tamil Nadu is part of India? :rolleyes:

Tronic
05 Jan 07,, 08:11
gamercube, dude, cool down on your wacko expansionist/seperatist philosophy.... first you wanted to annex Pakistan, now you're saying why the Seven Sisters should cede... dude.... learn to live with what India is today....

Archer
05 Jan 07,, 08:22
gamercube, dude, cool down on your wacko expansionist/seperatist philosophy.... first you wanted to annex Pakistan, now you're saying why the Seven Sisters should cede... dude.... learn to live with what India is today....

I have half a mind of having a sponsored airticket for Pak/ Afghan for shri GC.
Thataway, he can be in good old Sindhudesh, original and pristine, and then we'll see.

Even a cursory look at the seven sisters reveals that most of the insurgent groups are more interested in ethnic cleansing vs their traditional tribal animosities, rather than whether they are part of India. Geez, and they are being "oppressed" on Tibetan proportions.

Jay
05 Jan 07,, 08:22
On the other hand, if you accept that the notion of India is a historical reality, dating from the time of the Vedas, then you would know that this notion never included what's currently known as the Seven Sisters.
If you go by vedas then certainly you would include Pakistan, Afghanistan in to India, no?


You have not answered my question.

What in your opinion constitutes a separate country?

As for Tibet, let me rephrase the question. Do you feel that Tibetians have a legitimate claim to form a separate country?

Let me answer it this way, just coz a group of people think that they are "different" from the majority they cannot carve a seperate country.


You're right until "same holds for every region", but wrong about the part about the seven sisters. You say that some customs from the North have influenced Tamil culture. Tell me, what customs from the NE have influenced TN, or Bihar, or AP, or any of the other Indian states. Aha, got you there...:)
Naga's primary belief is animism, do you deny that the rest of India does not share it?You know what Naga really means in any of the Indian languages? Have you ever visited any of the temples?
Now, most of the Nagas are Christians, so you think the rest of the Indian Christians or lets say Baptists different?


Of course I would disagree! As for what you have in common with a Bihari Muslim, you share history! Parts of Tamil Nadu and Bihar were both under the Maratha empire.
Have you heard about Satvahanas? Pallavas? Infact Pallavas ruled the whole of TN at on point that the Marathas you speak about.
Do I have anything common with him, now? The stuff I eat, the God I pray, The language I speak, my family customs is all differerent. If you speak historically, then Cholas conquered all the way up north, so can we claim that we have same culture and history and make it a part of Tamil nadu??


You also belong to the same racial mix as the rest of India (Aryan-Dravidian), just in varying amounts.
India has many more races mixed together, what you quote is the linguistic divide.


If you say that a Bihari Muslim has less in common with you than a Naga does, then I'd be quite interested in knowing what commonalities you share with the Naga! :biggrin:
Im just saying I dont have anything common with Bihari Muslim or a Punjabi Sikh or a Naga, so can we get a seperate country?


Yes, but you see, the Nagas were forcibly annexed by the British as part of British India. So all I'm saying is that their claim to independence is legitimate. On the other hand, if TN decides to ask for independence tomorrow, I'd be against it tooth and nail.
Why?? Do you think the tamil rulers gave their kingdoms to the British in a platter?

Fine. Then you view India solely as a political entity created out of the British Raj.
Yes, India in this current incarnation was formed as a result of British Raj, ingnoring this fact is your peril.

I, on the other hand, view India as a much ancient construct, conceived as Bharatvarsha in the Vedas and which many people lost their lives trying to protect from invaders of every sort from Alexander to the Muslim Arabs/Afghanis.
While its good to trace the roots, it doesnt really make sense as then Bharatvarsha included a lot more than current India. Im just surprised what has the vedas said about the South of Vindhiyas?

I think therein lies the difference. I do not think that India began only when the British arrived, and hence, my views of consolidating the entire region from the Afghanistan border to the Bay of Bengal and everything south of the Himalayas under one rule.
India was never consolidated as you seem to describe until the British came.

What are these "clear references?" I don't remember anything like that in the Mahabharata.
Too bad, you should read this :biggrin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulupi

Jay
05 Jan 07,, 08:23
Sure, go ahead, they would constitute part of the Tamil empire, or whatever. They wouldn't constitute India.
Why?? The Tamil kings are not a part of your Indian heritage??

