China’s military white paper plays down dispute with India

[Umair Nawaz]

I don't think there is a difference between OURS and YOUR in this regard. So try not to judge on that least

there is a lot

I don't think there is a difference between OURS and YOUR in this regard. So try not to judge on that least

there is a lot

If they dont consider India then their PM wouldnt have been visiting India, there is a difference betwwen a white paper written by a PA and visting a country by a PM.

there is no white paper of Pak Army.

If they dont consider India then their PM wouldnt have been visiting India, there is a difference betwwen a white paper written by a PA and visting a country by a PM.

there is no white paper of Pak Army.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Some of the pakistani members are having a heart ache because there deeper than atlantic ocean friend have diverted it's attention toward SCS. They are alone once again against India, so no mischief for another 20 years for Pakistan. While India shields itself with Iron Curtain and remaining assembled with Iron Fist for Pakistan.

really?

we will see after 2014

 

[Kloitra]

Fair enough.

I was just responding to Screambowl's claim that China "attacked" India because we wanted to "just to make a Chinese Alaxander the great, or Chinese Hitler, or Chinese jangez Khan."

Which is ridiculous. Just look at the timeline, this didn't come out of the blue.

Mao was just looking for his national interests, as he at that time was probably thinking a Indo-Russian nexus and thus had a mistrust of Nehru. Had he been any wiser (I dont expect anything from Nehru), we would have avoided the enmity.

 

[xuxu1457]

Ok guys, back to the topic, two big neighbor countries only have one war during the past 5000years, may be we should wait for another 5000years to see another one.

 

[Sergi]

there is a lot



there is no white paper of Pak Army.

And still you come with a reply containing two words !!!!
Whatever makes you feel better

 

[shiv]

No Indian denies that they hosted our largest separatist group in 1959, or that Nehru started the Forward Policy against us in 1962.

Both of which happened BEFORE the Sino-Indian War.

This is not denied at all by any Indian, or by any historian anywhere.

It was Nehru who rejected Zhou Enlai's offer to exchange recognition of Aksai Chin for recognition of AP. It was Nehru who instead chose to go for the offensive Forward Policy, setting up military outposts beyond the LoC, starting the war.

In the mistaken belief that China in the middle of the worst famine in our history would not be able to hit back.

if he was an opportunistic prick as your narrative implies.. tell me why was he "forcefully" reducing the size of Indian Army year after year since 1953 onwards till '62 happened ?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

if he was an opportunistic prick as your narrative implies.. tell me why was he "forcefully" reducing the size of Indian Army year after year since 1953 onwards till '62 happened ?

Because he thought he could take our land without a fight.

Don't you remember, we were in the middle of the worst famine in our entire history? Not to mention we were being hunted and surrounded by both the superpowers, the USA and the Soviets. We were collapsing from starvation and surrounded from all sides.

He thought we would just keep quiet and give up the land in order to save face, but he got a big surprise.

Now tell me, what kind of idiot sets up military outputs in enemy territory without expecting a fight? That is the kind of idiot that Nehru was, who the Hell would not expect a fight after starting the Forward Policy? Did he think that we were numb from the famine and that we wouldn't do anything?

 

[shiv]

Because he thought he could take our land without a fight.

Don't you remember, we were in the middle of the worst famine in our entire history? Not to mention we were being hunted and surrounded by both the superpowers, the USA and the Soviets. We were collapsing from starvation and surrounded from all sides.

He thought we would just keep quiet and give up the land in order to save face, but he got a big surprise.

Now tell me, what kind of idiot sets up military outputs in enemy territory without expecting a fight? That is the kind of idiot that Nehru was, who the Hell would not expect a fight after starting the Forward Policy? Did he think that we were numb from the famine and that we wouldn't do anything?

As much an opportunist your narrative makes him out to be, you make him out to be too foolish and lack of foresightedness in him which I must say is in full contrast.

Forget about hosting some group for a moment and just try to follow hiw decisions regarding other things domestic in nature.. U will know he was foresighted in nature.
For such a person, hw can he go on reducing the army size YoY for a decade almost if he had opportunistic mindset ?
And please for gods sake try to argue on merit rather than obfuscations like "he thought that he could" and etc etc..

Try to argue with cohesive points !

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

As much an opportunist your narrative makes him out to be, you make him out to be too foolish and lack of foresightedness in him which I must say is in full contrast.

Forget about hosting some group for a moment and just try to follow hiw decisions regarding other things domestic in nature.. U will know he was foresighted in nature.
For such a person, hw can he go on reducing the army size YoY for a decade almost if he had opportunistic mindset ?
And please for gods sake try to argue on merit rather than obfuscations like "he thought that he could" and etc etc..

Try to argue with cohesive points !

I don't see any other way to explain his Forward Policy?

Why would any leader set up military outposts in enemy territory?

 

[shiv]

I don't see any other way to explain his Forward Policy?

Why would any leader set up military outposts in enemy territory?

As far as our narrative regarding the tibetans are concerned, they were being killed in cold blood. Even if we disagree this, show us proof that they did anything anti-chinese from our teritorry..any tangible proof is welcome..

And as far as rampantly occupying territory which were "traditionally" chinese are concerned, with such an overwhelming military victory ( and the most important point beng to tach nehru a lesson as per chinese narration) why did chinese waste no time to withdraw form those lands ? I mean as per you guys those lands always belonged to chinese right ?

ps. Most indians including me hate nehru for chinese debacle as much as they love him for bestowing us with democracy and educational insitutions and so many other things..

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

As far as our narrative regarding the tibetans are concerned, they were being killed in cold blood. Even if we disagree this, show us proof that they did anything anti-chinese from our teritorry..any tangible proof is welcome..

