The Giants of Asia (China & India) Strive for Closer Ties

[B+ Dracula]

The Mongol leader Ghengis Khan was the first ruler who unified whole China.
In India there were several Dynasties which ruled the major part of India like Maurya Empire,
Gupta Empire, Rashtrakuta Empire, Maratha Empire and many more.

Buddhist Empires of HINDUSTAN (Chander Gupt & Maurya) try their best to keep unite all small Kingdoms of Rajas/maharajas for some Period...but they remained unsuccessful.

1000 Years later Muslim Army struggled to keep it unite......sometime they succeed sometime they were interfered by outsider army or impending Re-billion from inside....Same goes with Bristish Raj ,In a big view 90% of time it is not a PRACTICAL idea....

Nixelites, J&K movement, Aronachal Pardesh are examples of its artificial unity

Stupid comment. The name "India" was not given by British Raj.

Is that your Only REASON..... senior member??
.
I know what you wanna say next....." O..Hindustan & Bharat are synonyms of word India"....but i beseech you to stop selling your Digestion tablets to us.....bcoz we are able to differentiate colors of CHAMELEON

 

[Shotgunner51]

....But a Japan not hostile to China will be a tremendous asset for China. The same goes for Korea. That is West's greatest fear, loosing Japan and Korea's as close allies. So China should never burn their bridges with these two nations, like it can afford to with Philippines or Vietnam. Perhaps beating up of P & V will be learning example for J & K.

Yes, in terms of industrial value added, China ranks 1st globally, while Japan and SK ranks 3rd (after US) & 5th (after Germany) respectively. The three are not just industrial/financial giants in Asia but also dominate the world in electronics, electricals, machineries, steel, energy, shipbuilding, construction and many heavy industries. While actively pursuing an Eurasian integration strategy centered on a Beijing-Moscow core pivot, China understands the critical importance of Japan and Korea and will treat the relationships carefully, like you said never burn the bridges.

The same goes for Australia, an important commodity supplier to the industrial machines in East Asia, China will carefully treat the relationship so that pragmatism, instead of geopolitics, continues to be the key tone.

The situation with the Philippines is very different. Though war is unlikely to happen, the persistent tension will reduce bilateral trade/investment i.e. a quasi-economic war. For PH, Japan might be able to fill-in the gap, for China there will be some losses however insignificant. Same goes for Vietnam (but I believe there might be a better chance that China and Vietnam can contain the tension or even negotiate some settlement, since both have a lot more in common, and have enough cards to trade). In ASEAN, China will focus on integrating with the other 8 countries.

 

[Shotgunner51]

The only part i disagree with is : THE GIANTS OF ASIA(INDIA AND CHINA). The giants of Asia for now are still China and Japan.

Yes, Japan has been the lone and only giant in Asia until in recent years not because it has faded but because China has been catching up. Instead of fading out Japan has been growing steadily at a pace of a developed country. China might be bigger than Japan in several macroscopic/overall indicators, while Japan has maintained definite lead in many others.

Japan's contemporary achievements are undisputedly true. The only worry is whether this giant will continue its pacifist path or not. We all know between 1870-1945, Japan was already an advanced industrialized economy, and single-handedly defeated the Qing Dynasty (and their Korean ally), Russia, Republic of China, French, Dutch, British (and colonial forces), and was the only Axis power that bombed US. Despite loosing the war, Japan inflicted more casualties to the US than Nazi Germany.

Like Germany, we all know what this giant of Japan is capable of. The important thing is that Japan will pursue a pacifist path, what post-WWII Germany has taken. The Japanese are great people, hope they wouldn't repeat the mistake of Imperial Militarism.

 

[Fattyacids]

I don't blame you for your knowledge or utter lack of it, it's the result of CCP controlled education system. Why don't you check the pictographs of Harappa and Mohenjodaro, or the cave paintings of Ajanta and Ellora? You will find it familiar!!

More lie? Indus valley civilization was dead in 1700 BC. Indus script cannot be deciphered until today, historians reckon some similarity with Sumerian/Mesopotamia in Iraq. You have no linkage to Indus civilization, the unique Indus living quarter and sewerage system were NOT replicated across India. Your civilization starts with Aryan migration into South Asia, but large urban town and city in Ganges area only developed around 200BC.