Jay
05 Jan 07,, 08:33
http://www.indhistory.com/maps/gupta-empire-map.gif


So tell me, where is Nagaland in the above picture?

gamercube
05 Jan 07,, 08:37
The NSCN-IM and NSCN-K are the only two groups of consequence fighting the Indian Union today. For once do some research on the topic if you are so interested in it, and between the two- the NSCN-IM has been in truce with the GOI since 1997. All that time, K has been killing IM, and IM has been killing K.

No, they're the two major ones. There are scores of smaller ones who are also fighting the army......I should know, I had conversations on this topic with a friend who was from Nagaland. In 1954, there was the NCN which split, and one faction of this group were the socialists, which later split again into the IM and K factions. There are still smaller non-socialist groups.


Merely having some blockheads declare themself independent does not decide the matter, otherwise Junagadh would be independent too.

A referendum was held at that time, in which 99% of the people voted to break away from India. Wasn't the same logic used to annex Junagadh by the GOI?


Why? Merely because it is mentioned in the Vedas?

Sigh. A history lesson here for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assam#History


Ancient Assam was known as Kamarupa and was ruled by many powerful dynasties. The Varman Dynasty (350-650AD) and the Xalostombho dynasty led Kamrupa as a strong ancient kingdom. During the rule of the greatest of the Varman kings, Bhaskarvarman (600-650AD), a contemporary of Harshavardhana of Kanauj, the Chinese traveler Xuan Zang visited the region, and recorded his travels. The other dynasties that ruled the region were the Kacharis, the Chutias etc. that belonged to the Indo-Tibetan groups.

Two later kingdoms left the biggest impact in the region. The Ahoms, a Tai group, ruled eastern Assam for nearly 600 years (1228-1826). The Koch, a Tibeto-Burmese/Dravidian group, established their sovereignty in 1510 which later extended to western Assam and northern Bengal. The Koch kingdom later split into two. The western kingdom became a vassal of the Moghuls whereas the eastern kingdom became an Ahom satellite state.


Where does the term Naga come from? Who were the Nagas? If you are willing to go back, all the way into the Vedas and even into periods which were not well defined, then one can as glibly state that the Naga people have a link to the Naga state and that makes it Indian or whatever.


So you have no references to substantiate your "mentioned in the Mahabharata" claim. As usual.


Once again, what makes them so different from everyone else? Each of your trial balloons has been shot down. Ethnicity, zip. Animists, zip. Etc. All that "distinguishes" them, is the insistence of some dolts in the insurgency who insist that they have nothing in common with anyone else and want Myanmar, three other Indian states to hand over territory for their greater Nagalim. In the meanwhile, they kill their own tribesmen and that makes them credible?

If you feel that way, fine. I have provided enough arguments in favour of Naga independence, while you have not provided a single one against it, except for the fact that they're currently part of India.


Really, where are these Aryans from? Where did they come from? Who were the Dravidians then, for your statement on the Aryan/ Dravidian mix? Face it, for one who is so insistent upon the "Vedas" and that India being recreated, for who knows what reason, you just made a big boo-boo.

WTF are you talking about? The Aryans came from outside India. Anyone will tell you, even the most rightist of RSS kar sevaks. The most widely accepted theory is that they migrated to India in waves-not invaded, migrated. The Harappa civilization had many elements of Dravidian culture in it, and the resulting syncretism is what created early Hinduism.

I can't believe that I have to explain such basic things to you. You are Indian, right?


Even the Naga history before the 19th century is sparsely documented- guess what, does that mean they came into being then? You think that in all these thousands of years no Indian kingdom ever held sway there or had cultural links?

So in your view, no documented history=proof of cultural links=part of India? Ingenious.


So cry me a river. Thats what is meant by negotiations!

OK, so let me get this right.

First you insist that no chinese envoy was present at the Conference, and hence the chinese have no case.

When proven wrong, you say that even if the Chinese government does not accept the deal, it is still valid because.......what? Because you want it to be?



I see that you hate communists with such a passion, that you don't even care about legality or anything else.

If you don't want to accept that the dispute exists, just say so. There was no reason to make such a farce of arguing for 2 pages when you don't care about the historical or legal roots of the conflict.

My last post on this topic.

Archer
05 Jan 07,, 09:28
No, they're the two major ones. There are scores of smaller ones who are also fighting the army......I should know, I had conversations on this topic with a friend who was from Nagaland. In 1954, there was the NCN which split, and one faction of this group were the socialists, which later split again into the IM and K factions. There are still smaller non-socialist groups.