You hosted them in India in 1959.

In the 1960's, they carried out guerilla attacks against targets inside China.

They admitted this themselves, and here is a report from the New York Times:

New York Times - Dalai Lama Group Says It Got Money From C.I.A.

The Dalai Lama's administration acknowledged today that it received $1.7 million a year in the 1960's from the Central Intelligence Agency, but denied reports that the Tibetan leader benefited personally from an annual subsidy of $180,000.

The money allocated for the resistance movement was spent on training volunteers and paying for guerrilla operations against the Chinese, the Tibetan government-in-exile said in a statement. It added that the subsidy earmarked for the Dalai Lama was spent on setting up offices in Geneva and New York and on international lobbying.

That's what they were doing in the 1960's, after they were hosted on Indian soil in 1959.

Now don't tell me you think this is a Chinese conspiracy, it was the Tibetan Government in Exile talking to the New York Times.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

I don't see any other way to explain his Forward Policy?

Why would any leader set up military outposts in enemy territory?

You don't understand there is a fundamental difference between how China views the concept of nationhood and how everyone else does. It was not clear to me too until I read it's explanation in a Biography of Chingiz Khan by John Man. For most of the world history is not necessarily as continuous a thread as it appears to be to the Chinese. Especially when big, revolutionary events take place it is considered a 'rebooting' of history. At those times the leaders of nations look only at immedeate strategic issues and not historic claims. John Man's point was that if, say, Ghengis Khan or anyone adjoining invades China and establishes fort for some time, then, even if the're decendents are later overthrown and replaced with ethnic Chinese, those Mongolian regions will be considered part of china. This doesn't happen elsewhere. In India, for instance, Rajaraja Chola had conquered Sri Lanka and Indonesia; the Sikhs had conquered Afghanistan, but neither of these locations have any sort of historical claims from us. I can see that this is similar pattern in current outstanding disputes too. India's position on Arunachal Pradesh is that it is not possible for a democracy to hand over populated territories to dictatorships. But Chinese position (similar to the example of Mongolia above) is that these regions should come to China because until several centuries ago they paid tribute and accepted the suzerainty of china- this evokes the response 'so what' from the Indian side. End result- China cannot understand why we don't understand their POV and we think several chinese reccomendations are cranky.

 

[Shinigami]

You hosted them in India in 1959.

In the 1960's, they carried out guerilla attacks against targets inside China.

They admitted this themselves, and here is a report from the New York Times:

New York Times - Dalai Lama Group Says It Got Money From C.I.A.



That's what they were doing in the 1960's, after they were hosted on Indian soil in 1959.

Now don't tell me you think this is a Chinese conspiracy, it was the Tibetan Government in Exile talking to the New York Times.

its amusing to see you come up with ridiculous notions. here is the list:

1. India hosted Tibetan insurgency since 1959
It wasnt until china attacked in 1962, that this was given importance. till then Nehru advocated 1 china policy encompassing tibet to aid china's growth as a nation.

2.Nehru tried to grab chinese (tibetan) land
All he wanted to do was keep what india had. forward policy was put in effect for this purpose alone. (stop spewing nonsense and do some research the next time.)

no matter however you look at it, it becomes obvious that china, or at least Mao was the bad guy here- turning a pacifist nation that had no intention or capability to fight a war into a military powerhouse. like i said before this was one of china's biggest strategic errors

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

its amusing to see you come up with ridiculous notions. here is the list:

1. India hosted Tibetan insurgency since 1959
It wasnt until china attacked in 1962, that this was given importance. till then Nehru advocated 1 china policy encompassing tibet to aid china's growth as a nation.

2.Nehru tried to grab chinese (tibetan) land
All he wanted to do was keep what india had. forward policy was put in effect for this purpose alone. (stop spewing nonsense and do some research the next time.)

no matter however you look at it, it becomes obvious that china, or at least Mao was the bad guy here- turning a pacifist nation that had no intention or capability to fight a war into a military powerhouse. like i said before this was one of china's biggest strategic errors

No matter which way you look at it, it was India that started it.

Every source in the world says that it was the Forward Policy that started the Sino-Indian War. No one denies this, not even the Indians.

And it was Nehru who started the Forward Policy, against a nation in the middle of a famine (China).

If there was no Forward Policy, there would have been no war. Simple as that.

 

[Sergi]

You hosted them in India in 1959.

In the 1960's, they carried out guerilla attacks against targets inside China.

They admitted this themselves, and here is a report from the New York Times:

New York Times - Dalai Lama Group Says It Got Money From C.I.A.



That's what they were doing in the 1960's, after they were hosted on Indian soil in 1959.

Now don't tell me you think this is a Chinese conspiracy, it was the Tibetan Government in Exile talking to the New York Times.

It's your opinion CD

Do you want to say India didn't recognise TAR as part of China ???
Do you want to say Tibetuans sitting in India carry out attacks in China ??? Moral support and actual support is different things.
Do you want to say Indian govt at any point actually support the cause - directly.
Or did CIA helped them due to India

Forward policy - may be Nehru was wrong but that doesn't make China right. War was the need for PLA otherwise the problem could have solved easily on the table.
Remember Nehru was the Man who go to UN when he could have won J&K easily

Human being is bound to make mistakes. And the thing is to learn from mistakes. I see a lot of Chinese bashing Nehru for no reason. Lets say forward policy was wrong. But was it right to force a war on the nation who helped you in your worst times. Remember how you get UNSC seat. Be unbiased and you will see both sides made mistakes. And if you want to measure who made most mistakes be my guest