Comments by "" (@Rav01508) on "DW News"
channel.
-
37
-
37
-
23
-
13
-
11
-
9
-
The bottom 5 countries with the lowest GDP per capita in G20 (1990)
16. Brazil🇧🇷 = $3,190
17. Indonesia🇮🇩 = $771
18. Russia🇷🇺 = $472
19. China🇨🇳 = $374
20. India🇮🇳 = $369👈
The bottom 5 countries with the lowest GDP per capita in G20 (2000)
16. Brazil🇧🇷 = $3,865
17. Russia🇷🇺 = $1,898
18. Indonesia🇮🇩 = $870
19. China🇨🇳 = $951
20. India🇮🇳 = $442👈
The bottom 5 countries with the lowest GDP per capita in G20 (2010)
16. Turkey🇹🇷 = $10,533
17. S. Africa🇿🇦 = $8,130
18. China🇨🇳 = $4,500
19. Indonesia🇮🇩 = $3,177
20. India🇮🇳 = $1,351👈
The bottom 5 countries with the lowest GDP per capita in G20 (2020)
16. Turkey🇹🇷 = $8,613
17. Brazil🇧🇷 = $7,345
18. S. Africa🇿🇦 = $5,672
19. Indonesia🇮🇩 = $3,919
20. India🇮🇳 = $1,916👈
*Consistency is the key to success, India🇮🇳 took it to the next level
9
-
9
-
The McMahon Line was first drafted in 1913, and the treaty to ratify them (Simla Accords) was never signed by the Republic Of China(ROC) who had just overthrown the Qing dynasty. There was no such thing as the McMahon Line in 1890, and China isn't disputing where the Line was drawn, she's disputing the validity of the Line in its entirety. The primary Indian claim is that the ROC did sign the Simla Accords because a British official called Olaf Caroe fabricated a narrative in 1938 where the ROC signed the Simla Accords (they didn't) and ceded parts of Tibet to the Raj.
In 1963 a British diplomat compared a pre-1938 treaties compendium with the post-Caroe compendium and found that Caroe had changed the note on the ROC's not signing the Simla Accords into one where the ROC signed it and considers the Indo-Tibetan border finalised. Nehru picked up a copy of Caroe's fabricated compendium so he got the impression that his country was legally entitled to more than she actually was. Compounding this was the US' decision to add fuel to the flames by declaring the McMahon Line as the legitimate boundary in an attempt to contain the spread of communism, despite reservations from the US State Department and protests from the fiercely non-communist Chiang Kai-Shek, leader of the ROC.
However, we all know Nehru irreversibly altered his country's relations with China in 1962, so by 1963, when the fabrication was discovered, it was already too late to stem the tide of Indian nationalism based on the false compendium entry. And that leaves us with the situation today, in the aftermath of a British attempt to de jure carve out a piece of Chinese territory which failed but had some success de facto, then a British fabrication of her failed attempt to carve out Chinese territory, then an Indian acceptance of the British fabrication alongside American endorsement, and a Chinese refusal to accept the fabrication as anything remotely legal.
Some Indians recognise that they don't actually have a legal claim to South Tibet, so they've begun using a different claim in that the people living in South Tibet want to be part of India more than China; in essence, a claim based on the principle of self-determination. This is India's secondary claim. However, as history has shown time and time again (Catalonia, Confederate States, Taiwan, Corsica, Chechnya, Tibet, Naxalites), without the permission of the larger body, a smaller section of the population will not be allowed to separate from its original country regardless of what they want.
A much more detailed account of the McMahon Line and its history is available here, written by Peter Lee who, contrary to impressions given by his surname, is not at all Chinese.
8
-
8
-
The McMahon Line was first drafted in 1913, and the treaty to ratify them (Simla Accords) was never signed by the Republic Of China(ROC) who had just overthrown the Qing dynasty. There was no such thing as the McMahon Line in 1890, and China isn't disputing where the Line was drawn, she's disputing the validity of the Line in its entirety. The primary Indian claim is that the ROC did sign the Simla Accords because a British official called Olaf Caroe fabricated a narrative in 1938 where the ROC signed the Simla Accords (they didn't) and ceded parts of Tibet to the Raj.
