India is no match for China in the SAARC summit

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Missing the point of allowing a nation which tried to stall our NSG waiver, UNSC amendment.

 

[Steakhouse]

Modern India and the India was before had many differences. Where one nations defeated others and ruled them. Also the foreign invaders always invaded here and became native people. This India was never here.Todays India is formed by many countries like Maratha, Rajputana, Hyderabad etc. BD is also an Indian country just not joined the Indian union. There are other Indian country like Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan which are Independent Indian nation like we see many countries in Europe. Todays Indian shape taken mostly by British rule. If British and Muslims were never here. We could see dozens of small countries here.

Thank you. Your perspective must appreciate because what you said all in agreement with what historians recorded, South Asia consist of many kingdom before the British colonized the region.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Modern India and the India was before had many differences. Where one nations defeated others and ruled them. Also the foreign invaders always invaded here and became native people. This India was never here.Todays India is formed by many countries like Maratha, Rajputana, Hyderabad etc. BD is also an Indian country just not joined the Indian union. There are other Indian country like Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan which are Independent Indian nation like we see many countries in Europe. Todays Indian shape taken mostly by British rule. If British and Muslims were never here. We could see dozens of small countries here. India is a historical name to identify this area of world by outsiders like Bharat, Hindustan.

Incorrect.

You are confusing it the creation of modern nation states with the historical consciousness of Ancient Bharat. We have been united before and are united. Yes, we are much smaller, but that's pretty much the only difference.

If Muslims and British were never here, you need to go back to the time of the Guptas or their successor states. That stretched from Gandhar to Banga and Kashmir to Narmada with subsidiary states further South. In between the Mughal and the British, the Marathas ruled most of present India.

 

[Bong]

Incorrect.

You are confusing it the creation of modern nation states with the historical consciousness of Ancient Bharat. We have been united before and are united. Yes, we are much smaller, but that's pretty much the only difference.

If Muslims and British were never here, you need to go back to the time of the Guptas or their successor states. That stretched from Gandhar to Banga and Kashmir to Narmada with subsidiary states further South. In between the Mughal and the British, the Marathas ruled most of present India.

Why no empire ever sustained for over a few centuries. Because they brutally ruled others. That isnt unity. No Indian empire Gupta, Murya, Mughal or Maratha could ever fully dominate and stretched to south or NE of todays India. Rebellion occured now and then.
Maratha, Bengal, Rajputana all are different kingdoms.

 

[Yogijaat]

Why no empire ever sustained for over a few centuries. Because they brutally ruled others. That isnt unity. No Indian empire Gupta, Murya, Mughal or Maratha could ever fully dominated and stretched to south or NE of todays India. Rebellion occured now and then.

because they were kings and were not elected leader of the people.
Even today, if some leader in India proclaim himself as a king, people will rebel.

 

[Razia Sultana]

Looks like people here have confused notions about a nationhood. The concept of modern nation began in Europe around the 19th century and spread to the rest of the world. Before that the ruler of a land mass decided the nation and not the people. So in times of Ashoka, Akbar and Aurangzeb the rulers of Afghanistan and Bengal were the same. The Ottoman and Persian Empire included much wider geographical region than what is Turkey and Iran are today. People were least concerned whether they were ruled by one king or another. Until the birth of modern nationalism, no country in the world was bothered about the geographical changes as it changed with every ruler and it kept changing during his regime also.

When modern nationhood was spreading, India was under the British rule and Indian nationalism became synonymous with her struggle for freedom from the British Rule. This was the uniting factor and eventually it became so strong that despite having many religions, races, languages and geographical features, India developed a strong sense of nationhood. What you see China today, it was not the same in the first half of 20th century. In fact, most nations took the shape of modern nation after the second world war by when the people had started relating themselves with a national boundary. Every nation has something core for their nationhood - some are a nation because they speak one language, some follow one religion or custom. But still a language or a religion is not the essential ingredient for a nationhood. If that was so the Arab speaking muslims will not be divided into many nations. However, the Indian nationhood perplexes many who think that a religion or a language forms the basis of a nationhood and hence wrongly assume that India is held together artificially.

 

[DARIUS]

At that time, this Ashoka didn't call himself Indian, he had no clue what India will likely be in the future time..

The very idea of Akhand Bharat or one India/Undivided India was Chanakya's brainchild. . . It would not be an overstatement to say that the Maurya dynasty was established by Chanakya on this very ideology!! First educate yourself a bit before making such comment!

 

[HariPrasad]

Inclusion of our China into this organization would make it more robust, efficient and productive.

