Arunachal in China? That is not the reality, says PM Manmohan Singh

[Elmo]

Stay on topic or this thread gets closed for good.

 

[CardSharp]

None of you get it, you're only hurting yourselves with this issue.

The general effect will be to enhance and strengthen the divided nature of a democratic polity, and to keep the services and administration completely bewildered over the intentions of the Chinese leadership. Such a situation will inevitably lead to lack of long-term planning, lack of short-term responses and a generally ad-hoc incoherent foreign policy which fails to build any confidence in India's capability to offer leadership to Asia.

And if the response from your leadership is to complain about some Chinese map, I see Joe's argument as throughly convincing.

 

[CardSharp]

all these factors are the reason why India is increasing its economic and military strength. when India will rise as economic superpower of Asia (next only to japan and china), along with tremendous military strength, it will be difficult for china to settle arunachal issue according to their will.

Read it carefully. If all you get out of the superbly written tract is a sense of righteous victimhood you've completely missed his point.

 

[gubbi]

None of you get it, you're only hurting yourselves with this issue.

The general effect will be to enhance and strengthen the divided nature of a democratic polity, and to keep the services and administration completely bewildered over the intentions of the Chinese leadership. Such a situation will inevitably lead to lack of long-term planning, lack of short-term responses and a generally ad-hoc incoherent foreign policy which fails to build any confidence in India's capability to offer leadership to Asia.

And if the response from your leadership is to complain about some Chinese map, I see Joe's argument as throughly convincing.

First and the foremost, I clearly disagree with Joe's pov. To say that somehow a divided nature of a democratic polity is a disadvantage is not understanding the vibrant nature of democracy. Let me put it this way: In a democracy such as that of India, everyone gets a piece of the pie, but NOT the piece they desire or want. Everyone walks away with some goodies, with a little disgruntlement but also with a knowledge that they atleast got what each of the others got. Everyones happy that not ONE got what they wanted! Game theory? The results are that whatever decision is being taken is a lasting one with unanimous support as against a decision being forced upon a people. Add to that fact that people walking away with their pieces of the pie are free to voice their displeasure about NOT getting what they want!

That being said, you quoting Joe's views here clearly underestimate the inherent strength of democracy. People understand that if one group loses their piece of the pie, their own group may be next. And they will not let that happen. Reams have been written about the discontent in a democratic society, but none offers a better alternative where almost all the groups walk out feeling a bit disgruntled but also happy.

Now if you or anyone for that matter thinks that this political divide will result in a non-decision, you are throughly mistaken. On the contrary, a late decision will be reached but with all the parties on board and there will be no turning back. Therein lies the strength of a democracy.

Babus in South Block arent naive, as they used to be, not to understand the Chinese govt's pov. Before any decision is taken, every contingency will be looked into. lack of short-term response can be attributed to deliberations but to assume that it will lead to confusion over long term planning is being just naive.

Our foreign servants will take sometime to come up with a solid long term plan for India's foreign policy given the changing scenario which India finds itself in with each passing year. Only a decade back, who would have thunk US would be offering cutting edge technology to India?

 

[Obambam]

You will only torture yourself by comparing yourself to others - 人比人，气死印度人

 

[huzihaidao12]

Too naive.

 

[ephone]

"None of these tribes are ethnically Tibetan, or even close, with the possible exception of the Monpas. In the case of the Monpas, it is the consensus of scholars, mainly the British, that they are closely allied to the eastern Bhutanese and any influence of Tibetan culture is due to the dominance of the Tawang monastery and its former feudal grip over this tribe."

China claim over South Tibet (which you called AP) is through its claim over Tibet (which we call now Tibet Autonomous region), which is undisputed over the world including India government.

Historically, China claim over Tibet is through its historical control of this area throughout different dynasties, Yuan Dynasty (ethnically Mongolian, now Mongolian minority in China) as well as Qing Dynasty (ethnically Manchurian, now Manchurian minority in China)) over Tibet for at least five hundred years.

As what was even described in the quoted sentence from the first page, "Tawang monastery and its former feudal grip over this tribe" The South Tibet area is under control of Dalai Lama, who was the supreme ruler of Tibet including South Tibet. Each Dalai Lama has control over that area, not India. BTW, there is no India yet until British created it.

Later Qing Dynasty, China was invaded by many foreign powers including the British. The central government has lost tight control over so many areas including Tibet, Hong Kong and etc. even though there were still officials in those regions. Dalai Lama then secretly broke deals with British, trying to get independent, allowing British to draw the McMahon Line and etc, which were never recognized by China Central Governments: Qing Dynasty, early China Republic, then KMT era's Republic of China (now in Taiwan), then CCP era of PRC. That is also why PRC claimed Tibet and now there is not much the whole world can dispute about. Of course, the only reason Tibet remains an issue with the West is the supposed "Human Right" issue related to those ethical Tibetans, not China's territorial claim over Tibet.

