If My post expresses patriotism then its ok for me. Let me validate the facts in your post.
1) Tibet was not an integral part of China if yes why it has to take over by military action and Tibet is same as Kashmir is for India if not worse as there are lot of human right violations and cultural destruction is happening there.
Saying that A could not have been a fact because if it was a fact, why was B action not taken, is silly. You need to see the historical records and then check. This is history, not arithmetic. There is a slight difference.
Would you agree that India has a connection with the Tibetan boundary only as the successor of the British Indian state?
If so, in terms of British India's acceptance of Chinese suzerainty over Tibet we are held to similar behaviour ourselves, unless the Government of India thinks otherwise.
As it happens, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs does not seem to have heard that you disapprove, as they continue to state as India's official position that Tibet is part of China.
Whose position are you representing? Your own or the Indian State?
A simple representative from China will not indicate that Tibet is an integral part of China. Tibet remained as an independent Empire until mid 19th century.
We are discussing the 20th century and the 21st century.
If you go back to the 9th century, Tibet ruled China for a brief period (you may like to consult histories of China and of Tibet). That no longer means, and did not mean after the reign of Kublai Khan, that Tibet had rule over any part of China. What is important is not what was true two hundred years ago, which is incidentally incorrect history, but what was true thereafter. Please let me know on what basis you think Tibet was an independent empire, considering the evidence to the contrary.
2) Opinions will always change buddy but facts and history remains constant.
I do not understand the reference.
3) Yeah India acknowledged that But we can give visas in loose sheets to Tibetans to indicate that India is with Tibetans.
You are hereby authorised to issue visas in loose sheets to Tibetans to indicate that India is with Tibetans. Until you have completed this, please do not post again.
4) Aksai Chin along with the part of Kashmir ceded by pakistan to China are disputed parts as the map of India shows. India never recognized those parts.
Would you kindly read up on the history of Nehru's actions with regard to the cartographic claims on Aksai Chin? I do not want to get into a quarrel with someone who has obviously not gone into the basics, without giving him an opportunity to refresh his knowledge.
5) I agree with the last point with you as there is no clear demarcation of line so NO WRONG WITH NEHRU'S FORWARD POLICY.
Nehru's forward policy, based on reassurances with no foundation from the IB and its Director, was to progressively push Indian troops into territory claimed by the Chinese, in spite of opposition. There is nothing wrong with it, as long as you can win. If he had supported this forward policy with intelligent deployment of force, he might have got his point. Instead, he started this provocative policy, against a China that was then hyper-sensitive about territorial claims (please read about the incidents on the Amur River), with a completely demoralised military apparatus.
Either you should have the facts on your side, or you should have the muscles on your side. In this case, we had neither the facts nor the muscles. What are you objecting to?
To remind you the regions inhibited by mongoloids are not supposed to be chinese parts in south asia as china thinks.
Err, yes.
In argument, this is known as the straw man.
First you create an imaginary opponent. Then you knock him down. Then you claim a famous victory.
Since I never claimed that the regions 'inhibited'(sic) by mongoloids are supposed to be Chinese parts in south Asia, I am not sure why you feel it so urgently necessary to remind me. Don't create your own suppositions, refute them and feel you have achieved something.
I presume you are not 'mongoloid' yourself, from your supercilious and condescending tone.
Yes we need friendly relations with China but not by accepting its dubious claims
What has that got to do with history and with historical analysis? Why should I falsify facts to suit your jingoism, and make concessions to your obvious and evident lack of knowledge?
If you do not have any better arguments or evidence, please stop wasting time. If you persist, I will simply put you on the ignore list, and let the aggressive Chinese members take you apart. They will not necessarily use logic and reason, more likely blunt knives, on sensitive parts of your anatomy. You are welcome to what follows; it seems you want to fight with someone, anyone, on something, anything. Not me; I'm not interested. Go find someone else.