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

[ephone]

BTW, talking about ownership does not mean much.

We took back in 1962 then. Would you by then tell me talking about ownership?

We withdrew to prevent further conflict while you took advantage of our nice gesture to occupy it again.

So if dispute is not settled, ownership does not mean much. Only when dispute is settled by both countries, ownership makes sense afterwards.

 

[CardSharp]

BTW, talking about ownership does not mean much.

We took back in 1962 then. Would you by then tell me talking about ownership?

We withdrew to prevent further conflict while you took advantage of our nice gesture to occupy it again.

So if dispute is not settled, ownership does not mean much. Only when dispute is settled by both countries, ownership makes sense afterwards.

It wasn't a nice gesture, it had strategic reasoning behind it. This is an article written just after the unilateral withdraw by Times magazine.



India: Never Again the Same

Red China behaved in so inscrutably Oriental a manner last week that even Asians were baffled. After a series of smashing victories in the border war with India. Chinese troops swept down from the towering Himalayas and were poised at the edge of the fertile plains of Assam, whose jute and tea plantations account for one-fourth of India’s export trade. Then, with Assam lying defenseless before her conquering army. Red China suddenly called a halt to the fighting.

Radio Peking announced that, “on its own initiative.” Red China was ordering a cease-fire on all fronts. Further, by Dec. 1, Chinese troops would retire to positions 12½ miles behind the lines they occupied on Nov. 7. 1959. If this promise is actually carried out. it would mean, for some Chinese units, a pullback of more than 60 miles. These decisions. Peking continued, ”represent a most sincere effort” to achieve ”a speedy termination of the Sino-Indian conflict, a reopening of peaceful negotiations, and a peaceful settlement of the boundary question.” War or peace, the message concluded, ”depends on whether or not the Indian government responds positively.”

In New Delhi the government of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was taken completely by surprise. An Indian spokesman first denounced the Chinese offer as a “diabolical maneuver.” which was later amended to the comment that India would “wait and see” exactly what the Chinese were proposing. A communique confirmed that, after the cease-fire deadline, there “had been no report of firing by the Chinese aggressors.” Indian troops also stopped shooting, but Nehru warned India: “We must not imagine that the struggle will soon be over.”

On closer examination, the Chinese cease-fire proved to be a lot less mysterious. It did offer India’s battered armies a badly needed respite. But it left the Chinese armies in position to resume their offensive if Nehru refuses the Peking terms. And it puts on India the onus of continuing the war. Said the Hindustan Times: “The latest Chinese proposals are not a peace offer but an ultimatum.”

Whatever the results of this peace bid tendered on a bayonet, India will never be the same again, nor will Nehru.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,829540,00.html

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Arunachal will never be a part of China, Its India's..

They dont want to be a part of China, back off.

 

[integra]

self-delete

 

[gubbi]

This leads to me believe you either didn't read what Joe wrote or you didn't understand. Here's a challenge find a passage in what Joe wrote that suggests India abandon democracy in favour of a Chinese system. Post it and I'll gladly eat crow.

I never implied that Joe said that India abandon Democracy for something else. Have I? What I said was that Joe's suggestion that political divide in India's democracy would somehow strengthen Chinese policies by confusing our policymakers (which I assume you agree with) is fallacious for the very reasons that I attempted to describe in my previous posts.

You dont have to eat a crow, though I am not stopping you if you enjoy what some consider a delicacy

I don't even know what you are trying to argue anymore. What is your thesis in one sentence?

Changing geo-political reality coupled with India's rising status on the world stage warrants a rethink of India's age old "non-aligned movement" based foreign policy. Pragmatism over a defunct ideology.

Does that help?

 

[Dharmocol]

So China claim over Tibet is continuous up to today. If South Tibet (AP) was always under control of Tibet, and if China claims Tibet, how could it will not claim South Tibet?

Some correction's my friend,on record Tibet had accepted that Arunachal belong to India and India had full controll over it,so ur point fall flat over the matter,why China should have it claim over Arunachal.

