It is beginning to dawn on me, gradually, why we should teach recent history in our schools. This situation is a disaster. The Pakistanis know nothing about Pakistan, the Indians know nothing about India. the less said about the knowledge of each about the other, the better.
I have few doubts in my mind.first, if India recognizes tibbat as part of china, then why does we patronising DL?
Originally the Dalai Lama and his entourage sought political asylum in India. The Chinese regime had just completed a violent coup assuming full powers, in exchange for their earlier suzerainty (as Russia and Britain, but not China, defined the nature of Chinese authority over Tibet). It was likely that the Dalai Lama's life would be in danger in that situation. India had had dealings with Tibet from 1915 onwards in the modern, British sense; from the 10th or 11th century AD in the older sense, from the date of Atish Dipankar*'s re-conversion of Tibet.
[* My nick, Vajra, on other sites, is from this monk's home village of Vajrayogini, the next village to my ancestral village.]
Therefore, at that time, he and his entourage, which included most of the former Tibetan government, were given asylum.
One condition of asylum was not to conduct any political activity against any friendly power. This has generally been breached in practice by the setting up of the Tibetan government-in-exile, and by their very active on-going protest against Han cultural hegemonism in Tibet (their description; this is not Government of India's characterisation, as GoI doesn't have any characterisation of China's rule over its integral part, it being China's internal matter).
As a result, PRC generally remains apoplectic about India's behaviour in this regard.
second- if china recognies tibbat as autonomous region, why the hell they are so unaccepting of DL?
For these, please look up the definition of 'autonomous region' by PRC. It means only a separate cultural distinction, and an ethnic differentiation, which is sought to be recognised and protected, but not at the cost of banning migration to these regions. Note that China is ethnically homogeneous outside the provinces of Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and Qing Hai (ignoring the curious cultural history of South China!). Nowhere is opposition to the CPC tolerated.
China is not a democracy; it is a single-party democracy.
Anyways, coming back to the topic, I have an opinion that '62 war was neither India's provocation nor was it China's aggression.
It was both, in that sequence.
Its just happened that Nehru grossly miscalculated Socailism to be a binding factor strong enough to prevent any war between India & china( nehru was a staunch pro-socialist, had it been his way, India would have become a communist state as well)...
sigh
Nehru was, to be precise, a Fabian Socialist, a kind of socialist that sits in an elegant drawing room in Bloomsbury, sips Darjeeling tea from elegant bone-china and, through mouthfuls of very thin lettuce sandwiches, discusses socialism.
They were specifically dedicated to bringing about socialism gradually and progressively. Their ideals were based on the military tactics of Fabius Maximus Cunctator, Fabius Maximus the Delayer, the only Roman general who survived against Hannibal at a critical period of Roman history.
His full name is Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus Cunctator: Quintus of the Fabius family (gens) and the branch known as Fabii Maximi (all had the surname Fabius Maximus: he himself had a father, a grandfather and a great-grandfather all named Quintus Fabius Maximus), with the distinguishing name of Verrucosus. So Verrucosus (warty, from a wart over his lip) was his cognomen; his agnomen, distinguishing name given by his countrymen for some characteristic, was Cunctator, the Delayer, because he never allowed Hannibal to bring him to battle but evaded him, kept his force intact and even growing, and allowed Hannibal lose men and mounts, horse and elephant alike, through attrition.
By definition, Fabian Socialists were committed to bringing about Socialism (not Communism; there is a difference, which you can learn about in any simple political sciences textbook) only gradually, by wearing down the enemy.
What you have assumed about Nehru is grossly wrong and misunderstood. He was opposed to Communists, but Communists were not opposed to him. Many CPI leaders were close to him personally, but they disagreed politically. There was never any question of abandoning liberal democracy and assuming socialism in the political arena.
Where do young people pick up this nonsense?
...and he also erred in judging china's military power vis-a-vis china's. and during his tenure, defense sector was non-existant, to say the least. though i must add, it was not a deliberate mistake on his part.
It was deliberate policy on his part. He thought the day of wars was over; the UNO would take care of everything. Poor naif! and poor country that he led!
...he was a true patriot, no doubt about that. he was just too idealistic to understand real geopolitic complications. naive is the best word to describe him. anyhow, we, as a nation, learnt some hard lessons post '62 which enabled us to have a better preparation against ny future threat. today we are far more prepared and far more capable thanwe were in ' 62.
Let us leave the matter on this bright and optimistic note.
