India can't part with territory, Pranab tells China

Tronic · 06-16-2007, 22:06 PM

Quote:

India can't part with territory, Pranab tells China

Shillong: External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said on Saturday that he had made it clear to his new Chinese counterpart that ``any elected Government of India is not permitted by the provisions of the Constitution to part with any part of our land that sends representatives to the Indian Parliament.''

He was responding to reporters, who asked for his comments on Beijing's repeated claims that Arunachal Pradesh is ``Chinese territory.''

`Days of Hitler are over'

``The days of Hitler are over. After the Second World War, no country captures land of another country in the present global context. That is why there is a civilised mechanism of discussions and dialogue to sort out border disputes. We sit around the table and discuss such disputes to resolve them," Mr. Mukherjee told reporters on the sidelines of a seminar on ``Look East Policy'' organised by Public Diplomacy Division of the Ministry of External Affairs here.

He, however, said that other bilateral issues such as trade and commerce with China could not be kept pending till the resolution of the border dispute with China.

Speaking on the theme ``geography as opportunity'' he said that the "North-East is one region into whose progress and development we can dovetail India's Look East Policy.''

``With the paradigm shift from state centralism to interdependence and global and regional cooperation, India is aware of the geo-economic potential of the northeastern region as a gateway to East and South East Asia. I am convinced that by gradually integrating this region through cross-border market access, the northeastern States can become the bridge between the Indian economy and what is beyond doubt the fastest growing and dynamic region in the world.''

``Geography is opportunity and the very location of the North East makes it the doorway to South East and East Asia and vice versa, a doorway for these economies into India," he said.

The Hindu : Front Page : India can't part with territory, Pranab tells China

And thats that!

Ray · 06-17-2007, 02:56 AM

Good for Pranab!

667medic · 06-17-2007, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

Good for Pranab!

Sir please remember that this was the same guy who allowed a Chinese Embassy Consul to lecture him on China's fair play on the 62 war during a Defence Industry Conference....

If he had the balls, he should say the same to Xinhua or other Chicom news agencies.....

Indirect Fire · 06-17-2007, 21:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 667medic

If he had the balls, he should say the same to Xinhua or other Chicom news agencies.....

So, when's his term over?

Zeng · 06-20-2007, 21:40 PM

^^^
From the comments of our Indian friends here, the guy who speaks strong words towards China will surely become the most popular one. If I were a politician in India, I would try to use the harshest words to China every time when I speak to them. Then, I think that I will probably get the most votes. If I speak soft words once to China, people will remember it and wish me to end my term soon no matter what I achieved during my term. General Kaul probably got his rapid promotion for his aggressive “Forward Policy” towards China.

To ease the pain of our Indian friends here, I want to tell you that both of us are losers in our conflicts. 1962 Sino-India conflict is a perfect example.

India got embarrassed and lost its prestige in the defeat of that war. But that defeat helped India to correct some its mistakes. China in fact lost even more from that war despite she was called a victor.

IMHO, the biggest loss for China is that Sino-India war saved Mao. Before the war, Mao has lost his political power and was forced to make a speech in a 7000 people (communists) conference to acknowledge his mistakes during the disastrous “Great Leap Forward” campaign. Entire China was under starvation. According to the memoir of his doctor, after losing the power, Mao became very sick and could not even get up from his bed for months. But the potential war with India saved him. The dying man revived. The victory of the war put him back to his power. By 1966, he started “Culture Revolution” that put China into another dark age until his death in 1976.

Without that war, Mao would probably die or lose his political power in the early 1960s. China may start reform earlier or at least avoid the “Culture Revolution”.

Mao took China into several dark ages, I hope that he could have died in the early 1950’s. But most Chinese I know still give him some positive credits. Creating a strong center government in China after long term of chaotic situation should be his greatest contribution. Getting Tibet back (lost from 1911 to 1950) that enraged our Indian friends is another one.

I didn’t hear any good words towards Nehru from our Indian friends. Don’t you give him any positive credits? He envisioned that the future India would be a significant power in the world stage and created non-alliance movement to put India up there when India was much weaker than she is today. It seems that today’s much stronger India would prefer to be a follower in the major league instead of a leader in the minor league. May be today’s Indians have even higher goal to be the future leader of the major league.

