To all Indian members here. A question...

[Chinaownseverything]

Nehru's fault in addition to China stabbing India in the back.
Both the countries agreed to withdraw large troops from the border,India did it immediately(That is Nehru's fault) just then China back stabbed us and raged war.
So both reasons are satisfied here.

Nehru had no intention of leaving. Nehru entered disputed territory, set up fortifications while the chinese begged him to leave. What were the chinese supposed to do? allow Nehru to keep advancing his fortifications?

rediff.com: rediff.com Special: Who was to blame for the 1962 war? Was it India or China who initiated the conflict?

The Nehru government decided upon the opposite approach. India would, through its own research, determine the appropriate alignments of the Sino-Indian borders, extend its administration to make those good on the ground and then refuse to negotiate the result. Barring the inconceivable -- that Beijing would allow India to impose China's borders unilaterally and annex territory at will -- Nehru's policy thus willed conflict without foreseeing it.

Through the 1950s, that policy generated friction along the borders and so bred and steadily increased distrust, growing into hostility, between the neighbours. By 1958, Beijing was urgently calling for a standstill agreement to prevent patrol clashes and negotiations to agree on boundary alignments. India refused any standstill agreement, since it would be an impediment to intended advances and insisted that there was nothing to negotiate, the Sino-Indian borders being already settled on the alignments claimed by India, through blind historical process. Then it began accusing China of committing 'aggression' by refusing to surrender to Indian claims.

From 1961, the Indian attempt to establish an armed presence in all the territory it claimed and then extrude the Chinese was being exerted by the Army and Beijing was warning that if India did not desist from its expansionist thrust, the Chinese forces would have to hit back. On October 12, 1962, Nehru proclaimed India's intention to drive the Chinese out of areas India claimed. That bravado had by then been forced upon him by public expectations which his charges of 'Chinese aggression' had aroused, but Beijing took it as in effect a declaration of war. The unfortunate Indian troops on the frontline, under orders to sweep superior Chinese forces out of their impregnable, dominating positions, instantly appreciated the implications: 'If Nehru had declared his intention to attack, then the Chinese were not going to wait to be attacked.'

 

[Chinaownseverything]

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_china-india-and-the-fruits-of-nehru-s-folly_1101845

Another Indian historian posting the truth about what really happened

 

[amit27]

But its not 1962 its 2010 people times have changed. War is a expensive business these days especially with the price of oil shooting up and remember one thing China's oil and other supplies all go through the Indian Ocean and China knows this, so full on war is out of the picture.

 

[Cow(ard)Boy]

Nehru had no intention of leaving. Nehru entered disputed territory, set up fortifications while the chinese begged him to leave. What were the chinese supposed to do? allow Nehru to keep advancing his fortifications?

rediff.com: rediff.com Special: Who was to blame for the 1962 war? Was it India or China who initiated the conflict?

The Nehru government decided upon the opposite approach. India would, through its own research, determine the appropriate alignments of the Sino-Indian borders, extend its administration to make those good on the ground and then refuse to negotiate the result. Barring the inconceivable -- that Beijing would allow India to impose China's borders unilaterally and annex territory at will -- Nehru's policy thus willed conflict without foreseeing it.

Through the 1950s, that policy generated friction along the borders and so bred and steadily increased distrust, growing into hostility, between the neighbours. By 1958, Beijing was urgently calling for a standstill agreement to prevent patrol clashes and negotiations to agree on boundary alignments. India refused any standstill agreement, since it would be an impediment to intended advances and insisted that there was nothing to negotiate, the Sino-Indian borders being already settled on the alignments claimed by India, through blind historical process. Then it began accusing China of committing 'aggression' by refusing to surrender to Indian claims.

