Comments by "神州 Shenzhou" (@Shenzhou.) on "WION"
channel.
-
1
-
China's dream is to make Asia strong, by building infrastructure in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh as well as in South Africa, like Angola, Djibouti, Kenya, etc. But Indian government always oppose Chinese road building in Kashmir and even Donglong/Doklam, which is not even Indian territory in the first place. Chinese government have stressed repeatedly that India is welcome to participate in Belt and Road Initiative, but Indian government doesn't want in, but in the end, China respect India's wishes if it doesn't want to join OBOR.
1
-
+Smith During 1950s, Zhou Enlai proposed Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence 和平共处五项原则 to define the China-India relations. Zhou Enlai visited New Delhi four times, whereas PM Nehru only visited Beijing once, so who is being more sincere here? Nehru refused to sit down to negotiations, and instead pursued an aggressive "Forward" policy of building military bases at our disputed border, even extending beyond the international line and into actual Chinese territory. There were eventually 60 such outposts, including 43 north of the McMahon Line.
+Sam D China does not force India to join in Belt and Road Initiative if it doesn't want to.
As for US's approach to Pakistan, its goal is to invade Pakistan, just like what US did to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and other Middle Eastern countries. The US approach to wiping out terrorism is to bomb those lands, which result many civilian casualties. Because of this, people become angry with USA, or their own government for letting US invade, so they flock join the terrorists instead and the whole cycle continues. For example, Al Qaeda is originally trained by CIA, but they rebelled against America and become terrorist. The rise of ISIS can also be attributed to US constant meddling in Middle Eastern countries. Whenever one terrorist group is exterminated, another one pops up to replace it, and therefore, this approach is short term and doesn't solve the problem of terrorism.
China's approach is different from USA. People join terrorists groups because they are poor, unemployed, lacking in education or harbor resentment against USA or their own country's problems. So what China is doing, is helping to build up Pakistan's economy, so that more people find jobs and less people join terrorists. The terrorists will slowly find themselves with a shrinking pool of willing recruits, if the country's economy improves. This approach is long-term, and could hopefully solve/reduce the problem of terrorism, by making people less desperate to join the terrorists and is arguably better than USA spending money to bomb those countries instead.
But of course it will take time to build up an entire country's economy and stabilize its government. This is not something that can be achieved at the snap of fingers, like USA ordering an invasion of Middle East. USA has been fighting wars in Middle East for 15 years, with not end in sight, so what makes you think their method is the best approach? Why not spend the money meant on investing to develop the country's infrastructure instead of wasting it on wars?
1
-
+Sam D Are you sure India is self-reliant? Indian army still purchases weapons and military hardware from USA and Russia for defense so how is India self-reliant, when its defensive capabilities depends on these to countries continued support? Unless you can manufacture your own weapons and military, India wouldn't be able to act in its own interests when its defenses rely on imported hardware.
Even if you claim that terrorism in Pakistan is because of state-support, it is primary because Pakistan views India as a threat which is why it wants to acquire weapons to defend itself. Remember that India supported Bangladesh independence from Western Pakistan, causing Pakistan to lose more of its territory, so it is constantly under further threat from India. Whether the threat is imagined or not, Pakistan feels that this threat is very real.
There is nothing China can do about Pakistan's hostility towards India. Right now, Pakistan government is probably investing more money into the country's defense and its army, instead of its economy. What China hopes to achieve with CPEC is to develop Pakistan's economy, so that Pakistan government will be tempted to spend more on developing its growing economy, instead of on acquiring new weapons. Terrorism may be Pakistan's bargaining chip at the moment, but once CPEC is complete, and Pakistan's economy kicks off, then Pakistan government will begin to see more value in protecting its growing economy, and less value in maintaining terrorist assets (which serve to disrupt economic trade and create unrest that's all)
India and Pakistan have already been fighting for 70 over years, so how long do you expect your countries to continue on like this? Imagine another 70 years later, and India and Pakistan still fighting each other, instead of mending relations long ago. CPEC is opportunity for both India and Pakistan to finally end their feud and to promote economic prosperity instead, and China would welcome any Indian support for CPEC. Once India and Pakistan economies become linked, it become harder for terrorists to attack such a link, knowing that it will also damage Pakistan's economy as well isn't it? Thus, the Pakistan government will become less likely to support terrorism in favor of promoting trade instead.
Like I mentioned, you people only focus on short term issues and ignore the long term issues altogether. Pakistan has known no other way to make a living, except for extremist activities, so why not introduce it to economic trade instead?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Adityaa Chaubey Exactly what do you know of the Chinese army? PLA is among one of world's most disciplined forces in the world, tolerating even 2 months of Indian troops presence within our territory in Donglong. On the other hand, Indian army has been associated with cases of rape.