In 1963 a British diplomat compared a pre-1938 treaties compendium with the post-Caroe compendium and found that Caroe had changed the note on the ROC's not signing the Simla Accords into one where the ROC signed it and considers the Indo-Tibetan border finalised. Nehru picked up a copy of Caroe's fabricated compendium so he got the impression that his country was legally entitled to more than she actually was. Compounding this was the US' decision to add fuel to the flames by declaring the McMahon Line as the legitimate boundary in an attempt to contain the spread of communism, despite reservations from the US State Department and protests from the fiercely non-communist Chiang Kai-Shek, leader of the ROC.
However, we all know Nehru irreversibly altered his country's relations with China in 1962, so by 1963, when the fabrication was discovered, it was already too late to stem the tide of Indian nationalism based on the false compendium entry. And that leaves us with the situation today, in the aftermath of a British attempt to de jure carve out a piece of Chinese territory which failed but had some success de facto, then a British fabrication of her failed attempt to carve out Chinese territory, then an Indian acceptance of the British fabrication alongside American endorsement, and a Chinese refusal to accept the fabrication as anything remotely legal.
Some Indians recognise that they don't actually have a legal claim to South Tibet, so they've begun using a different claim in that the people living in South Tibet want to be part of India more than China; in essence, a claim based on the principle of self-determination. This is India's secondary claim. However, as history has shown time and time again (Catalonia, Confederate States, Taiwan, Corsica, Chechnya, Tibet, Naxalites), without the permission of the larger body, a smaller section of the population will not be allowed to separate from its original country regardless of what they want.
A much more detailed account of the McMahon Line and its history is available here, written by Peter Lee who, contrary to impressions given by his surname, is not at all Chinese.
8
-
8
-
7
-
The McMahon Line was first drafted in 1913, and the treaty to ratify them (Simla Accords) was never signed by the Republic Of China(ROC) who had just overthrown the Qing dynasty. There was no such thing as the McMahon Line in 1890, and China isn't disputing where the Line was drawn, she's disputing the validity of the Line in its entirety. The primary Indian claim is that the ROC did sign the Simla Accords because a British official called Olaf Caroe fabricated a narrative in 1938 where the ROC signed the Simla Accords (they didn't) and ceded parts of Tibet to the Raj.
In 1963 a British diplomat compared a pre-1938 treaties compendium with the post-Caroe compendium and found that Caroe had changed the note on the ROC's not signing the Simla Accords into one where the ROC signed it and considers the Indo-Tibetan border finalised. Nehru picked up a copy of Caroe's fabricated compendium so he got the impression that his country was legally entitled to more than she actually was. Compounding this was the US' decision to add fuel to the flames by declaring the McMahon Line as the legitimate boundary in an attempt to contain the spread of communism, despite reservations from the US State Department and protests from the fiercely non-communist Chiang Kai-Shek, leader of the ROC.
However, we all know Nehru irreversibly altered his country's relations with China in 1962, so by 1963, when the fabrication was discovered, it was already too late to stem the tide of Indian nationalism based on the false compendium entry. And that leaves us with the situation today, in the aftermath of a British attempt to de jure carve out a piece of Chinese territory which failed but had some success de facto, then a British fabrication of her failed attempt to carve out Chinese territory, then an Indian acceptance of the British fabrication alongside American endorsement, and a Chinese refusal to accept the fabrication as anything remotely legal.
Some Indians recognise that they don't actually have a legal claim to South Tibet, so they've begun using a different claim in that the people living in South Tibet want to be part of India more than China; in essence, a claim based on the principle of self-determination. This is India's secondary claim. However, as history has shown time and time again (Catalonia, Confederate States, Taiwan, Corsica, Chechnya, Tibet, Naxalites), without the permission of the larger body, a smaller section of the population will not be allowed to separate from its original country regardless of what they want.