But SAARC is for south Asian Country. China do not belong to south Asia so can not be the member. However if Pakistan is so eager to Joint China in any forum, there are some other forums. You may Join there.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Why no empire ever sustained for over a few centuries. Because they brutally ruled others. That isnt unity. No Indian empire Gupta, Murya, Mughal or Maratha could ever fully dominate and stretched to south or NE of todays India. Rebellion occured now and then.
Maratha, Bengal, Rajputana all are different kingdoms.

Again you are confusing ancient kingdoms with Nation states. Even this Government is being held by State Power. Without Central Authority there can be no unity.

Read Razia's post no. 118. Very well written.

 

[Echo_419]

If the best that Narendra Modi’s spin doctors could do to underscore his success at the recent SAARC summit was to boast that he stuck to a simple vegetarian meal while Pakistan’s Nawaz Sharif feasted on halal meat, evidently there is little else to crow about. Beyond a point, hype becomes counterproductive.

SAARC has been a non-achiever and the 18th SAARC summit in Kathmandu was no exception. Given SAARC’s record, no one expected substantive outcomes at this summit either. Hence, lack of tangible results is neither surprising nor disappointing. No one expected Modi to fire up SAARC or turn it into a star performer. Thus, claims that this SAARC summit was a “success” because it was a “successful outing” for Modi, because he occupied centre stage in Kathmandu, because he set the tone, because he was one up on Sharif, because …, because …, only serve to emphasise the opposite.

SAARC has not been a life-changing force in South Asia. This does not mean that it is useless or should be wound up. It is as useful or useless as the UN, or, for that matter any other regional or international forum.

SAARC has its uses. Otherwise, SAARC observer countries, such as the US, China, the EU, Japan, Iran, Australia and South Korea would not be pushing hard for a greater role in this eight-nation grouping. In fact, some observers, like China, want full membership.

New Delhi is opposed to China assuming a larger role — in any form — in SAARC. Much to India’s discomfiture, the more New Delhi sets itself up against China’s role, the greater the support China gains for expanding its influence within SAARC. And, Modi, much like Manmohan Singh, seems helpless in containing China’s growing power within SAARC and over SAARC member-nations. Except for India, no other member (or observer) is opposed to China’s membership or enhanced role in SAARC.

India is isolated on this issue and engaged in a losing battle. This is a failure of both policy and strategy — not any particular party or Prime Minister — that may haunt India for a long time unless it accepts the challenge represented by China in SAARC and deals with it in a manner that redounds to India’s credit.

China has been looming large over SAARC for some years now. At the 2011 summit in the Maldives, where the issue of its aspiring status could no longer be brushed aside, SAARC settled for a “comprehensive review” of its engagement with observer-states, including the prospect of dialogue partnership.

Far from going away or being shelved, the issue of upgrading China’s status, contrary to New Delhi’s expectation, has only become more challenging. India was seen as opposing elevation of China’s status because this was proposed by Pakistan. In Kathmandu, Pakistan was joined by Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the Maldives in the growing clamour for China, among other observers, to be granted a larger role. It can no longer be viewed as a case of all-weather friends Pakistan and China acting in tandem against India. Besides, none of the other observers such as the US, the EU, Japan or Iran have opposed an elevated role for China.

New Delhi’s assertion that there is no proposal for “expansion of SAARC” ignores the drift favouring greater engagement with observer nations, including China. The Kathmandu Declaration explicitly proposes “productive, demand-driven and objective project-based cooperation in priority areas as identified by member-states”.

Like the US, today, China is everyone’s neighbour. Like the US, China, has effective proxy players. China would be the elephant in the room at every SAARC summit. New Delhi has to accept this reality, and re-think and re-strategise for India to prevail as the cornerstone of SAARC.
The author is an independent political and foreign affairs commentator

India is no match for China in the SAARC summit | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis

------------------------------------
I laughed when Indians said that if Pakistan not happy with SAARC it can leave but I think eventually India will have to leave SAARC if they're not happy with China admission. As the author said the China admission issue is far from going away or being shelved, we look forward to be the member of 19th SAARC.

We should welcome china with both hands in SAARC

 

[osama zafar]

Why bash and compare with each other every freakin time?

 

[wolfschanzze]

yes he called himself Bharatiya. Bharat, Aryavrat, India, all are names of a single country you fool

But, the India connection …
Of course, India is not what India calls itself. Bharat(ah) and aryavart are the more common names. Bactra (possibly) is the Greek pronunciation of Bharat(ah).

For most modern Western historians (and also modern Indian historians), only the Core North India, is Indian history, society and culture.