For example, Indian Peacekeeping Forces in Sri Lanka were accused of raping Tamils in Sri Lanka and committing various atrocities. During the Kashmir conflict, rape has been used as a weapon of war by Indian security forces; comprising the Indian Army, against the Kashmiri population. These are reports gleamed from Wikipedia and other sources, and its no secret that Indian army has a poor reputation because of this unfortunate history.
India has treaty with Bhutan, but Bhutanese government doesn't have evidence to support its claim to Donglong, so how is it justified for India to send its troops into Chinese territory? I keep asking: "Where is Bhutanese government proof of ownership?"
How is building a road changing the status quo? Prior to 1998, Donglong was under Chinese control, but claimed by Bhutan. Currently, Donglong is still under Chinese control, but claimed by Bhutan. Exactly what part of the status quo has changed?
All you do is ridicule and look down on me, when you don't even produce reliable evidence of your own. You dismiss every evidence China produces, yet support Bhutan when it does not have any proof of its own. It only goes to show your double standards being applied against Chinese people and our government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Aniruddh Joshi According to this source (web.archive.org/web/20021024231629/http://www.bhutannewsonline.com/bhutan_china.html ) "During this round of talk, Bhutan had extended the claim line of the border beyond what the Chinese government had offered.... His Majesty the King told the National Assembly of Bhutan on 14 July, 2001 that the proposed extension of the border along the three sectors under discussion were in Doglam, Sinchulumba, and Dramana areas."
So Bhutan had extended their claim line beyond China into Doglam.
+Adityaa Chaubey First of all, I quoted evidence to support my claim, but all you done is dismiss them entirely. Then you refuse to explain why Bhutan claims Doklam, or why India shift the tri-junction to Batang La without Chinese consultation or approval. There is no formal agreement that Batang La is the trijunction, however, there exists formal agreement where Mount Gipmochi is stated as the tri-junction.
Lastly, I do not insult you for your views, whereas you have been mocking and belittling me constantly. You agreed that " Chinese are an inferior race. China is a disease which needs to be treated. They are robbers who are stealing everything, be it technology or neighbour's land." so who are you to mock Chinese people and our inventions? Chinese people invented many inventions, namely paper, printing, compass, gunpowder etc. Thanks to paper and printing, knowledge gets recorded and passed down, and compass enabled explorers to map out the world. Gunpowder has also revolutionized warfare as we know today.
Yet you call us Chinese a disease which needs to be treated? You are despicable person who knows absolutely nothing about Chinese people and constantly belittle us.
1
-
+Adityaa Chaubey I have mentioned in my post the section where Bhutan had extended the claim line of the border beyond to include Doglam. This means that Bhutan had initially recognized it as being part China, but choose to extend its claims beyond into Donglong, thinking that Bhutan being a small country and China being a very large and friendly neighbor would solve the issue quickly.
This article (ecns.cn/voices/2017/08-03/267944_2.shtml ) by US scholar Jon Taylor, a professor of political science at University of St Thomas, Houston, said the Indian military breached both international law and treaty convention by entering Chinese territory shortly after their Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited the U.S. The end of the article also says "The U.S. has not taken a side so far. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauertsaid on July 18 that the U.S. is concerned about the ongoing situation there, saying both sides should work together to try to come up with some better sort of arrangement for peace."
This Japanese article shows that Japanese embassy denied Hiramatsu ever outrightly stating support for India. Original: (sp.m.jiji.com/generalnews/article/genre/intl/id/1875970 )
Translated version: (translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ja&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://sp.m.jiji.com/generalnews/article/genre/intl/id/1875970&usg=ALkJrhhAC3zhBHvhpDG7Pb0rR1B0putiOA )
Lastly, USA's and UK's trade practices have nothing to do with China and Bhutan's territorial claims. Bhutan doesn't even maintain diplomatic relations with USA or UK, so why would they support Bhutan's claims? Where is Bhutan's evidence to even show for its claims at all? There is no maps, or treaties etc, referencing Doklam as belonging to Bhutan.
Bhutan doesn't maintatin diplomatic relations with any of the UNSC permanent five members, including Russia and France. It is unlikely that these countries will support Bhutan's territorial claim, over China's.
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Adityaa Chaubey From your quotes, Wang Dehua said "... puts the construction on hold." there is no mention of stopping construction entirely. Who is to say it won't continue next year or so?
According to my previous source, Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said: "We will take into consideration all factors, including weather, to make revelant construction plans according to the ground."
So only next year after end of winter, will we find out if the government will continue building the road. By then conditions would have changed.