 

[SrNair]

Yes the US admitted to trying to destabilize Tibet (a policy which they changed when America and China sided with each other in the latter stages of the Cold War), but where was the Tibetan Government in Exile based during the 1960's when they were sending militants against China? They were based in India after 1959, which borders Tibet along with Nepal. Colorado is halfway across the world.

Now let's say India has ZERO intentions to cause trouble in Tibet (something we'll never know since countries don't leave evidence for that sort of thing lying around), and they simply couldn't (or can't) control the Tibetan Government in Exile, etc. and other such assumptions, well in the end that is still just us "hoping" for India not to use the Tibetan Government in Exile as a weapon against us.

And just hoping for something like that doesn't seem like a good idea, especially not in geopolitics.

Imagine if it was China who held the Manipur Government in Exile, the Nagaland Government in Exile, and we held up our hands and said: "We can't control them, they do what they want and there is nothing we can do about it". Well even if it were true, that still doesn't help much, does it?

I do want a solution myself, since we have other areas to focus on. But the risk seems really high, and the Chinese leadership are known for being very risk averse. I don't see much progress unless a very out-of-the-box solution is found.

Suppose even if we ask to Dalai Lama to stop his activities in India ,Have you any idea about his next movement ?
We cant simply handing them over to you ,Dalai Lama has a lot of followrrs in here .They will call for an international interventiion and will become a diplomatic headache.
Now in other case if he shift his base to US what would be your stand .Chinese will face a lots of heat than now .Right ?
So his exile in India is actually good thing for China.
And we dont have a behaviour to cultivate non state actors.If Dalai Lama is in this soil we know how to control them.

 

[B+ Dracula]

Poor chap, let's go slow, to start with, just check Columbus set sail to find what.

Columbus sets sail - Aug 03, 1492 - HISTORY.com
From the Spanish port of Palos, Italian explorer Christopher Columbus sets sail in command of three ships—the Santa Maria, the Pinta, and the Nina—on a journey to find a western sea route to China, India, and the fabled gold and spice islands of Asia.
.
.
Some other helpul links
Names of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Etymology of the Name India (Article) - Ancient History Encyclopedia
Etymology of the Name India (Article) - Ancient History Encyclopedia

Excerpts for ANALYSIS:

The name is derived from the name of the Sindhu (Indus River) and has been in use in Greek since Herodotus (4th century BC). The term appeared in Old English as early the 9th century and reemerged in Modern English in the 17th century.
&
he usage of Bharat, Hindustan or India is dependant on the context and language of conversation.

According to the Manusmṛti (2.21–22) North India (i.e., India north of the Vindhyas) is also known as Āryāvarta(Sanskrit: आर्यावर्त, "abode of the Aryans).[1]
&
The English term is from Greek Ἰνδία (Indía), via Latin India. Iindía in Byzantine ethnography denotes the region beyond the Indus (Ἰνδός) River, since Herodotus alluded to "Indian land". Ἰνδός, Indos, "an Indian", from AvestanHinduš refers to Sindh
&
About 2500 years ago, when the Greeks first reached the river plains of Punjab, they borrowed the name of the region from the Persians and simply modified it to �Indos�. �Indos� later morphed into �Indus� in Latin � by which name the river is still known in the West. The Romans began to call the whole land mass after this river and thus the name �India� came to stay � which has been the form used by Europeans over the ages.
&
India was called Hindustān (Persian: هندوستان‎) in Persian, although the term Hind is in current use. al-Hindالهند is the term in the Arabic language (e.g. in the 11th century Tarikh Al-Hind "history of India"). It also occurs intermittently in usage within India, such as in the phrase Jai Hind (Sanskrit: जय हिन्द).