So when India members say India has historical claim over South Tibet (AP) and it has always been an integral part of India, I am curious where the historical claim comes from???

The current Dalai Lama residing in India, so desperately depending on India to give him a place to stay, can even "sell" the birth place of Dalai Lama to India, which is astonishing. However, if the former Dalai Lama could come back to life again, he will definitely be very angry with this current worthless 14th Dalai Lama.

However, he can "sell" whatever he wants to sell. China does not recognize that since South Tibet is not his to sell. Each Dalai Lama could be the supreme leader of Tibet but all have to be recognized and censured by central government, no matter it is Yuan Dynasty, Qing Dynasty, or Republic of China or PRC. Historically, there are more than one Dalai Lama who had violations were removed from the position and later replaced by another one by the Central Government (during Qing Dynasty).

During 1962 border conflict, China army took over South Tibet Already after India's total defeat. However, Chinaman Mao valued India as important member of Third World Countries and non-alliance members. He decided to withdrew to the control line before the conflicts and intended to set up the area as demilitarization zone preventing further conflicts.

Of course, defeated India rushed back again to take it over again there making the goal of demilitarization zone gone. Later, China is in the mess of Culture Revolution and even the army is under the attack by the red guards. Further resolution against South Tibet is never officially on the table. During the late 70s, China has its open and reform and is busy with economics development until now.

Sooner or later South Tibet will be back on the table officially and put on the forefront of the central government. I hope there will not be a bloody war again there. However, God forbid if there has to be any, I never doubt China will win it in a landslide way. Of course, India members can accuse me that I am dreaming or India will always kick our butt or whatsoever. It is OK. We do not want it to happen anyway, right?

 

[true_indian]

"None of these tribes are ethnically Tibetan, or even close, with the possible exception of the Monpas. In the case of the Monpas, it is the consensus of scholars, mainly the British, that they are closely allied to the eastern Bhutanese and any influence of Tibetan culture is due to the dominance of the Tawang monastery and its former feudal grip over this tribe."

China claim over South Tibet (which you called AP) is through its claim over Tibet (which we call now Tibet Autonomous region), which is undisputed over the world including India government.

Historically, China claim over Tibet is through its historical control of this area throughout different dynasties, Yuan Dynasty (ethnically Mongolian, now Mongolian minority in China) as well as Qing Dynasty (ethnically Manchurian, now Manchurian minority in China)) over Tibet for at least five hundred years.

As what was even described in the quoted sentence from the first page, "Tawang monastery and its former feudal grip over this tribe" The South Tibet area is under control of Dalai Lama, who was the supreme ruler of Tibet including South Tibet. Each Dalai Lama has control over that area, not India. BTW, there is no India yet until British created it.

Later Qing Dynasty, China was invaded by many foreign powers including the British. The central government has lost tight control over so many areas including Tibet, Hong Kong and etc. even though there were still officials in those regions. Dalai Lama then secretly broke deals with British, trying to get independent, allowing British to draw the McMahon Line and etc, which were never recognized by China Central Governments: Qing Dynasty, early China Republic, then KMT era's Republic of China (now in Taiwan), then CCP era of PRC. That is also why PRC claimed Tibet and now there is not much the whole world can dispute about. Of course, the only reason Tibet remains an issue with the West is the supposed "Human Right" issue related to those ethical Tibetans, not China's territorial claim over Tibet.

So when India members say India has historical claim over South Tibet (AP) and it has always been an integral part of India, I am curious where the historical claim comes from???

The current Dalai Lama residing in India, so desperately depending on India to give him a place to stay, can even "sell" the birth place of Dalai Lama to India, which is astonishing. However, if the former Dalai Lama could come back to life again, he will definitely be very angry with this current worthless 14th Dalai Lama.

However, he can "sell" whatever he wants to sell. China does not recognize that since South Tibet is not his to sell. Each Dalai Lama could be the supreme leader of Tibet but all have to be recognized and censured by central government, no matter it is Yuan Dynasty, Qing Dynasty, or Republic of China or PRC. Historically, there are more than one Dalai Lama who had violations were removed from the position and later replaced by another one by the Central Government (during Qing Dynasty).

During 1962 border conflict, China army took over South Tibet Already after India's total defeat. However, Chinaman Mao valued India as important member of Third World Countries and non-alliance members. He decided to withdrew to the control line before the conflicts and intended to set up the area as demilitarization zone preventing further conflicts.