Nehru surely made lot of mistakes, but don’t you acknowledge any of his contributions?

Ray · 06-20-2007, 22:25 PM

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeng_xinren

^^^
From the comments of our Indian friends here, the guy who speaks strong words towards China will surely become the most popular one. If I were a politician in India, I would try to use the harshest words to China every time when I speak to them. Then, I think that I will probably get the most votes. If I speak soft words once to China, people will remember it and wish me to end my term soon no matter what I achieved during my term. General Kaul probably got his rapid promotion for his aggressive “Forward Policy” towards China.

Pranab Mukherjee is from West Bengal, which has a Communist govt for the last 21 years. These Communists have supported China even during the Indian debacle of 1962.

Therefore, if Pranab Mukherjee uses harsh words against China, he might lose the election!

Kaul got his promotion because he belonged to the Nehru dynasty and was related to Nehru! Nepotism would be the appropriate word and not necessarily professional acumen that saw his achieving of starry heights that possibly he did not deserve. That is the popular opinion.

Quote:

To ease the pain of our Indian friends here, I want to tell you that both of us are losers in our conflicts. 1962 Sino-India conflict is a perfect example.

India got embarrassed and lost its prestige in the defeat of that war. But that defeat helped India to correct some its mistakes. China in fact lost even more from that war despite she was called a victor.

IMHO, the biggest loss for China is that Sino-India war saved Mao. Before the war, Mao has lost his political power and was forced to make a speech in a 7000 people (communists) conference to acknowledge his mistakes during the disastrous “Great Leap Forward” campaign. Entire China was under starvation. According to the memoir of his doctor, after losing the power, Mao became very sick and could not even get up from his bed for months. But the potential war with India saved him. The dying man revived. The victory of the war put him back to his power. By 1966, he started “Culture Revolution” that put China into another dark age until his death in 1976.

Without that war, Mao would probably die or lose his political power in the early 1960s. China may start reform earlier or at least avoid the “Culture Revolution”.

Mao took China into several dark ages, I hope that he could have died in the early 1950’s. But most Chinese I know still give him some positive credits. Creating a strong center government in China after long term of chaotic situation should be his greatest contribution. Getting Tibet back (lost from 1911 to 1950) that enraged our Indian friends is another one.

I didn’t hear any good words towards Nehru from our Indian friends. Don’t you give him any positive credits? He envisioned that the future India would be a significant power in the world stage and created non-alliance movement to put India up there when India was much weaker than she is today. It seems that today’s much stronger India would prefer to be a follower in the major league instead of a leader in the minor league. May be today’s Indians have even higher goal to be the future leader of the major league.

Nehru surely made lot of mistakes, but don’t you acknowledge any of his contributions?

Mao is what brought China to what it is today as did Stalin to Russia.

An agrarian and decadent people had to be shaken and shaken hard to awaken them into modernity and progress. Both Mao and Stalin did the same. It brought immense hardships and woe, but the fruits are being reaped by those who are citizens of those countries today.

It is unbelievable that an effete population could be transformed into a superpower (USSR) and a superpower in the making (China). It is only the harsh and cruel methods of Stalin and Mao that could change these population and force them into modernity and progress.

The current people of Russia and China should be beholden to Stalin and Mao for the place in the sun they currently have, even if their parents and grandparents had had to struggle at the yoke with immense sorrow and backbreaking labour. Indeed, the present population of these countries should also thank their parents and grandparents to have given them their today and their tomorrow!

In so far as Nehru is concerned, he can surely be credited for industrial base and infrastructure of the county on which the current "economy boom" is has innovated upon. Had Nehru been less dependent on the socialist model, maybe it could have been better. But then, who knows?

In his time, the democracy was better served and there was less of political chicanery as is common in today's India.

Indirect Fire · 06-20-2007, 22:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeng_xinren

^^^
I didn’t hear any good words towards Nehru from our Indian friends. Don’t you give him any positive credits? He envisioned that the future India would be a significant power in the world stage and created non-alliance movement to put India up there when India was much weaker than she is today. It seems that today’s much stronger India would prefer to be a follower in the major league instead of a leader in the minor league. May be today’s Indians have even higher goal to be the future leader of the major league.