My Views :
It appears name "india" is corruption of Pakistani river of Indus (which falls in Pak).......and for assistance in language of conversation you're using 3 synonymous names that creates 3 different chords in your mind (Western/Religious/Historical)....but one thing is absolutely above doubts ...you preferred to put all your eggs in Western Basket....In addition to Greek version of India is based on Old known map of that Region (beyond the river of Indus)

India = (mostly famous in western literature), a corruption of Pakistani river, & it appears in Western Literature from 4th Century BC to 17th Century

Bharat = (Religious word of that Area) ..It is derived from Bharata/Bharatavarsha ......included in religious scroll of Bhagavad-Gita

Hindustan = Remainder of CONSISTENT historical Name through ages.....Can be used as synonymous to INDIA

 

[IBRIS]

It's too late to change borders now you keep what you have and we'll defend what we have kept. Any other nonsense will just be mere self satisfaction to justify your own belief. Any further attempt to deface the current status quo will be dealt with severe outcome which will throw entire region at least 100 years back.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Yes, Japan has been the lone and only giant in Asia until in recent years not because it has faded but because China has been catching up. Instead of fading out Japan has been growing steadily at a pace of a developed country. China might be bigger than Japan in several macroscopic/overall indicators, while Japan has maintained definite lead in many others.

Japan's contemporary achievements are undisputedly true. The only worry is whether this giant will continue its pacifist path or not. We all know between 1870-1945, Japan was already an advanced industrialized economy, and single-handedly defeated the Qing Dynasty (and their Korean ally), Russia, Republic of China, French, Dutch, British (and colonial forces), and was the only Axis power that bombed US. Despite loosing the war, Japan inflicted more casualties to the US than Nazi Germany.

Like Germany, we all know what this giant of Japan is capable of. The important thing is that Japan will pursue a pacifist path, what post-WWII Germany has taken. The Japanese are great people, hope they wouldn't repeat the mistake of Imperial Militarism.

TRUE Japan has been Asia's only Giant for almost a cenury now. China has simply risen so fast recently, not like Japan is in decline, since Japan is already a highly developed country, which gives it little room for high/rapid growth, unlike relatively poorer developing countries like China, Brazil etc. As i said several times on here, China is simply playing catch up, and as you agreed/said even though China might be bigger overall/macroscopicaly speaking, Japan still leads China in many other critical high end/core tech sectors, so China still has a way to go to catch up with Japan in these fields.

Japan indeed has a proud history. Its still the only Asian country who has NEVER been conquered/invaded/colonised by a foreign power. Well bar their second world war defeat against the U.S/allies. They defeated several bigger powers as you mentioned and even initially defeated/drove out the mighty U.S from the philippines for over a year before the U.S regrouped and took back the country, they are also the ONLY country(after us obviously) to have ever launched attacked on U.S soil, the only Asian country to have humbled/defeated the Russians etc etc. If anything Japan should be a model for all Asian countries. If Asia was to ever try and match(or even come close) to what Japan has achieved economically/living standards etc then believe me Asia will be even more advanced/developed than the west/U.S

Thats why i always laugh when i see some naive Chinese members here underestimate Japan. That will be their biggest mistake. In fact Japan is the LAST COUNTRY IN ASIA anybody should underestimate, Since they are still the most adavanced/developed major country in Asia even today. I always give credit when due. I always respect Japan. @Nihonjin1051 . Banzai.

 

[SledgeHammer]

More lie? Indus valley civilization was dead in 1700 BC. Indus script cannot be deciphered until today, historians reckon some similarity with Sumerian/Mesopotamia in Iraq. You have no linkage to Indus civilization, the unique Indus living quarter and sewerage system were NOT replicated across India. Your civilization starts with Aryan migration into South Asia, but large urban town and city in Ganges area only developed around 200BC.

Why don't you just stick to the topic? In any case you do not seem to have much knowledge about history.


On topic: Indo-China closure ties just ended right here!!

 

[Fattyacids]

My goodness!! You are beyond repair!!

Re-invention of history is the hallmark of Hindu nationalist academic-- butt joke among international scholars.

My goodness!! You are beyond repair!!
Oh dear! Columbus set out to discover India, but ended up naming the native Americans as.........I just hope you know that part! And all that happened before British colonized India, undivided India.

Columbus was looking for India, the subcontinent. There was no country/political entity called India, until British created it.