A much more detailed account of the McMahon Line and its history is available here, written by Peter Lee who, contrary to impressions given by his surname, is not at all Chinese.
7
-
The McMahon Line was first drafted in 1913, and the treaty to ratify them (Simla Accords) was never signed by the Republic Of China(ROC) who had just overthrown the Qing dynasty. There was no such thing as the McMahon Line in 1890, and China isn't disputing where the Line was drawn, she's disputing the validity of the Line in its entirety. The primary Indian claim is that the ROC did sign the Simla Accords because a British official called Olaf Caroe fabricated a narrative in 1938 where the ROC signed the Simla Accords (they didn't) and ceded parts of Tibet to the Raj.
In 1963 a British diplomat compared a pre-1938 treaties compendium with the post-Caroe compendium and found that Caroe had changed the note on the ROC's not signing the Simla Accords into one where the ROC signed it and considers the Indo-Tibetan border finalised. Nehru picked up a copy of Caroe's fabricated compendium so he got the impression that his country was legally entitled to more than she actually was. Compounding this was the US' decision to add fuel to the flames by declaring the McMahon Line as the legitimate boundary in an attempt to contain the spread of communism, despite reservations from the US State Department and protests from the fiercely non-communist Chiang Kai-Shek, leader of the ROC.
However, we all know Nehru irreversibly altered his country's relations with China in 1962, so by 1963, when the fabrication was discovered, it was already too late to stem the tide of Indian nationalism based on the false compendium entry. And that leaves us with the situation today, in the aftermath of a British attempt to de jure carve out a piece of Chinese territory which failed but had some success de facto, then a British fabrication of her failed attempt to carve out Chinese territory, then an Indian acceptance of the British fabrication alongside American endorsement, and a Chinese refusal to accept the fabrication as anything remotely legal.
Some Indians recognise that they don't actually have a legal claim to South Tibet, so they've begun using a different claim in that the people living in South Tibet want to be part of India more than China; in essence, a claim based on the principle of self-determination. This is India's secondary claim. However, as history has shown time and time again (Catalonia, Confederate States, Taiwan, Corsica, Chechnya, Tibet, Naxalites), without the permission of the larger body, a smaller section of the population will not be allowed to separate from its original country regardless of what they want.
A much more detailed account of the McMahon Line and its history is available here, written by Peter Lee who, contrary to impressions given by his surname, is not at all Chinese.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
The McMahon Line was first drafted in 1913, and the treaty to ratify them (Simla Accords) was never signed by the Republic Of China(ROC) who had just overthrown the Qing dynasty. There was no such thing as the McMahon Line in 1890, and China isn't disputing where the Line was drawn, she's disputing the validity of the Line in its entirety. The primary Indian claim is that the ROC did sign the Simla Accords because a British official called Olaf Caroe fabricated a narrative in 1938 where the ROC signed the Simla Accords (they didn't) and ceded parts of Tibet to the Raj.
In 1963 a British diplomat compared a pre-1938 treaties compendium with the post-Caroe compendium and found that Caroe had changed the note on the ROC's not signing the Simla Accords into one where the ROC signed it and considers the Indo-Tibetan border finalised. Nehru picked up a copy of Caroe's fabricated compendium so he got the impression that his country was legally entitled to more than she actually was. Compounding this was the US' decision to add fuel to the flames by declaring the McMahon Line as the legitimate boundary in an attempt to contain the spread of communism, despite reservations from the US State Department and protests from the fiercely non-communist Chiang Kai-Shek, leader of the ROC.