Nehru surely made lot of mistakes, but don’t you acknowledge any of his contributions?

He was charismatic, but his ineffective leadership tore our country apart. You see, there were two people contending for the position of Prime Minister before India's independence: Al Jinah and J. Nehru. Since neither of the two could come to terms, they bought fought as hard as they could, ripping each other and the country around them to shreds.

The way for them to both be Prime Minister was to create 2 different countries, and that's exactly what happenned. Jihan became the Prime Minister of Pakistan, but died shortly after that (I'll need to check up on when he did die. But I do know that he died shortly), while Nehru became the Prime Minister of India.

This partition gave the two power, but created a very long period of hostilities between the two nations, that still continues till today.

Nehru was also what we call an economic moron. His five year plans set back our country's industrialization, and his socialist policies made it impossible for India to grow.

To us, Nehru abused his power, and set our country back. It's taken us many decades to recover, but at least we're better than we used to be.

Mao Zedong, Nehru, and Jinah, leaders ahead of their time, are what whom we consider self-centered, since their gain meant our loss.

Btw, Zeng, your English is very good
Keep up the good work.

JAD_333 · 06-21-2007, 00:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

The current people of Russia and China should be beholden to Stalin and Mao for the place in the sun they currently have, even if their parents and grandparents had had to struggle at the yoke with immense sorrow and backbreaking labour. Indeed, the present population of these countries should also thank their parents and grandparents to have given them their today and their tomorrow!

Balderdash.

Well, maybe the CURRENT people can be thankful, but it's a damned hollow accomplishment that is built on the blood and suffering of millions of people. The world can get along just fine without that style of modernization, don't you think?

667medic · 06-21-2007, 02:25 AM

Quote:

India got embarrassed and lost its prestige in the defeat of that war. But that defeat helped India to correct some its mistakes. China in fact lost even more from that war despite she was called a victor.

We are talking about an era when casualties didn't matter much to the Chinese. Remember Korean War, 1979 Sino-Vietnamese war...

Quote:

From the comments of our Indian friends here, the guy who speaks strong words towards China will surely become the most popular one. If I were a politician in India, I would try to use the harshest words to China every time when I speak to them. Then, I think that I will probably get the most votes. If I speak soft words once to China, people will remember it and wish me to end my term soon no matter what I achieved during my term. General Kaul probably got his rapid promotion for his aggressive “Forward Policy” towards China.

I am giving you a link from People's Daily

People's Daily Online -- General Consul: China never invaded India

Quote:

Song Deheng, Chinese General Consul in Bombay, India, refuted Indian Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee's remarks, saying resolutely that China never invaded India.

Indian defense minister said at a defense workshop in Bombay on September 4 that China once "invaded" India in 1962.

On that day, Indian Merchants Chamber (IMC) held a workshop with the theme of "Role of Private Sector in Defense Preparedness". Indian Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee attended and addressed the meeting. In his speech, he called on medium-sized and small enterprises to actively participate in the manufacturing and purchase in the field of national defense. He first introduced the ministry's policy of boosting military strength, and explained why India needs to actively prepare for war by raising the example that China once "invaded" India in 1962. At last, he expounded on the India-US defense agreement signed during his visit to the United States not long before.

When the minister was ready to answer questions, Chinese Consul General in Bombay Song Deheng stood up from the audience. He solemnly pointed out: "China never invaded India! As defense minister, Mr. Mukherjee should be better informed than other people concerning the background and situation at that time. It is untrue and irresponsible to say that China invaded India. Particularly, over 40 years later, today, when China and India enjoy much improved relations, it is even outdated to say that China "invaded" India therefore the minister, please do not use the word "invade".

India's major media all reported the accident, mostly in a plain and objective way. With titles like "Mukherjee's remarks provoke Chinese diplomat", the reports cited the remarks of the two officials but did not made biased comment on the thing itself. The reporter found only the Times of India, which is the most influential newspaper in India, carried an analytical report. With a title meaning India-China relations go well, the newspaper made such comments that Mukherjee's saying is simply reiterating that the defense ministry under his leadership is more conscientious than that in 1962 as it handles neighboring situations more cautiously especially when India's two neighbors, i.e. China and Pakistan, are cementing connections.