 

[Jaat Rock]

Buddhist Empires of HINDUSTAN (Chander Gupt & Maurya) try their best to keep unite all small Kingdoms of Rajas/maharajas for some Period...but they remained unsuccessful.

1000 Years later Muslim Army struggled to keep it unite......sometime they succeed sometime they were interfered by outsider army or impending Re-billion from inside....Same goes with Bristish Raj ,In a big view 90% of time it is not a PRACTICAL idea....

Nixelites, J&K movement, Aronachal Pardesh are examples of its artificial unity

Buddhist Empire??? Chandragupta Maurya converted into Jainism after taking retirement and The Great Ashoka was also Hindu and converted into Buddhism after the war in Kalinga. So how you say that those were Buddhist empire?? During the time of Mauryan Empire people were united.. Hindus, Buddhists and Jains were living peacefully but then comes the "Muslims" torturing, converting and looting people and same happened during British Raj...

 

[SledgeHammer]

Re-invention of history is the hallmark of Hindu nationalist academic-- butt joke among international scholars.

Columbus was looking for India, the subcontinent. There was no country/political entity called India, until British created it.

View attachment 222582

See, this is "China & Far East" section, and you can get away with such off-topic garbage, but Indians will get banned if they try to clear it, fact of life......so better stick to the topic and don't post all these nonsense. Many Chinese kingdoms also existed in different shapes and sizes, so?

 

[Shark2]

Re-invention of history is the hallmark of Hindu nationalist academic-- butt joke among international scholars.



Columbus was looking for India, the subcontinent. There was no country/political entity called India, until British created it.

View attachment 222582

Very funny
Almost half of India was still ruled by Indian Kings. These Kingdoms were called princely states.
The princely states like Mysore, Travancore and Baroda were the most developed regions of British India
because these regions were not ruled by the British. These Indian rulers signed a treaty like the Chinese
King had to sign a treaty after the Chinese were defeated by the British in the Opium war.

 

[Fattyacids]

See, this is "China & Far East" section, and you can get away with such off-topic garbage, but Indians will get banned if they try to clear it, fact of life......so better stick to the topic and don't post all these nonsense. Many Chinese kingdoms also existed in different shapes and sizes, so?

Territory and border changes with time, but the political entity(the State) that govern it does not change. As a single political entity, China aka Middle Kingdom, was established in 221BC.

Qin dynasty established the first great Chinese empire. The Qin, from which the name China is derived, established the approximate boundaries and basic administrative system that all subsequent Chinese dynasties were to follow for the next 2,000 years.
Qin dynasty | China [221-207 BC] | Encyclopedia Britannica

Bronze Age of China: Metropolitan Museum print

Very funny
Almost half of India was still ruled by Indian Kings. These Kingdoms were called princely states.
The princely states like Mysore, Travancore and Baroda were the most developed regions of British India
because these regions were not ruled by the British. These Indian rulers signed a treaty like the Chinese
King had to sign a treaty after the Chinese were defeated by the British in the Opium war.

British maintained suzerainty over all prince states under the entity called British Raj. Chinese emperor remained sovereign ruler of China. The treaty only forced the chinese to lease out the port for trading.

 

[Jlaw]

Don't worry. I feel like we have a greater grasp of the chessboard than our opponents. We know which pieces are rooks and which are pawns, and we know who is essential and who is expendable.

PH and VN didn't have to be pawns. Their populations (each expected to balloon to the 100 million mark in the near future) should have made them contenders. But population alone is not enough, and both countries have failed to industrialize, despite the ample opportunities offered to them during the Cold War. In particular, the PH had unrestricted access to US investment and US markets while China was undergoing the Cultural Revolution, yet they did nothing with them. And the low-value manufacturing jobs that China's coastal areas have relied on a stepping stone will be going to 1) China's interior, 2) South Asian and qualified African states, and 3) robots. The PH and VN will have missed the train yet again, and that's why their interests and desires can be dismissed without compunction.

VN and PH are expendable pawns regardless. It's just a matter of when. If their government were smarter it would be later rather than sooner.