You had one conversation with a Naga friend? Oi Ve! Do you realize how many tribes and how many groups there are in Nagaland?

Secondly, lets get this clear, as far as the Indian security apparatus is concerned, the other so called separatist groups, are a nuisance at worst. The NSCN-IM and K are the main boys- the big daddies of insurgency. The IM has been negotiating since 1997 with the GOI, what does that tell you? Please think why they would do so?



A referendum was held at that time, in which 99% of the people voted to break away from India. Wasn't the same logic used to annex Junagadh by the GOI?

Kindly tell me about what the agreement between the UK, India and Pakistan, at time of independence stated about continguous states?



Sigh. A history lesson here for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assam#History


Dude, please dont quote "wiki history" - it makes me grin. Answer the point, not semantics. For significant portions of its existence, Assam or Asom rejected central rule and lived separately. Does that make it "independent"?
They are mongoloid. Chattisgarh tribals are animist. The SEAsians have shared history with Tamil Nadu which is Indian. Andaman and Nicobar have tribes with little to no shared history with mainland India.

So- whats this business of shared history, mongoloid business, religion, yada yada, yada then? Each of the above examples kind of goes against one of the tenets you say the Nagas are unique by.


Second, on what basis do you claim that for all the period since the Vedas (your choice)- there has been no cultural contact between regions of todays India and the Naga area? Do you use common sense in your daily life? Of course you do. Now think- if the Assamese, right next to Nagaland, have had significant cultural contacts with India, to the extent you tout, do you think the Nagas came about in a vacuum? Or is it simply that modern India has had far too much on its plate to worry about to go around digging for "origins of Nagaland"?

Third, why should a bunch of tribes, each of which is busy killing the other, some of which claim independence be treated seriously, especially when even the representative orgs are busy engaging in fratricidal warfare? Have they even demonstrated a millionth of the ability for self rule, bar murder and extortion?

Please think.


So you have no references to substantiate your "mentioned in the Mahabharata" claim. As usual.

Oh please- where does the term Naga's in Nagaland come from?

For one doing the Aryan/ Dravidian shtick and relying only on the Vedas for national borders, you sure make me laugh.

Nagas= snake worshippers= animists. A theory which has been propounded way back.

Since you didnt get the hint even after THREE TIMES. Heres something more.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9059605/Phek

town, southern Nagaland state, northeastern India, 75 miles (121 km) east of Kohima town. It is a rural town whose inhabitants practice shifting cultivation. Weaving is the important cottage industry. The people of the region belong to different ethnic groups of Mongolian descent; they are referred to as Kirats in the Hindu epic the Mahabharata. Pop. (1981) 13,609.

Arjuna marries a Naga maiden in the Mahabharata- depending on your pick, shes from Manipur or even present day Nagaland.




If you feel that way, fine. I have provided enough arguments in favour of Naga independence, while you have not provided a single one against it, except for the fact that they're currently part of India.

No, actually you havent provided a single one. Bar the fact that some dolts feel that by power of their gun, they can claim to be unique. The reality is that they are as unique as several other parts of India.

I can quote line and verse on what the GOI thinks of the Naga propoganda as well, you seriously think copy paste on what the insurgents and their supporters think, is gonna cut it? Use logic, not hoary history.



WTF are you talking about? The Aryans came from outside India. Anyone will tell you, even the most rightist of RSS kar sevaks. The most widely accepted theory is that they migrated to India in waves-not invaded, migrated. The Harappa civilization had many elements of Dravidian culture in it, and the resulting syncretism is what created early Hinduism.

This is not RSS central dear boy. Stick to the point and dont quote Max Muellers gibberish here. The fact is that the Dravidian theory is mostly BS, and Hinduism is a local construct, including your beloved Vedas.
AIT is what established the Aryan-Dravidian divide, for one so used to spewing obscenities, I would have thought you'd know at least that much. :rolleyes:



I can't believe that I have to explain such basic things to you. You are Indian, right?

Being Indian does not mean we are all members of Aryan international thinking of reclaiming Pak and Bangladesh and Afghanistan. :tongue:

Take a look at the response here- who is badly out of touch with being "Indian"?

How come Tronic, 667, Jay, I and all seem to be thinking your arguements are utterly loony, despite each of us coming from a different part of India?

Introspect, pretty please.



So in your view, no documented history=proof of cultural links=part of India? Ingenious.

No, my point is that you are being absolutely silly with the insistence on "shared history" and when you extrapolate it to mean that because xyz is mentioned in the Vedas.

