No network in Nathula so jawans borrow phones from Chinese soldiers

[Tractor]

In early 20th century, Britain decided to hand over Aksai Chin to the Chinese administration as a buffer against a Russian invasion. This whole dispute were caused by The Johnson Line and The McMahon Line which were arbitrarily drew by Birtish colonists. The borders of those two area were never demarcated in history expect those two arbitrary lines. So yes, my beef is with the British for who they think they are to decide the things that should be done by two sovereign nations. Not only China and India, most conflicts in the world, Pakistan and India, Israel and the whole middle east are all Britain's handy works.

Don't know things about Aksai Chin which a barren land,but I have learnt that Qing dynasty had been supported by the British to prevent Russian from invading Xinjiang,even though we lost many beautiful and inhabitable lands which now Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are mainly formed.

 

[chauism]

Don't know things about Aksai Chin which a barren land,but I have learnt that Qing dynasty had been supported by the British to prevent Russian from invading Xinjiang,even though we lost many beautiful and inhabitable lands which now Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are mainly formed.

The correct analogy would be one person(Britain) decided to give back everything(AP alone with other parts of India) he stole to the person(India), then later third person(China) came in and said that part of the settlement(AP) was stolen from him by the thief. To Indian, AP was part of settlement between him and British. So you see the dilema here. The only one who got away from his crime here is just Britain. For India and China it already doesn't matter who owns what historically, from now on it is just how two can come to a term that both can agree upon.

 

[Tractor]

The correct analogy would be one person(Britain) decided to give back everything(AP alone with other parts of India) he stole to the person(India), then later third person(China) came in and said that part of the settlement(AP) was stolen from him by the thief. To Indian, AP was part of settlement between him and British. So you see the dilema here. The only one who got away from his crime here is just Britain. For India and China it already doesn't matter who owns what historically, from now on it is just how two can come to a term that both can agree upon.

The analogy not an appropriate one,for AP is not a second hand thing to India,just british India as a whole one stole that land from us.Of course the action of steal happened formerly then there is demand for stolen thing to be given back.

 

[Alfa-Fighter]

The analogy not an appropriate one,for AP is not a second hand thing to India,just british India as a whole one stole that land from us.Of course the action of steal happened formerly then there is demand for stolen thing to be given back.

Any proof you have that AP is yours??

 

[Rig Vedic]

The analogy not an appropriate one,for AP is not a second hand thing to India,just british India as a whole one stole that land from us.Of course the action of steal happened formerly then there is demand for stolen thing to be given back.

You should try to find out if the locals there see themselves as stolen property!

 

[Tractor]

Any proof you have that AP is yours??

You should try to find out if the locals there see themselves as stolen property!

Sure the locals there as a property is one of the proofs that AP is ours and if they are used to you Indians with different looking then we just consider the land of most of AP is ours.