However, we all know Nehru irreversibly altered his country's relations with China in 1962, so by 1963, when the fabrication was discovered, it was already too late to stem the tide of Indian nationalism based on the false compendium entry. And that leaves us with the situation today, in the aftermath of a British attempt to de jure carve out a piece of Chinese territory which failed but had some success de facto, then a British fabrication of her failed attempt to carve out Chinese territory, then an Indian acceptance of the British fabrication alongside American endorsement, and a Chinese refusal to accept the fabrication as anything remotely legal.
Some Indians recognise that they don't actually have a legal claim to South Tibet, so they've begun using a different claim in that the people living in South Tibet want to be part of India more than China; in essence, a claim based on the principle of self-determination. This is India's secondary claim. However, as history has shown time and time again (Catalonia, Confederate States, Taiwan, Corsica, Chechnya, Tibet, Naxalites), without the permission of the larger body, a smaller section of the population will not be allowed to separate from its original country regardless of what they want.
A much more detailed account of the McMahon Line and its history is available here, written by Peter Lee who, contrary to impressions given by his surname, is not at all Chinese.
6
-
6
-
6
-
Problem in pajeetland 🇮🇳 which will never be solved
1. Poverty: Persistent poverty affects millions, especially in rural areas.
2. Unemployment: High joblessness, particularly among the youth.
3. Education Disparities: Unequal access to quality education across regions.
4. Healthcare Access: Inadequate healthcare infrastructure, especially in rural areas.
5. Corruption: Corruption hinders development and public services.
6. Pollution: Severe air and water pollution, especially in urban areas.
7. Rape and Sexual Violence: Widespread reports of rape, harassment, and abuse, calling for stronger legal action and protection for victims.
8. Gender Inequality: Discrimination and violence against women in various forms.
9. Sanitation and Hygiene: Poor sanitation, leading to diseases and health problems.
10. Water Scarcity: Limited access to clean drinking water and irrigation.
11. Climate Change: Rising temperatures and erratic weather affecting agriculture.
12. Religious and Communal Tensions: Conflicts based on religion disrupt social harmony.
13. Judicial Delays: Slow legal processes and a massive backlog of court cases.
14. Child Labor: Continued exploitation of children in labor despite laws.
15. Farmer Suicides: Agricultural distress leading to farmer suicides.
16. Urban Slums: Overcrowded and underdeveloped slums in major cities.
17. Drug Addiction: Rising drug addiction, particularly in states like Punjab.
18. Caste Discrimination: Persistent social inequality based on caste.
19. Public Infrastructure: Inadequate transportation, electricity, and roads in many regions.
20. Mental Health Stigma: Lack of access to mental health care and societal stigma.
And Many More
Shame on poojeets.
6
-
6
-
6
-
The McMahon Line was first drafted in 1913, and the treaty to ratify them (Simla Accords) was never signed by the Republic Of China(ROC) who had just overthrown the Qing dynasty. There was no such thing as the McMahon Line in 1890, and China isn't disputing where the Line was drawn, she's disputing the validity of the Line in its entirety. The primary Indian claim is that the ROC did sign the Simla Accords because a British official called Olaf Caroe fabricated a narrative in 1938 where the ROC signed the Simla Accords (they didn't) and ceded parts of Tibet to the Raj.
In 1963 a British diplomat compared a pre-1938 treaties compendium with the post-Caroe compendium and found that Caroe had changed the note on the ROC's not signing the Simla Accords into one where the ROC signed it and considers the Indo-Tibetan border finalised. Nehru picked up a copy of Caroe's fabricated compendium so he got the impression that his country was legally entitled to more than she actually was. Compounding this was the US' decision to add fuel to the flames by declaring the McMahon Line as the legitimate boundary in an attempt to contain the spread of communism, despite reservations from the US State Department and protests from the fiercely non-communist Chiang Kai-Shek, leader of the ROC.
However, we all know Nehru irreversibly altered his country's relations with China in 1962, so by 1963, when the fabrication was discovered, it was already too late to stem the tide of Indian nationalism based on the false compendium entry. And that leaves us with the situation today, in the aftermath of a British attempt to de jure carve out a piece of Chinese territory which failed but had some success de facto, then a British fabrication of her failed attempt to carve out Chinese territory, then an Indian acceptance of the British fabrication alongside American endorsement, and a Chinese refusal to accept the fabrication as anything remotely legal.
