At the level of state philosophy, if there is such a thing, India has been a country represented - always - by a philosophy of strategic restraint.
This philosophy insists that it is not in Indian culture or heritage to be an aggressor nation. It is natural that during a very long and poorly recorded history, there will be many examples that may be selected to prove that this was so.
There may be as many examples to prove the contrary. for instance, the Magadhan Empire had bitten deep into the Seleukian successor kingdom to the empire left by Alexander III of Macedon,the Great; the Chola kings of the southern Coromandel coast reinforced existing Tamil settlements in Sri Lanka and consolidated them into an empire of its own; the Cholas went on to influence and even dominate politically large tracts of south east Asia; the Mughals ruled over large parts of Afghanistan; the Maratha admirals dominated the Indian Ocean in their time; the Sikhs penetrated into Afghanistan and into Tibet; and the Gurkha kingdom penetrated into Tibet.
Even a simple glance at these episodes will bear out the evidence of strategic restraint. Indian monarchs were not really oriented to conquests overseas.
British colonial rule was a significant deviation. It is not surprising that the British, being an expansionary power, saw no cultural or legacy related constraint on their actions. They expanded from their Indian base in every direction: into Sri Lanka, to Aden, to the Gulf states, to Afghanistan, to Tibet, to Burma, to the Straits of Malacca, indeed, to China itself. This was significant because it left India, at independence, with contradictions in its policies.
While the cultural constraint was a powerful influence, it was traditional to hold what a state had. The Indian state had boundaries which were never well defined, with the Ottoman Empire in the Gulf, with Afghanistan, with Tibet or even with Burma. In fact, even while both Sri Lanka and India were under common administrative control, there were anomalies - the island of Kachchateevu, for instance - that caused problems.
These boundary issues were divided with the progressive departure of the British. Kuwait inherited - was itself - the boundary issue with the Mesopotamian province; Pakistan got Gwadar and the Afghan border; India got the Tibetan, Burmese and Sri Lankan borders.
This messy situation with the borders prevented India from reverting to its traditional posture of strategic restraint until the blood-letting of the 1962 border conflict with China. That was the last occasion on which the Indian state found itself at war over boundaries. And the result of that conflict firmly reinforced the tendency to observe strategic restraint.
On subsequent occasions, in 1965, in 1971, in 2002, and on all occasions on the border with China, India observed strategic restraint.
From the point of view of the philosophy guiding Indian foreign relations therefore, it is unlikely that India will take sides against China under any circumstances. There can be dramatic exceptions, linked to an outrage perpetrated by China, but there is no possibility of violence under normal circumstances.
This is one of the
biggest Bull-Crap one hears from Indians. We are a very peaceful and status quo country any where in the world.
Let me counter this by some of this ......
Even though, many Indians would say, oh this is just a mythology - but just see the thought process .....
The number killed in the Mahabharata War
April 9, 2009 — Hariprasad
My previous article on the Akshouhini gave rise to some interesting discussions in the comments section. Sri Chiraan rightly pointed out that the actual number of people who participated in the war had to be much more. It was, after all, the “Maha”bharata war!
I recalled reading in the Tatparya Nirnaya that the number 18 Akshouhinis was just the core army. The actual army *had* to be much bigger! So I got down to doing some research on this and yes, the Bhaarata has captured this detail as well. We find details of the actual fatalities (and survivors) in the war in the Stri Parva. The Pandavas, along with Krishna, come to meet Dhritharashtra and Gandhari. At one point, Dhritharashtra asks Yudhishthira if he knows the number of people dead and number of survivors. The numbers that Dharma reveals are
• Fatalities : 1 billion, 660 million and 20,000!!!
• Survivors : 240,165
Today’s world population is 6 billion, 700 odd million. Even in today’s terms, about 25% of the population got wiped out in the war!
The number killed in the Mahabharata War « Anandatirtha Prathishtana
Ashoka, who is pronounced as the most peaceful of the emperors, during his rampaging invasion of the eastern province of Kalinga, saw his army slew more than 100,000 men.
Lets see the current environment .....
India is not a status-quo power. It is a regional hegemon. It invaded and captured Junagarh and Manavadar in 1947, invaded and captured Indian Occupied Kashmir in 1947, invaded and captured Hyderabad in 1948, invaded and captured Goa in 1961 which was an area belonging to Portugal, invaded East Pakistan in 1971, invaded and captured Sikkim as late as 1975, invaded and captured some portions of Siachen in 1988, created Sri Lankan terrorist group LTTE and later invaded Sri Lanka in 1988 till the President of Sri Lanka had to openly ask the Indians to leave, invaded Maldives in 1988 and has continually interfered in internal affairs of Nepal and Bhutan and has spread state sponsored terrorism in all her neighbouring states including Pakistan.
C'mon guys, have a heart. Don't spread falsehood in such a blatant manner.
Don't carry out historical butchery with lies that tend to hide such grotesque and ugly historical facts.
why would India backstab China when India can stab it in the front since India is NO friend of China. The question of backstabing arises when one is a good friend of other. India will surely side with Japan as its in her interests