From 1961, the Indian attempt to establish an armed presence in all the territory it claimed and then extrude the Chinese was being exerted by the Army and Beijing was warning that if India did not desist from its expansionist thrust, the Chinese forces would have to hit back. On October 12, 1962, Nehru proclaimed India's intention to drive the Chinese out of areas India claimed. That bravado had by then been forced upon him by public expectations which his charges of 'Chinese aggression' had aroused, but Beijing took it as in effect a declaration of war. The unfortunate Indian troops on the frontline, under orders to sweep superior Chinese forces out of their impregnable, dominating positions, instantly appreciated the implications: 'If Nehru had declared his intention to attack, then the Chinese were not going to wait to be attacked.'

You ll get millions of link with millions of opinions.
But the most common one is that China backstabbed India.
You people didnt dare to fight us face to face.
Nehru was an idiot to believe China and China was a coward to back stab us.
Finish here.

 

[chauism]

Why can you not disprove my arguments? Even your beloved Reddit says that Indians are wrong.

Have you read the article itself from the Rediff yourself? Have you read any of the discussions that other members actaully spend time to research in order to discuss it meaningfully? If you did all those, then it seems to me you have a problem with logical deductions.

Yes, India had its fault in 62's war, so did China. The whole thing could have been avoided if they had better communication and understanding.

Even history says you are wrong, these lands have always belonged to tibet never once in history to India.

Arunachal Aradesh was signed over to Britain (through coercion IN EVERY COURT OF LAW FORCING SOMEONE TO SIGN A CONTRACT MAKES IT ILLEGAL), not to India. So why should India keep it?

Hope you know what disputed territory means. Every parties' claims are both legitimate or both illegitimate. It is no more China's than it is India's or vice versa.

China's claim on Aksai Chin was because Britain decided to hand over Aksai Chin to Chinese administration as a buffer against Russian invasion. So by the same token, India's control of Arunachal Pradesh is as legitimate as China's claim over Aksai Chin. You can not have both when their legitimacies are under the same circumstance

 

[Capt.Popeye]

@chauism
In all the mayhem before you; it is nice to see your post which has a measured and balanced viewpoint. And i appreciate your outlook. Only if we hold viewpoints like that can we hope to find solutions to problems. Fortunately for all of us, both the Governments in China and India are concentrating on the primary tasks at hand i.e. pushing Economic Growth. Just imagine if they had spent time quibbling over 'sq. km of territory' instead. The rest of the world would be looking differently at us then.

 

[chauism]

Ah! Just when I was wondering if I was dreaming. Just when it looked so bizarre and unreal, being able to discuss a sensitive topic with knowledgeable people offering sober and sensible inputs on both sides.

Thank you, Chineownseverything, for reassuring me and bringing me awake once again.

@Cardsharp
@Chauism

A member, 'Milestogo', exasperated by Indian teenage idiots each with access to a keyboard, a broadband connection and a wonderfully vacant mind engaging in verbal battles with their Pakistani, sometimes with their Chinese counterparts, suggested that we should discuss these matters in a restricted room.

This latest illiterate intervention suggests that he was right.

In my opinion, as I have long argued at PakTeaHouse, a wonderful place till recently, Indian moderates should police the place and take care of Indian members of the lunatic fringe, similarly Pakistani moderates with the Pakistani lunatic fringe, and now I find the opportunity to suggest that Chinese moderates should do so with their own.

I know that this is not practical without moderators' powers. I know that the site owners and administrators sometimes let a controversy go on in other to draw in numbers of viewers, all curious to know what is going on.

There's no harm in dreaming dreams of our own.

I amleaving this thread until this lout goes away.

Don't be discourage by "chinaowneverything". He just proves that how sensitive this issue can be in both countries to common people who are exposed to this. The sensitivity n China's case it is more than just a product of propaganda because trust me on this, 62's war and the territory dispute between China and India are hardly talked about in the public by the mainstream medias.

You should see what Fenqing is in China.
Fenqing

They are not a minority in the society. I guess in countries like China and India, there are many nationalistic people there. Of course you can see in this thread how many Indian posters here firmly believe that what they know is the truth.