Of course, defeated India rushed back again to take it over again there making the goal of demilitarization zone gone. Later, China is in the mess of Culture Revolution and even the army is under the attack by the red guards. Further resolution against South Tibet is never officially on the table. During the late 70s, China has its open and reform and is busy with economics development until now.

Sooner or later South Tibet will be back on the table officially and put on the forefront of the central government. I hope there will not be a bloody war again there. However, God forbid if there has to be any, I never doubt China will win it in a landslide way. Of course, India members can accuse me that I am dreaming or India will always kick our butt or whatsoever. It is OK. We do not want it to happen anyway, right?

Not until both sides have nuclear weapons.

 

[ephone]

Not until both sides have nuclear weapons.

If there will be another border conflict (war) again, it will definitely conventional. India will have no gut to use nuclear weapon in this case. BTW, even India wants to use it, will it be in China advantage anyway?

The majority of western China are not economical important, while it is just on the contrary on the India side. We already have conventional weapons that can shoot over several hundreds of miles, which are even missiles.

In addition, we do not need even to have a border conflict, we just need have more control of the flow of the river through Tibet. That is already a lot leverage over India already.

Furthermore, do not say nobody is doing river flow control. US is doing it over Mexico. India is doing it over Pakistan and Bangladesh. So if China is control its river flow into India, I do not see why it is impossible.

So war is the last resort and nobody wants it if there is any way out.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Procrastination has never been good.

But still i think its better to wait on border disputes with China and most importantly have a long term plan over it.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

If there will be another border conflict (war) again, it will definitely conventional. India will have no gut to use nuclear weapon in this case.

Nuke would be the last thing on any sane or insane Indian leadership's mind.

 

[ephone]

It is OK that India members say that India has de facto control of South Tibet (AP) for now.

However, please do not tell us that South Tibet (AP) has always been part of India and historically part of India. It is just like British tell China that Hong Kong has always been part of Britain and those Chinese treasures in its British Museum are always part of Britain or all legally acquired.

China is doing thing step by step. Sooner or later, we will also join other countries to ask those treasures returned home from British, French, US and other museums all over the world who looted from China when China was the weakest.

It seems that Peru, Egypt, even India and etc have already done that.

 

[ephone]

Nuke would be the last thing on any sane or insane Indian leadership's mind.

It will definitely not be our China leadership's mind though. We won't use it and we also claim that we won't use it first.

It will be only conventional anyway.

 

[CardSharp]

First and the foremost, I clearly disagree with Joe's pov. To say that somehow a divided nature of a democratic polity is a disadvantage is not understanding the vibrant nature of democracy. Let me put it this way: In a democracy such as that of India, everyone gets a piece of the pie, but NOT the piece they desire or want. Everyone walks away with some goodies, with a little disgruntlement but also with a knowledge that they atleast got what each of the others got. Everyones happy that not ONE got what they wanted! Game theory? The results are that whatever decision is being taken is a lasting one with unanimous support as against a decision being forced upon a people. Add to that fact that people walking away with their pieces of the pie are free to voice their displeasure about NOT getting what they want!

That being said, you quoting Joe's views here clearly underestimate the inherent strength of democracy. People understand that if one group loses their piece of the pie, their own group may be next. And they will not let that happen. Reams have been written about the discontent in a democratic society, but none offers a better alternative where almost all the groups walk out feeling a bit disgruntled but also happy.

Now if you or anyone for that matter thinks that this political divide will result in a non-decision, you are throughly mistaken. On the contrary, a late decision will be reached but with all the parties on board and there will be no turning back. Therein lies the strength of a democracy.

Babus in South Block arent naive, as they used to be, not to understand the Chinese govt's pov. Before any decision is taken, every contingency will be looked into. lack of short-term response can be attributed to deliberations but to assume that it will lead to confusion over long term planning is being just naive.

Our foreign servants will take sometime to come up with a solid long term plan for India's foreign policy given the changing scenario which India finds itself in with each passing year. Only a decade back, who would have thunk US would be offering cutting edge technology to India?

There you go again, getting all huffy and hurt. If you want to dispute what I put forth, I'm happy to listen, but all you've wrote is a chest-out defense of democracy in general, talking about nothing in particular.

I can sum up what you wrote here in that many words, as "oh yeah, we'll have a plan soon enough, just you wait."

 

[CardSharp]

Procrastination has never been good.

But still i think its better to wait on border disputes with China and most importantly have a long term plan over it.

Did you have a chance to read my post on the previous page? What's your opinion?