The report also points out, although Indian armies and Chinese People's Liberation Army have held exchanges in recent years, the two sides remain vigilant against each other.

Also, the report says, the two armies often have "standup encounters" along the border due to the two countries' "different understanding" of the actual control line, which has not been demarcated.

At last, the article holds, though Mukherjee did make such remarks, the smooth development of the relations between the two countries will not be affected. The article raises an example that India's former defense minister George Fernandes once described China as "India's No. 1 potential threat". However, back from China visit, he started to talk about cooperation not confrontation.

So let me present a fictional scenario. Gen Cao is giving a talk about PLA and defence and during the talk, he says that the evil japanese raped and pillaged Nanking. So we need a strong PLA to never let such incidents happen again. But then the Defence attache from the Japanese embassy jumps up and says that the Nanjing massacre never happened and that the Defence minister should not indulge in propagand etc.. What do you think would happen

Feanor · 06-21-2007, 02:59 AM

When he says lost I believe he meant more then jut troop casualties. It was more referring to the consequences of Mao staying in power.

Ray · 06-21-2007, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Balderdash.

Well, maybe the CURRENT people can be thankful, but it's a damned hollow accomplishment that is built on the blood and suffering of millions of people. The world can get along just fine without that style of modernization, don't you think?

Without sacrifice, nothing is achieved.

Can you dispute that?

The USA became great just like that?

See the pictures of Russia and China BEFORE these heartless dictators!

Hollow?

Then why are we worried about what they say or do?

Should we also not be worried about what Fiji says or does?

Why are we not worried about Fiji's action?

Ray · 06-21-2007, 05:31 AM

Pork Chop Hill

Zeng · 06-28-2007, 21:50 PM

[quote=Ray;383674]

Quote:

Mao is what brought China to what it is today as did Stalin to Russia.

An agrarian and decadent people had to be shaken and shaken hard to awaken them into modernity and progress. Both Mao and Stalin did the same. It brought immense hardships and woe, but the fruits are being reaped by those who are citizens of those countries today.

It is unbelievable that an effete population could be transformed into a superpower (USSR) and a superpower in the making (China). It is only the harsh and cruel methods of Stalin and Mao that could change these population and force them into modernity and progress.

The current people of Russia and China should be beholden to Stalin and Mao for the place in the sun they currently have, even if their parents and grandparents had had to struggle at the yoke with immense sorrow and backbreaking labour. Indeed, the present population of these countries should also thank their parents and grandparents to have given them their today and their tomorrow!

In so far as Nehru is concerned, he can surely be credited for industrial base and infrastructure of the county on which the current "economy boom" is has innovated upon. Had Nehru been less dependent on the socialist model, maybe it could have been better. But then, who knows?

In his time, the democracy was better served and there was less of political chicanery as is common in today's India.

Ray,

Thanks for your view on Nehru.

Could you please give us some education on the following topics?

I think that West Bengal has a booming economy and is not a poor state in India. Why can the communist government be continuously elected there for so many years? I think that it is the longest elected communist government in the world.

I thought that India communist party split when Soviet and China split just like many communist parties around world. The major portion that keeps the name of the communist party was on the Soviet side and was against China. The smaller but more radical portion, the Naxalite (Maoist) party was on the China side. But I think that Naxalite party is considered to be terrorists and is illegal. Did it change after Soviet collapse?

China openly denounced the Maoist of Nepal. I think that China doesn’t support any Maoists in the world today.

Your comments on Mao and Stalin presented a very controversial view in this forum. I hope more people could read it and debate. In fact, some people in China today try to defend Mao using similar view as yours.

I can’t thank my parents and grandparents enough for the education and life they tried their best to give me and my generation. They did suffer a lot.

Zeng · 06-28-2007, 21:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indirect Fire

He was charismatic, but his ineffective leadership tore our country apart. You see, there were two people contending for the position of Prime Minister before India's independence: Al Jinah and J. Nehru. Since neither of the two could come to terms, they bought fought as hard as they could, ripping each other and the country around them to shreds.

The way for them to both be Prime Minister was to create 2 different countries, and that's exactly what happenned. Jihan became the Prime Minister of Pakistan, but died shortly after that (I'll need to check up on when he did die. But I do know that he died shortly), while Nehru became the Prime Minister of India.