I guess China is lucky that it is not a democracy right now, because if you haven't noticed majority of the peolpe from China who have strong feelings regarding those issues are ones that are aboard rather than from China. There is something else I have to say, but in another time.

 

[Chinaownseverything]

Yes, India had its fault in 62's war, so did China. The whole thing could have been avoided if they had better communication and understanding.



China's claim on Aksai Chin was because Britain decided to hand over Aksai Chin to Chinese administration as a buffer against Russian invasion. So by the same token, India's control of Arunachal Pradesh is as legitimate as China's claim over Aksai Chin. You can not have both when their legitimacies are under the same circumstance

How was it China's fault? all experts agree on the same thing, the chinese wanted to negotiate, Nehru refused and sent his troops in to claim the disputed territory declaring that he will drive out all chinese. China's only goal was to keep the Indians out of the disputed territory and once they achieved that they declared a cease fire.

The chinese were also extremely nice to Indian POW's, and they even returned all their captured weapons free of charge.

Akasai Chin is also primarily Tibetan, They don't look like Hindus to me. This area has always been part of the tibetan empire till it was conquered by the kingdom of Ladakh.

The only people who have any claim to this land is Tibet of the kingdom of Ladakh which no longer exists. These people almost have 100% nothing to do with Hindus or pakistani

 

[MilesTogo]

How does it matter how people look? or what religion people belong to for that matter?

How was it China's fault? all experts agree on the same thing, the chinese wanted to negotiate, Nehru refused and sent his troops in to claim the disputed territory declaring that he will drive out all chinese. China's only goal was to keep the Indians out of the disputed territory and once they achieved that they declared a cease fire.

The chinese were also extremely nice to Indian POW's, and they even returned all their captured weapons free of charge.

YouTube - The crushing moment: China India 1962 war - Part 2



Akasai Chin is also primarily Tibetan, They don't look like Hindus to me. This area has always been part of the tibetan empire till it was conquered by the kingdom of Ladakh.

The only people who have any claim to this land is Tibet of the kingdom of Ladakh which no longer exists. These people almost have 100% nothing to do with Hindus or pakistani

 

[Chinaownseverything]

Don't be discourage by "chinaowneverything". He just proves that how sensitive this issue can be in both countries to common people who are exposed to this. The sensitivity n China's case it is more than just a product of propaganda because trust me on this, 62's war and the territory dispute between China and India are hardly talked about in the public by the main stream medias.

You should see what Fenqing is in China.
Fenqing

They are not a minority in the society. I guess in countries like China and India, there are many nationalistic people there. Of course you can see in this thread how many Indian posters here firmly believe that what they know is the truth.

I guess China is lucky that it is not a democracy right now, because if you haven't noticed majority of the peolpe from China who have strong feelings regarding those issues are ones that are aboard rather than from China. There is something else I have to say, but in another time.

The problem is that you do not view these people as chinese, I do. I have studied this matter extensively and the people living in these areas have almost the same DNA as us and almost no DNA in common with the average Hindu that makes up the majority of India. I would not have a problem if India was treating these people well, but we all know the truth that if these areas became part of China these people will be able to visit their families living in Tibet. The Chinese government actually makes an effort to provide all their citizens with clean water, education and shelter something that the Indian government is seemingly incapable of. These people are culturally and genetically similar to use yet they are controlled by some government that can't even care for their own people for the sole purpose of exploiting the natural resources in the land. Historically, culturally, genetically they are part of China while India has no claim whatsoever other than BRITAIN USED TO OWN IT SO NOW IT BELONGS TO US! The same argument could be used for something ridiculous like the USA belongs to India.

Brain's response muted when we see other races in pain - life - 01 July 2009 - New Scientist

The brain is not an equal opportunities organ, it seems. An imaging study of Chinese and Caucasian people has found that their brains respond less strongly to the pain of strangers whose ethnicity is different when compared with strangers of their own race.