This is the history which colonial historians propagated and showed India as a defeated civilisation. Invaded, pillaged and dominated. Inferior. Technologically backward. This is the history that is taught in schools and exists in popular imagery. Despite its many fallacies, this view is being perpetuated by propaganda interests of the West in general and the Anglo Saxon Bloc in particular – in addition to the (various versions of) Congress party which has been the ruling party for most of post-colonial India’s existence.

Some of the myths that have taken root and which have done much damage to the post colonial India. The infamous population theory, Chidambaram’s ill-informed 5000 years of poverty, poor natural resources, the supine Hindu, non-aggressive behavior by Indians amongst many others myths.

One India is North of Vindhyas and the other is South of Vindhyas. These 2 India’s have a overlap (as is to be expected) and are complementary. The North of Vindhyas, stretching from modern day Orissa, MP, Maharashtra upwards has its core around the Indo Gangetic plains and the Himalayas. It is the core of North Indian geography.

This North Indian geography radiates out and spreads on the उत्तरपथ Uttarapatha (the Western world knows this as the Silk Route) to modern day Samarkand, Afghanistan, Tibet, Pakistan, Iran, Oman, Tajikstan upto the Caspian Sea.Central Asian tribes and

kingdoms of Persians, Sakas /Scythians, Kushans (Kanishka, their most famous ruler), Huns, Mongols, Tartars set up empires with shifting boundaries. Hueng Tsang narrates that India ruled till east of Taklamakan desert. The famous ‘robber baron’ of colonial archaeology, Sir Aurel Stein, recovered many Indian language scripts from Central Asia.

Along the Dakshinapatha दक्षिणपथ
There is another part to that history – which today influences and touches half the world. This history is full of wealth, military successes and a spread which taken India deeper than any other civilisation in the world. While the previous history was along the उत्तरपथ uttarapath, this story lies along the दक्षिणपथ dakshinapatha.

Its starts at Kerala, a highway across Nagpur Jhansi, Gwalior, Delhi ,Kashmir and ends in modern Iran. This history and geography is loosely dominated by the Dravidian segment of India.

Colonial historians (from India and the West) dismissed Dravidian history as subordinate and lesser than Aryan on the basis of the Aryan Invasion Theory. Now that the Aryan Invasion /Migration Theory does not have a leg to stand on, the contribution by the Dravidians along the dakshinapatha दक्षिणपथ becomes more important.

Military paradigm changes
From the battle of Kadesh to the retreat of Alexander, Indic rulers changed the military paradigm. Buddhist texts talkabout 16 mahajanapadas – which formed this ruling federation. Five very important changes were seen. Buddhist texts refer to the “the 63,000 kings of Jambudwipa”. Power was distributed amongst the many kings to provide a choice of competing administrations, to which the populations could migrate, based on advantage, opportunity and benefit.

One - war chariots became less important. By the time of Alexander’s march in India, chariots were a minor part of the Indian armies. Instead, the importance of cavalry increased. Bessos, the Bactrian mathista, designated to succeedDarius III, led the successful Indic cavalry charge, at Gaugamela, on the Macedonian right flank – which forced Alexander to focus on the centre of the Persian army, led by Darius III.

When Alexander finally was able to make his way to India, he met a fierce onslaught of the Indian cavalry units – supported by fearsome elephants. Indian cavalry units were always smaller than in other nations due to paucity of horses in India. India was a traditional importer of horses. For combat use, Indian cavalry used imported horses and Indian breeds. Behind Rajput power, was the successful breeding of the Marwari horses, which came about only in the 12th century. Earlier Indian horses easily trained and more intelligent, but smaller with less stamina, and used as as pack animals.

Two - a system of alliances supporting frontline kingdoms in the entire North West Indian swath was formulated. For instance, against the Assyrian invasion, led by Semiramis, a minor Indian king, Stabrobates, was supported to beat back the Assyrian invasion. Against Cyrus the Great, Tomyris, a Scythian Queen was supported to massacre Persian invaders. Alexander’s nightmare began immediately, as soon as he crossed into the Indic area.

Instead of the complete capitulation and collaboration that Alexander got from the defeated Achaemenid ruling family of Sisygambis, Stateira, Oxathres (brother of Darius III; also written as oxoathres and oxyathres) et al, the foursome of Bessos, Spitamenes, Datafernes and the Scythians made Alexander’s life miserable. At Gaugamela, it wasBessos and his Indian cavalry, which broke Alexander’s formations.

