To all Indian members here. A question...

[Kloitra]

Where did you learn your history? The UN was founded in 1945, BEFORE India was even a country.
The permanent UN Security Council seats were given to the five victorious allies of World War II, which are the U.S., U.K., France, the Soviet Union, and China. India was a colony of Britain and contributed very little to allied victory over Germany and Japan.

I see, Nehru continues his lies through history textbooks.

What did you Indians do to deserve such the disastrous Nehru family of cronies and idiots?

It is hard to say where this misconception originated from, but not from text books, or any other legit source.

But your assertion is wrong too - PRC only got UNSC seat in 71 - with India as one of the in favour nations. Till 71 it was ROC.
I think this misconception is somewhat distortion of India's recognition of PRC and support of PRC on certain matter including Tibet. May be some knowledgeable member can clarify.

Arabs never ruled over India. Turks never did either. The mughals were turkic but had nothing in common with the anatolian turks.

That is what I said -

They only had a foreign ancestry, no other connection.

Good fences make good neighbours.


Waiting for the following:

50+ Agni V aimed at the PRC
Mountain strike corps (has just begun)
155mm arty (light towed spg)
F INSAS (some of the gear is ready but no troops equipped yet)
20+ chinooks
22+ apache longbows
FICV
New Manpads
New LR SAM


Road, rail, tunnels,etc.

When all of this is done then maybe India can talk peace with the PRC. Until then they will try to bully India.

A more intelligent approach would be to make permanent peace.
Unfortunately it would be give and take - we would loose some of our claim and they some of theirs.
What India controls - AP - would remain with India and what China controls - Aksai Chin - would go to China. That is the status quo would become IB. There seems no other solution - I doubt the situation can be maintained perpetually.

 

[favabeans]

But your assertion is wrong too - PRC only got UNSC seat in 71 - with India as one of the in favour nations. Till 71 it was ROC.

I didn't specify PRC, I used the neutral term 'China', which both the PRC and the RoC claim to represent.

It is hard to say where this misconception originated from, but not from text books, or any other legit source.

This kind of misconception can only survive due to mental retardation.

 

[Kloitra]

This kind of misconception can only survive due to mental retardation.

That is rather hostile approach. Misconception like this survives due to misinformation/lack of information. Contemporary history is barely given a part in curriculum.

 

[favabeans]

That is rather hostile approach. Misconception like this survives due to misinformation/lack of information. Contemporary history is barely given a part in curriculum.

You'd have to be retarded to believe in such bullocks as Nehru 'granting' China the UNSC permanent membership. There is no two ways about it.

 

[Kloitra]

You'd have to be retarded to believe in such bullocks as Nehru 'granting' China the UNSC permanent membership. There is no two ways about it.

The general (mis)conception is that Nehru was amongst the first to support China's UNSC seat, not that he 'grant' the seat.

 

[favabeans]

The general (mis)conception is that Nehru was amongst the first to support China's UNSC seat, not that he 'grant' the seat.

I wasn't referring to the 'general' misconception, but only the misconception that Nehru 'granted' China's UNSC permanent seat, which is a notion that can only be caused by mental retardation.

 

[Kloitra]

I wasn't referring to the 'general' misconception, but only the misconception that Nehru 'granted' China's UNSC permanent seat, which is a notion that can only be caused by mental retardation.

Sorry, didn't properly read what you replied to.

 

[favabeans]

Sorry, didn't properly read what you replied to.

No problem.

 

[Manvantaratruti]

I genuinely want to know what Indian members here think about the 1962 war. Please be frank, my feelings won't be hurt and I'm not likely to get offended. I really want to get the Indian perspective on it as a student of history and perspectives.

NP

Was the 1962 war a result of China stabbing India in the back?

Yes. It was foolish of Indian leadership to trust China.

What was the sequence of event that lead to the war?

China's invasion and conquest of Tibet in 1950-51, Newly formed India trying to establish its border as per historical records, China's contempt for India and Indian leadership, cold war ramifications and corresponding opportunity, and Mao's internal political compulsions.

Was Nehru's fault?

As Head of India, it was his Responsibility to protect and defend India's territorial integrity by all means necessary. In that sense it was ALSO his fault and failure.

Do Indians think there are parallels to the reported incursion recently?

No, India is far to prepared for China to even Dream of trying anything similar.

Thanks in advance for any reply

NP.

 

[axisofevil]

True. Military Iron has been added but Steel is still missing in the National Will. So long as that does not happen it does not matter how large India's armed forces are or how many nukes she has. Incidents like Kargil, the Parliament attack ,Mumbai 26/11 and Chinese incursions will keep happening.

India does not understand and has not internalized the Will to Power.

So how do you reckon we do that? It first requires a strong govt....but that has not happened yet?

 

[Pride]

Where did you learn your history? The UN was founded in 1945, BEFORE India was even a country.
The permanent UN Security Council seats were given to the five victorious allies of World War II, which are the U.S., U.K., France, the Soviet Union, and China. India was a colony of Britain and contributed very little to allied victory over Germany and Japan.

I see, Nehru continues his lies through history textbooks.

What did you Indians do to deserve such the disastrous Nehru family of cronies and idiots?

I was quoting following lines from The Washington Post.
(India was offered a permanent seat on the council 55 years ago, in 1955. But that offer, made by the United States and the Soviet Union, was declined by India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Nehru said the seat should be given to China instead.)

Link: Obama supports adding India as a permanent member of U.N. Security Council

Though, I agree with your point that P5 were in 1945 Permanent member of UN Security Council.

 

[favabeans]

I was quoting following lines from The Washington Post.
(India was offered a permanent seat on the council 55 years ago, in 1955. But that offer, made by the United States and the Soviet Union, was declined by India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Nehru said the seat should be given to China instead.)
Link: Obama supports adding India as a permanent member of U.N. Security Council

Though, I agree with your point that P5 were in 1945 Permanent member of UN Security Council.

Where in the article does it imply that Nehru 'granted' China/PRC the permanent UNSC seat?

 

[Pride]

Where in the article does it imply that Nehru 'granted' China/PRC the permanent UNSC seat?

Did you even read? "Nehru said the seat should be given to China instead".

Anyways, the logic has been rebutted so no point. One more thing, You mentioned, India was colony of UK and hence it can't be as separate nation in UN. This understanding is wrong. India was one of Founding member of UN as a separate nation.

 

[favabeans]

Did you even read? "Nehru said the seat should be given to China instead".

Did you even read? Nehru recommended that the United States and Soviet Union grant the PRC a UNSC permanent seat. The ones who had the power to grant the seat were the US and the Soviet Union, NOT Nehru.

One more thing, You mentioned, India was colony of UK and hence it can't be as separate nation in UN. This understanding is wrong. India was one of Founding member of UN as a separate nation.

Did you even read? I said UNSC permanent seats were given to the FIVE victorious allies of WWII, of which India is NOT a member. In fact, India was a colony the UK during WWII.

 

[Joe Shearer]

This was a rather well-argued thread. Now with chauvinists like @favabeans involved, it is going to be increasingly messy going forward.

Such a pity.