Some Indians recognise that they don't actually have a legal claim to South Tibet, so they've begun using a different claim in that the people living in South Tibet want to be part of India more than China; in essence, a claim based on the principle of self-determination. This is India's secondary claim. However, as history has shown time and time again (Catalonia, Confederate States, Taiwan, Corsica, Chechnya, Tibet, Naxalites), without the permission of the larger body, a smaller section of the population will not be allowed to separate from its original country regardless of what they want.
A much more detailed account of the McMahon Line and its history is available here, written by Peter Lee who, contrary to impressions given by his surname, is not at all Chinese.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The McMahon Line was first drafted in 1913, and the treaty to ratify them (Simla Accords) was never signed by the Republic Of China(ROC) who had just overthrown the Qing dynasty. There was no such thing as the McMahon Line in 1890, and China isn't disputing where the Line was drawn, she's disputing the validity of the Line in its entirety. The primary Indian claim is that the ROC did sign the Simla Accords because a British official called Olaf Caroe fabricated a narrative in 1938 where the ROC signed the Simla Accords (they didn't) and ceded parts of Tibet to the Raj.
In 1963 a British diplomat compared a pre-1938 treaties compendium with the post-Caroe compendium and found that Caroe had changed the note on the ROC's not signing the Simla Accords into one where the ROC signed it and considers the Indo-Tibetan border finalised. Nehru picked up a copy of Caroe's fabricated compendium so he got the impression that his country was legally entitled to more than she actually was. Compounding this was the US' decision to add fuel to the flames by declaring the McMahon Line as the legitimate boundary in an attempt to contain the spread of communism, despite reservations from the US State Department and protests from the fiercely non-communist Chiang Kai-Shek, leader of the ROC.
However, we all know Nehru irreversibly altered his country's relations with China in 1962, so by 1963, when the fabrication was discovered, it was already too late to stem the tide of Indian nationalism based on the false compendium entry. And that leaves us with the situation today, in the aftermath of a British attempt to de jure carve out a piece of Chinese territory which failed but had some success de facto, then a British fabrication of her failed attempt to carve out Chinese territory, then an Indian acceptance of the British fabrication alongside American endorsement, and a Chinese refusal to accept the fabrication as anything remotely legal.
Some Indians recognise that they don't actually have a legal claim to South Tibet, so they've begun using a different claim in that the people living in South Tibet want to be part of India more than China; in essence, a claim based on the principle of self-determination. This is India's secondary claim. However, as history has shown time and time again (Catalonia, Confederate States, Taiwan, Corsica, Chechnya, Tibet, Naxalites), without the permission of the larger body, a smaller section of the population will not be allowed to separate from its original country regardless of what they want.
A much more detailed account of the McMahon Line and its history is available here, written by Peter Lee who, contrary to impressions given by his surname, is not at all Chinese.
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
The McMahon Line was first drafted in 1913, and the treaty to ratify them (Simla Accords) was never signed by the Republic Of China(ROC) who had just overthrown the Qing dynasty. There was no such thing as the McMahon Line in 1890, and China isn't disputing where the Line was drawn, she's disputing the validity of the Line in its entirety. The primary Indian claim is that the ROC did sign the Simla Accords because a British official called Olaf Caroe fabricated a narrative in 1938 where the ROC signed the Simla Accords (they didn't) and ceded parts of Tibet to the Raj.
In 1963 a British diplomat compared a pre-1938 treaties compendium with the post-Caroe compendium and found that Caroe had changed the note on the ROC's not signing the Simla Accords into one where the ROC signed it and considers the Indo-Tibetan border finalised. Nehru picked up a copy of Caroe's fabricated compendium so he got the impression that his country was legally entitled to more than she actually was. Compounding this was the US' decision to add fuel to the flames by declaring the McMahon Line as the legitimate boundary in an attempt to contain the spread of communism, despite reservations from the US State Department and protests from the fiercely non-communist Chiang Kai-Shek, leader of the ROC.