The tribes and kshatrapas (satraps)of Indian North West swath, delayed Alexander for nearly three years – before he could step into India. In India, Alexander had to pay the King of Taxiles, Omphis, (Ambi) 1000 talents of gold (more than 25 tons of gold) – to secure an alliance. He had to return the kingdom of Punjab to Porus – purportedly, after winning the battle. His loot and pickings from India were negligible. Alexander’s response – “the Macedonians frequently massacred the defenders of the city, especially in India.”

Alexander realized that the Indian Brahmins had influenced the Indian princes to organize and support the Indian war against Alexander. Greek sources cite, how at ‘The City of Brahmans’, he massacred an estimated 8000-10,000 of these non-combatant Brahmins. Thus while, invaders were kept at bay, within the Indic area, borders and crowns kept changing and shifting.

Less than 300 years after Alexander, Romans came close to Indian border. They were led by Marcus Licinius Crassus– estimated (or allegedly) worth 200,000,000 sestertii. A writer of classical journals estimated that to be worth about 7.6 million in 1860. Inflation adjusted, about 7.6 billions. Source of Crassus’ wealth – slavery, corruption,pillage, bribery et al. Crassus is more famous in history for three things – One, for his wealth, Two – for having crucified thousands of rebellious slaves on the Via Appia, after defeating Spartacus’ Slave Army and Three, as the man who funded the rise of Julius Caesar.

It is his death, that is usually glossed over.

The rich Crassus decided to chase military fame – “to penetrate even to Bactria, India, and the shores of the Eastern Ocean.” The North West swath was ruled by the Indo-Parthian rulers from circa 100 BC onwards. Western historical narratives place King Guduvhara (Western historians think he is Gondophares) as a prominent king of this era – based on a mix of coins and contradictory written evidence. The value of numismatics in India gets diluted, the moment one factors the fact that Indian rulers did NOT have an exclusive prerogative to mint coins. Freedom to issue coinage was general – based on the acceptability of the issued coinage. Hence, Indian royal Indian coinage was usually crude and simplistic.

On the other hand, private coinage, exquisitely crafted by Greco-Bactrians. These coins possibly gave rise to Japanese yen and the Chinese yuan, from the word yavana, Sanskrit name for Greeks. The capital of these Indo-Parthian kingdoms was Takshashila – the major centre of Indian learning and the site of the Takshashila University.




Early Indian figure with a stirrup (Courtesy - An early history of horsemanship By Augusto Azzaroli).

A lesser known noble of this kingdom was the Suren family– one of who, led an Indo-Parthian-Iranian army against Roman armies, in 53 BC at Carrhae, led by the billionaire, Marcus Licinius Crassus. The Surens were possibly powerful warlords – ruling over Siestan (Shakyastan).

These Indo-Scythians, expert horsemen and archers, creators of the Parthian Shot (popularized as parting shot), pulverized the Roman armies. The Indian invention of the toe-stirrup, a first in the world happened probably around500 BC-300 BC, at the latest by 200BC. The Indian invention of the toe-stirrup, made the Parthian cavalry into a fearsome fighting force.

Crassus was captured – and his greed was satiated whenmolten gold was poured down his throat. Mark Anthony tried avenging Crassus defeat – with a disastrous defeat, again.

For the next nearly 400 years, Romans were wary of any large expeditions into Indo-Persian territories. At least, the Italians did not forget Crassus. 1800 years later, Dante Alighieri, asked Crassus, “‘Crassus, tell us, because you know, how does gold taste?”

Of General Suren, not much is known – which by now, should not surprise us. Also, some ancient maps show the Gandhara-Takshashila region as Suren. Suren also supposedly ‘lacked strategic vision’ – these days, is called ‘killer instinct’, for which he was shortly later killed. But it is interesting that the enemies of the daiwas (enemy of devas are the asuras, in Indian scriptures), the Zoroastrians (followers of Ahura Mazda, speculatively Mahishasura) allied themselves with a Suren. The House of Suren’s had traditional rights to install the crown of Persian rulers.

Three – the biggest game changer were the elephant corps. War elephants was an Indian invention and an Indian monopoly. After the defeat and death of Cyrus The Great at the hands of Tomyris, the Persians stopped looking India-wards. 500 years later (nearly), with the help of the Indian elephant corps, the Sassanians stopped the Romansat Persian borders in 363 AD.

With these three changes, Indian heartland became invincible. Empire builders like the Assyrian Queen, Semiramis and the Achmaenian Emperor, Cyrus the Great mounted expensive campaigns to conquer India – and barely escaped with their lives. Later, Genghis Khan’s armies avoided India completely. Timurlane could invade India – when Delhi was under rule by a foreign dynasty, the Tughlaks. Indian invincibility and military prowess was unmatched till the 13th century – when the first foreign rulers, the Slave Dynasty rulers from the Levant started ruling from Delhi – Qutubuddin Aibak, in 1206.