This partition gave the two power, but created a very long period of hostilities between the two nations, that still continues till today.

Nehru was also what we call an economic moron. His five year plans set back our country's industrialization, and his socialist policies made it impossible for India to grow.

To us, Nehru abused his power, and set our country back. It's taken us many decades to recover, but at least we're better than we used to be.

Mao Zedong, Nehru, and Jinah, leaders ahead of their time, are what whom we consider self-centered, since their gain meant our loss.

Btw, Zeng, your English is very good
Keep up the good work.

Indirect Fire,

Thanks for your comments.

Once a while, I will make silly mistakes on English.

While I am writing in English, I am still thinking in Chinese.

Good luck for your school work.

Zeng · 06-28-2007, 21:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor

When he says lost I believe he meant more then jut troop casualties. It was more referring to the consequences of Mao staying in power.

Feanor,

Thank you for explaining my post to 667medic.

06-17-2007, 02:56 AM	#2 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 27,232 Country:	Good for Pranab! __________________ "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination." I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to. HAKUNA MATATA

06-20-2007, 21:40 PM	#5 (permalink)
Zeng Contributor Join Date: 01-16-07 Posts: 608 Country:	^^^ From the comments of our Indian friends here, the guy who speaks strong words towards China will surely become the most popular one. If I were a politician in India, I would try to use the harshest words to China every time when I speak to them. Then, I think that I will probably get the most votes. If I speak soft words once to China, people will remember it and wish me to end my term soon no matter what I achieved during my term. General Kaul probably got his rapid promotion for his aggressive “Forward Policy” towards China. To ease the pain of our Indian friends here, I want to tell you that both of us are losers in our conflicts. 1962 Sino-India conflict is a perfect example. India got embarrassed and lost its prestige in the defeat of that war. But that defeat helped India to correct some its mistakes. China in fact lost even more from that war despite she was called a victor. IMHO, the biggest loss for China is that Sino-India war saved Mao. Before the war, Mao has lost his political power and was forced to make a speech in a 7000 people (communists) conference to acknowledge his mistakes during the disastrous “Great Leap Forward” campaign. Entire China was under starvation. According to the memoir of his doctor, after losing the power, Mao became very sick and could not even get up from his bed for months. But the potential war with India saved him. The dying man revived. The victory of the war put him back to his power. By 1966, he started “Culture Revolution” that put China into another dark age until his death in 1976. Without that war, Mao would probably die or lose his political power in the early 1960s. China may start reform earlier or at least avoid the “Culture Revolution”. Mao took China into several dark ages, I hope that he could have died in the early 1950’s. But most Chinese I know still give him some positive credits. Creating a strong center government in China after long term of chaotic situation should be his greatest contribution. Getting Tibet back (lost from 1911 to 1950) that enraged our Indian friends is another one. I didn’t hear any good words towards Nehru from our Indian friends. Don’t you give him any positive credits? He envisioned that the future India would be a significant power in the world stage and created non-alliance movement to put India up there when India was much weaker than she is today. It seems that today’s much stronger India would prefer to be a follower in the major league instead of a leader in the minor league. May be today’s Indians have even higher goal to be the future leader of the major league. Nehru surely made lot of mistakes, but don’t you acknowledge any of his contributions? __________________ I am here for exchanging opinions.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Indian Economy	Monk	International Politics	750	08-03-2007 00:10 AM
Indian engineers good only at theory: Microsoft	lumbakhumba	International Politics	84	06-06-2007 12:46 PM
China’s democratization and reunification	pin_qinghai	International Defense Topics	100	01-06-2007 07:59 AM
An old article: To explain why China is ahead of India in 50 years	oneman28	Political Discussions	17	05-24-2005 17:40 PM
China Plans for World Domination	agent09	Political Discussions	0	05-08-2005 20:06 PM

06-21-2007, 02:59 AM	#10 (permalink)
Feanor Banished Join Date: 06-12-07 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,385 Country:	When he says lost I believe he meant more then jut troop casualties. It was more referring to the consequences of Mao staying in power.

06-21-2007, 05:31 AM	#12 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 27,232 Country:	Pork Chop Hill

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)