However, we all know Nehru irreversibly altered his country's relations with China in 1962, so by 1963, when the fabrication was discovered, it was already too late to stem the tide of Indian nationalism based on the false compendium entry. And that leaves us with the situation today, in the aftermath of a British attempt to de jure carve out a piece of Chinese territory which failed but had some success de facto, then a British fabrication of her failed attempt to carve out Chinese territory, then an Indian acceptance of the British fabrication alongside American endorsement, and a Chinese refusal to accept the fabrication as anything remotely legal.
Some Indians recognise that they don't actually have a legal claim to South Tibet, so they've begun using a different claim in that the people living in South Tibet want to be part of India more than China; in essence, a claim based on the principle of self-determination. This is India's secondary claim. However, as history has shown time and time again (Catalonia, Confederate States, Taiwan, Corsica, Chechnya, Tibet, Naxalites), without the permission of the larger body, a smaller section of the population will not be allowed to separate from its original country regardless of what they want.
A much more detailed account of the McMahon Line and its history is available here, written by Peter Lee who, contrary to impressions given by his surname, is not at all Chinese.
3
-
A "World Super Power" is one that can exert it's influence/dominance on the World's stage. For example, USA has the USD as the reserve currency of the world whereas China is the factory of the world and also the largest exporter of trade of the World. Russia, on the other hand, is one of the top 5 oil producing country and also the country with the largest number of nuclear arsenal. In addition, Russia also happens to be largest country of the world in terms of land mass and also one of the largest resources rich country. Take a look at how big the size of Russia on the map? What about India?
1) World Super Super Power , India , wanted to pay cheap and heavily discounted Russian oil in Rupees to take advantage of the Ukraine's crisis/war but was ordered to pay in Chinese Yuan instead.
2) World Super Super Power , India , objects to BRICS expansion but everyone in BRICS ignored India's demand and went ahead and expanded BRICS (refer to BRICS Summit)
3) World Super Super Power , India , said that they are "Global leader of technology". However, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has said that India's attempt to develop an artificial intelligence tool like ChatGPT is "hopeless" and that is why Sam Altman over the weekend called for enhanced collaboration between the U.S. and China on artificial intelligence development? Is Sam Altman, the inventor of ChatGPT, belittling India and praising China?
Fun fact 1: OpenAI's Sam Altman Makes Global Call For AI Regulation—And Includes China. Contributor. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman over the weekend called for enhanced collaboration between the U.S. and China on artificial intelligence development.13 Jun 2023
Fun fact 2: 10 Jun 2023 — OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has said that India's attempt to develop an artificial intelligence tool like ChatGPT is 'hopeless.
4) World Super Super Power , India , begged for a permanent UNSC seat for over 30+ years. Nobody listened for over 30+ years since 1994 and each UNSC permanent member took turns to veto against India
Source1 : JSTOR
Title of article: INDIA'S PERMANENT MEMBERSHIP OF THE U. N. SECURITY COUNCIL : CHANGING POWER REALITIES AND NOTIONS OF SECURITY
Author: Manoj Kumar Mishra (Indian)
What article said specifically: India has been bidding for the permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council since 1994 when India made its intention clear in the General Assembly that it was prepared to bear the responsibility of the permanent membership of the Security Council
3
-
3
-
3
-
With riots in Manipur, separatists in Kashmir, Naxalite insurgency, Khalistani resentment, wrestler's protest, massive unemployment, rising farmers suicides, falling groundwater levels, communal tensions,religion politics,north-south india sentiments,uttar pradesh crime rate,poverty,bihar overpopulated,income gap,woman safety,global warming,infrastructure problems,train safety.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3