Four – Indian teachers and intellectuals were sent to all corners of the world. The spread of Buddhism in Asia is well chronicled. Socrates’ encounter with an Indian yogi however, is not so well known. Mani, the Buddhist teacher was feared by the Vatican for the next 1000 years. Vatican killed, burnt and quartered all those who displayed any leaning towards Manicheanism. Islamic invaders searched and destroyed statues or ‘boet’ (meaning statues of Buddha?). In 2nd century AD, Origen, a Christian pioneer, attributed the spread of Christianity “The island (Britain) has long been predisposed to it (Christianity) through the doctrines of the Druids and Buddhists, who had already inculcated the doctrine of the unity of the Godhead”

Five - Indic legal and political structures were introduced. The usage of gold was popularized and became widespread as an economic tool. Coinage in India was not a royal prerogative or implemented by fiat. Even the British colonial government could not impose a single currency system in India.

Thus, for instance, there were intricate Greco-Bactrian coins, compared to crude and simple Indic coins. Sanskritic and Dravidian systems were used to structure ancient languages like Akkadian and Elamite.

The foremost administrative innovation was the concept of Bharata(ah) - the aryavart and the arya dhwaj. Comprising of 16 to 30 mahajanapadas, Bharata(ah) became a federation of kingdoms. Each of these kingdoms became a series of succeeding lines of defence against invading armies. What the European Union is grappling with, (and may yet fail) for the last 300 years, was implemented and used 3000 years ago in India.

The foremost proponent of this Indic construct, well known to modern history, is Kautilya Chanakya. Western colonial historians, have spitefully, called him the Indian Machiavelli. Chanakya, encoder-in-chief of Indic statecraft, came a full 1700 years before Machiavelli, who took office, after Savonarola was served en flambe to the Borgia papacy, in a declining and decadent Florence, under the Medicis.
===================================================================================
These people are talking out of their arses,they know nothing about Bharat.

 

[Razia Sultana]

I dont know why Indians are not interested in China being part of SAARC. If you draw a line from Aksai Chin to Arunachal Pradesh, you will realize the land in between is actually Tibet and naturally it should be part of South Asia. Since Tibet is an autonomous region of China, the benefit should extend to China. If our northern neighbour is keen on joining South Asian Supper, our hospitality demands that we should have them.

Secondly, if entry of China to SAARC means India gets free access to Afghanistan and thereby Central Asia, its worth any bet. China anyways has land access with Af-Pak, Nepal and Bhutan and BD, SL, Maldives have straight sea routes with China. So opening Indian borders to SAARC nations will not have much impact but it will be big thing for Afghanistan and India. Also trade between China and a third country via Arunachal will cement the legitimacy of Arunachal Pradesh as Indian Territory.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Looks like people here have confused notions about a nationhood. The concept of modern nation began in Europe around the 19th century and spread to the rest of the world. Before that the ruler of a land mass decided the nation and not the people. So in times of Ashoka, Akbar and Aurangzeb the rulers of Afghanistan and Bengal were the same. The Ottoman and Persian Empire included much wider geographical region than what is Turkey and Iran are today. People were least concerned whether they were ruled by one king or another. Until the birth of modern nationalism, no country in the world was bothered about the geographical changes as it changed with every ruler and it kept changing during his regime also.

When modern nationhood was spreading, India was under the British rule and Indian nationalism became synonymous with her struggle for freedom from the British Rule. This was the uniting factor and eventually it became so strong that despite having many religions, races, languages and geographical features, India developed a strong sense of nationhood. What you see China today, it was not the same in the first half of 20th century. In fact, most nations took the shape of modern nation after the second world war by when the people had started relating themselves with a national boundary. Every nation has something core for their nationhood - some are a nation because they speak one language, some follow one religion or custom. But still a language or a religion is not the essential ingredient for a nationhood. If that was so the Arab speaking muslims will not be divided into many nations. However, the Indian nationhood perplexes many who think that a religion or a language forms the basis of a nationhood and hence wrongly assume that India is held together artificially.

On the side note. The modern concept of a nation state is derived from Westphalian sovereignty which is based on Treaty of Westphalia in the 17th century

Westphalian sovereignty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ammyy]

hate to burst your bubble but there was no "india" before 1947 either

Burst bubble?? You should read history again

India rupee note in 1917.