Heck, a lot of the races and regions mentioned in the Mahabharat are assumed to be outside even the two states you mentioned- what of them?

Can you even prove that those races correspond to the assumptions?

Fact is, right now- bar some periods in ancient India, we know little about huge swathes of our own developmental period. Which absolutely makes sense if we see what the Colonial period did in terms of manufactured history, and our own resource constraints as a third world nation.

In this milieu, I see your categorical comments that Nagaland had NOTHING to do with other parts of India, as high farce. Heck, the Nagas themselves had little more than tribal identity going for them till the 19th century, but now we are to assume that they were somehow distinct from all of the other seven sisters (which incidentally have ties with India) and somehow all this while, when it comes to the Nagas, no crosscultural links existed. You kidding me?

And even thats beside the point- even where cultural links existed- Cholas and SE Asia- they are NOT part of India.

So where does that leave us?

Be practical.

India was formed because x people signed on to it, and whilst the country existed in one form before the British (that there was always an India etc)- the present India is a modern construct, with its own boundaries.

You cannot use "history" to decide who is part of and outside India, when a lot remains to be known of that history itself.



OK, so let me get this right.
First you insist that no chinese envoy was present at the Conference, and hence the chinese have no case. When proven wrong, you say that even if the Chinese government does not accept the deal, it is still valid because.......what? Because you want it to be?

Lets cut to the point. Your claim was that the Chinese position was somehow justified because the British coerced them. Fine. Now you state that the British deal didnt satisfy the Chinese delegate who went off, and that means that the British were somehow at fault, and by extension the Indian Govt was. Are you kidding me? Are negotiations ever meant to be walkovers for either side?

So one side petulantly withdraws from the negotiations- wherein a deal is signed between the British and the Tibetans. And then many many years then, almost half a decade later, Mao invades citing that as an excuse- after having invaded Tibet.


Is this high farce or what? Anyone can see its pure power politics and a fig leaf for staking a political war- which is why I said that if it wasnt the McM line, it would be because Nehru winked at Mao's mistress or the like, but somehow it seems to elude you. As insistent you are on the fact that Nehru alone provoked the war because of a "core dispute", which he didnt acknowledge. Has it struck you that Nehru was so blase because he expected another Great power - the US to chip in? No, you fail to acknowledge that either. All his mistakes apart, the PRC was not a shrinking violet, and nor was Nehru a total doofus.



I see that you hate communists with such a passion, that you don't even care about legality or anything else.

**** and bull- it has little to do with commies. Any idiot can see that a dispute exists. Any idiot should also be able to see that such a dispute was relatively minor in scope and could have been handled by negotiations, were it not for Maos personal dislike of India and its leadership at the time, thanks partly due to its colonial past. That does not imply that the PRC was automatically correct in its view either. If you cant understand this, mores the pity.


If you don't want to accept that the dispute exists, just say so. There was no reason to make such a farce of arguing for 2 pages when you don't care about the historical or legal roots of the conflict.

My last post on this topic.

The farce is because of your own posts on the topic. You have some seriously whimsical ideas- starting from reestablishing an ancient India (from the Vedas!), to insisting that Nagaland (no wait, the 7 sisters even) dont come in because they werent mentioned in the Vedas, to even the fact that now Nehru alone was responsible for 62- with little clue of the other factors that drove this inevitable conflict.

And now you insist that the dispute was the be-all and end-all. For crying out loud, grow up. The border dispute could have been solved if the PRC wanted to. They found it a useful tool to put a colonial construct- ie India, led by what they saw as an insufferable leader, namely Nehru, in its place.

The PRC conducts wars for political aims- they had a clear vision in mind, they got across, landed a good punch and went back, mission accomplished.
If territory was so important to them, including parts of todays India- they would have fought on, even later. Rather, they preferred to make a political point and went back with a prudent victory, having overextended their logistics.

667medic
05 Jan 07,, 11:44
Amazing post there Archer, but I think it's a waste of time arguing with this guy. I went through some of his posts in other threads and they seem pretty loony:rolleyes:

MarquezRazor
05 Jan 07,, 20:37
btw...How long did you take to type that post Archer?;)

Edit:I see somebody else also asked that.never mind!;)

Archer
05 Jan 07,, 22:46
btw...How long did you take to type that post Archer?;)

Edit:I see somebody else also asked that.never mind!;)


~ 10 minutes.