If you want to talk culture association, then a lot of areas in India has no such clear association with your Hindu culture as well.

Here u have an another misconception that India is all about hinduism,I am not bringing points on this topic because it will be way off topic and will attract some unwanted attraction from religious trolls,anyway even just like what u assume,arunachal have its connection with hinduism,such as the 14th century Malinithan temple at the foot of the Siang hills(which precedes ur Quing dynasty by a good time).

BTW, talking about ownership does not mean much.

We took back in 1962 then. Would you by then tell me talking about ownership?

We withdrew to prevent further conflict while you took advantage of our nice gesture to occupy it again.

So if dispute is not settled, ownership does not mean much. Only when dispute is settled by both countries, ownership makes sense afterwards.

Do u really believe leaving the territory by China was a honest gesture,seems more accountability was in ur words before that,actualy to avoid further conflict.

 

[CardSharp]

You dont have to eat a crow, though I am not stopping you if you enjoy what some consider a delicacy

Petty racial quips? This discussion can do without it.

I never implied that Joe said that India abandon Democracy for something else. Have I?

That chest-out defense of democracy is the precise reason as to why the political divide in a democracy cannot be abused, as implied by Joe. I could have written that smart-aleck retort as easily as you typed it, but you need to understand why the machinations of the Chinese govt wouldnt work with the Indian govt.

Changing geo-political reality coupled with India's rising status on the world stage warrants a rethink of India's age old "non-aligned movement" based foreign policy. Pragmatism over a defunct ideology.

Does that help?

It doesn't. Since it assume that India clung on to the NAM up until recently.

 

[ephone]

Some correction's my friend,on record Tibet had accepted that Arunachal belong to India and India had full controll over it,so ur point fall flat over the matter,why China should have it claim over Arunachal.

What records?

 

[gubbi]

Petty racial quips now?

Mate. Dont accuse me of racism.

Google "Crow Meat" and you will know why I said that.

And the last part you "bolded" was a suggestion that you need to look at it from an Indian pov.

 

[CardSharp]

Mate. Dont accuse me of racism.

Google "Crow Meat" and you will know why I said that.

And the last part you "bolded" was a suggestion that you need to look at it from an Indian pov.

For someone who's not a racist, you do make racism seem effortless.

 

[ephone]

Here u have an another misconception that India is all about hinduism,I am not bringing points on this topic because it will be way off topic and will attract some unwanted attraction from religious trolls,anyway even just like what u assume,arunachal have its connection with hinduism,such as the 14th century Malinithan temple at the foot of the Siang hills(which precedes ur Quing dynasty by a good time).

First, you tell me not to talk about Yuan Dynasty and said it is light year ago.

However, you talk about a 14th century Hindu Temple.

Yuan Dynasty has control of Tibet way before your temple.

BTW, how could a temple means control???

Yuan Dynasty's control is indeed control since it sent army over to overturn the king in Tibet and set up Dalai Lama to become the ruler there. Without the Yuan Dynasty's army, Dalai Lama used to be only a religious figure, not a ruler at all.

 

[Dharmocol]

What records?

The shimla accord itself,The tibetian govt went ahead with it and declared arunachal as a part of british India,putting ur assumption's to rest that Tibet considered Arunachal as its part,so China have reason's to claim it.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

 

[Dharmocol]

First, you tell me not to talk about Yuan Dynasty and said it is light year ago.

However, you talk about a 14th century Hindu Temple.

Yuan Dynasty has control of Tibet way before your temple.

BTW, how could a temple means control???

Yuan Dynasty's control is indeed control since it sent army over to overturn the king in Tibet and set up Dalai Lama to become the ruler there. Without the Yuan Dynasty's army, Dalai Lama used to be only a religious figure, not a ruler at all.

I did not brought that point earlier because I do not considered it worthy,I just mentioned it as an example not for the sake of deliberation,that India does not means Hinduism or a land can not be claimed according to religious values.

 

[gubbi]

For someone who's not a racist, you do make racism seem effortless.

<facepalm>.
ad hominem retorts?
Seriously?