 

[amit27]

Akasai Chin is also primarily Tibetan, They don't look like Hindus to me. This area has always been part of the tibetan empire till it was conquered by the kingdom of Ladakh.

The only people who have any claim to this land is Tibet of the kingdom of Ladakh which no longer exists. These people almost have 100% nothing to do with Hindus or pakistani

Chinaownseverything
Umm was religion got to do with land mass? thats like saying the muslims and turks in China dont look Han chinese so why dont they have their own land? your arguement is very shaky


Actually Tibet has alot to do with hindus and sikhs because buddhism is a dharmic religion who all 3 believe in karma, reincarnation, moksha/nirvana and the Kali yuga. The holy site of Mount Kailash is a pilgrim site for all 3 dharmic religions, so we have more in common then Han Chinese thats for sure.

 

[Chinaownseverything]

How does it matter how people look? or what religion people belong to for that matter?

Looks usually = genetics also look at the Haplo group map

See that large slice of blue? That is Han DNA while Tibetans have almost 0% of the grey which is Indian DNA

See that sign in the back? those characters are chinese. These people are gentically chinese, culturally chinese, they write in chinese characters, they speak in Tibetan. They have NO RELATION to hindus in India.

 

[MilesTogo]

So do all Chinese speak same language and follow same religion?

Looks usually = genetics also look at the Haplo group map

See that large slice of blue? That is Han DNA while Tibetans have almost 0% of the grey which is Indian DNA

See that sign in the back? those characters are chinese. These people are gentically chinese, culturally chinese, they write in chinese characters, they speak in Tibetan. They have NO RELATION to hindus in India.

 

[amit27]

Tibet has more to do with Hindus and Sikhs then it has for Han chinese and looks/genetics dont mean nothing


In China the Turkish and muslim people dont look nothing like Han chinese so based on that argument they should have a separate country from Han's.

 

[Joe Shearer]

rediff.com: rediff.com Special: Who was to blame for the 1962 war? Was it India or China who initiated the conflict?

Check this article, it explains who REALLY started the war.

The article is by your beloved Rediff, and even they admit that India was the aggressor

And Even wikipedia agrees Nehru started the war first by initiating the Forward Policy

Events leading to the Sino-Indian War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Furthermore India has no claim to Arunachal Pradesh, what language do the people speak here? They speak Tibetan, they look Tibetan they are Tibetan.

Why does India claim Arunachal Pradesh? because it was SIGNED OVER TO BRITAIN.

Why would Tibet sign over their own land for free?

McMahon Line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, Tibet refused to recognize the boundaries drawn by these treaties[citation needed]. British forces led by Sir Francis Younghusband invaded Tibet in 1904 and imposed a treaty on the Tibetans.


Because the British FORCED them to at gunpoint.

This land was originally was owned by Tibet, who was PART OF CHINA. Tibet signed it over the Britain.


SO WHY THE HELL DOES INDIA GET THIS PIECE OF LAND? WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE TIBETAN!?!?

Why can you not disprove my arguments? Even your beloved Reddit says that Indians are wrong.

Even history says you are wrong, these lands have always belonged to tibet never once in history to India.

Dear Sir,

I can make mincemeat of your arguments. Unlike you, I have studied history. For your information, if it were necessary, I would do the butchery with Chinese sources in front of me and always taken into consideration.

This has been a subject of deep study for me, and I am fully sure of what I am saying and thinking.

On the contrary, I refuse to react to your posts, for the simple reason that I do not enter into discussions with full-time controversialists.

If a balanced, rational individual were to have asked, during the normal run of discussion, I would have answered. Unfortunately, I despise the belligerence, the bad manners that you and your kind, of all nationalities, represent, and I refuse to enter into food-fights with badly-behaved children. You may continue to exchange insults with those who are interested in doing so. You will not even get the time of day from me in future.

Sincerely,