As for Bhutan, it has been spooked by India possibly dragging both Bhutan and India into possible war with China over a territorial dispute. What makes you certain they will ask for India's help the next time? If Bhutan accepts Chinese economic aid, it has a chance to become less dependent on India for aid, and could even lead to establishment of diplomatic relations between our countries, which India has been trying to oppose. Bhutan is its own sovereign country, so it should be allowed to make its own decisions independently of Indian influence.
1
-
+Adityaa Chaubey ANI news network is Indian news network so why is it even reliable at all? Bhutan almost got dragged into a war with China because of India, so you think Bhutan will call upon India for help again? China was busy hosting the BRICS summit so the Doklam/Donglong issue has been shelved aside.
China has settled boundary dispute approximately of 20,000 km with 12 countries out of the 22,000 km and is yet to settle about 2,000 km of boundary involving India and Bhutan.
-In 1961, Nepal and China signed border agreement.
-In 1963, Afghanistan and China signed border agreement.
-In 1991, USSR and China signed Sino-Soviet border agreement.
-In 1994, Kazakhstan and China signed border agreement.
-In 2011, Tajikistan ratified a 1999 deal to cede 1,000 km2 of land to China and China also cede over 28,000 km2 of Tajikistani territory.
China has had 21 talks with Bhutan and 19 talks with India but we still can't solve this border issue, despite solving land disputes with all our land neighbors.
You claim that I have to watch Indian news, yet you keep dimissing all my sources that are in Chinese, then whats to point of providing sources? You keep dismissing my sources just because its Chinese and I can't do the same to your sources which are Indian? If China cut down any existing ties with Bhutan then why did China have 21 talks with Bhutan at all?
China blocked India's entry into NSG because it didn't sign non-proliferation treaty. India also needs the approval of 8 other countries in NSG before it can be admitted.
1
-
+Aniruddh Joshi In 1960s, Zhou Enlai proposed Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence 和平共处五项原则 to define China-India relationship, but Indian PM Nehru snubbed Zhou and refused to sit down to negotiations to settle our borders. Instead, Nehru pursued an aggressive "Forward" policy of building military bases at our disputed border and even went beyond the international line into Chinese territory. So Chinese government had no choice but to defend our sovereignty, if Nehru did not want to talk things peacefully.
All of the above taken from Henderson Brooks–Bhagat Reportt by Neville Maxwell, which has been banned by Indian government for over 50 years since 1962.
If Bhutan claim its their territory, then where is evidence to show that the territory belongs to them? Bhutan did not produce evidence such as maps, treaties, etc, to support its territorial claims, so what makes it valid Bhutanese territory? And Bhutan-Indian treaty did not say Bhutan can use Indian army to support its territorial claims.
1
-
+Adityaa Chaubey This article outlines the reasons for 1962 conflict.
(web.archive.org/web/20090326032121/http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~johnston/garver.pdf )
Here are excerpts from the above source:
-Zhou Enlai during his April 1960 visit to India, proposed China drop its claims in the eastern sector in exchange for India dropping its claims in the western sector. Such a swap would have given each side legal right to territory already in its possession and most important to each nation’s security. Nehru rejected the swap proposal and insisted that China abandon its claim in the east and withdraw from Aksai Chin in the west.
-Three rounds of border talks were held in 1960 following two visits by Zhou to India. (Zhou visited India four times, while his counterpart Nehru visited China only once.)
-Mao proposed a withdrawal of 20 kilometers. If India was unwilling to do this, Mao suggested, China would unilaterally withdraw. Thus, Chinese forces were ordered to withdraw 20 kilometers from what China felt was the line of actual control, and to cease patrolling in that forward zone. Tension declined for 23 months.
-Indian forces were ordered to “push forward.” When Indian forces initially began implementing the Forward Policy, Chinese forces withdrew when they encountered the newly advanced Indian outposts. This “encouraged” the Indian side and led to the further acceleration of the Forward Policy.
-Chinese discovered withdrawing was pointless and causing us to lose ground. Chinese border forces also abandoned their initial policy of withdrawing when encountering new Indian posts. Chinese forces began standing their ground.
-In April 1962 India accelerated implementation of the Forward Policy in the eastern sector. 60 More Indian posts were built on commanding heights near existing PLA outposts, and aerial and ground reconnaissance was increased
-Zhou Enlai directed China’s representative, foreign minister and former veteran General Chen Yi, to seek out India’s representative, Defense Minister Krishna Menon, and urge him to find ways of preventing the border situation from further deteriorating.
-Chen asked Menon what ideas the “honorable Indian government” had about solving the Sino-Indian border problem? Menon replied that, in India's view, there was no border problem between China and India. The location of the boundary was very clearly displayed on Indian maps. This message was conveyed in an arrogant tone of voice. Chen Yi then said that Indian forces were steadily advancing into Chinese territory, and could it be that the Indian representative did not know this? Menon replied that the movements of Indian troops were taking place on Indian territory.
-Chen proposed that he and Menon issue a joint communiqué announcing future talks on the "problem of preventing border conflict." Menon declined this proposal.
...
...
You can read the text for more information. It was because of these reasons which was why China was reluctantly forced to declare war on India.
1
-
+Adityaa Chaubey As you can see, there are lots of people pose as Chinese going around insulting Indians, so how can you really be be sure that such people represent ordinary Chinese people?
Regarding Sino-Indian War in 1962, how exactly did China trick India into going into a war? Mao Zedong ordered retreat of PLA troops and proposed 20KM demilitarized zone and stuck to it. PM Nehru saw Chinese retreat as weakness, and moved Indian Army to fill up our vacated territory. Nehru also refused to discuss the issue, and pursued aggressive "Forward" policy building military bases at our disputed border.
China attacked India to threaten USA and Soviet? Exactly how do you arrive at this conclusion? According to the source, part of the reason China ended the war, was because USA was preparing to join in. The government only acted to defend Chinese sovereignty and to stop Indian intrusion into our lands, when Nehru is continuing to build over 60 military bases at our disputed border.
You claim China tricked Nehru with "mind game" but can you elaborate why you think so? Zhou Enlai visited New Delhi 4 times, but Nehru only visited Beijing once. China and India has had 19 talks over our border dispute, but failed to solve the issue, so how else do you expect to solve this problem, if you refuse to talk?
The government has proposed a deal where China cedes Aksai Chin to India, in exchange for Tawang of Aruanchal Pradesh. The government doesn't really claim entirety of Arunachal Pradesh, only Tawang region for its significance to Tibet. According to Chinese diplomat, Dai Bingguo even the British colonialists who drew the 'McMahon Line' respected China's jurisdiction over Tawang.
China ready to make concessions in Aksai Chin if India cedes part of Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh?
zeenews.india.com/india/china-ready-to-make-concessions-in-aksai-chin-if-india-cedes-part-of-tawang-in-arunachal-pradesh_1982943.html
Otherwise, how else do you propose we solve our border dispute? China and India has had 19 talks and two armed conflicts, but no resolution to this matter. If you continue to blame everything as China's fault, then it is unlikely that this matter is going to be resolved any time soon.
1
-
Whether Prodigy Spot is actually Indian or Pakistan or Chinese, what he says is his own personal opinion, so why fault him for his opinions? You mean to say actual Indians can't have their own opinions about themselves?
+Adityaa Chaubey Your comment about my name Shenzhou already shows your ignorance. The "Shenzhou" you are referring to is a spacecraft, not a missile and it was used to launch China's first astronauts into space as part of China's space program, making China the 3rd nation in world to have successfully conducted manned space missions, aside from USA and Russia. You calling it a "missile" only shows that you lack of knowledge about the subject at all, and is ironic, considering that India hasn't yet conducted a manned space mission of its own.
The words Shenzhou 神舟 means "Divine Ark" and is a homonym and play on my name Shenzhou 神州 meaning "Divine Land" which is one of the ancient literary names of China, sort of like how Bharata is ancient name for India. The name "Divine Land" conjures images of my homeland's beautiful landscape; pillar-like mountain with snow-capped peaks and cascading waterfalls, mysteriously shrouded with mist, with jade green bamboo forests and vast fields of rice with their mirror-like surfaces reflecting the sky above. Just search images of "China mountain" to see what I mean.
My name Shenzhou, represents China, as a glorious and ancient civilization with our own rich history and culture, that has also modernized to become a world power today, capable of launching people into space. Who are you to claim that "Shenzhou is the name of a Chinese missile"?
Shenzhou Program
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhou_program
Indians like you only know how to blame China all the time for the border disputes. You claimed "India was tricked by China into a war" and "China playing mind game" but you failed to elaborate further, so how do you expect me to believe your claims? Do you have any source to back up your claims? You even claim "China attacked attacked India just to threaten the US and the Soviets" when there is no reason to believe so. How does China attacking India link to US and Soviet at all?
1
-
+Adityaa Chaubey Why don't you even read your own source first? According to your source:
These two sentences that mention US and Soviets
-The Nehru administration was encouraged by the US and the Soviets to fight against China.
-Chinese leader Mao Zedong believed the battle with India was also a political combat, and the real target was not Nehru but the US and the Soviets that had been plotting behind the scenes against China.
So it was evident that India was under US and Soviet control to fight against China. Mao Zedong said that the war was also a political combat, meaning that in addition to defending our lands, it was also political combat against US and Soviet. But how is that physically a war with US and Soviet? Did Chinese troops fought any Russians or Americans during Sino-Indian war?
Also, the rest of your source shows that China did not want to fight India, and was only reacting to India's aggressive actions.
-China initially tried to avoid military confrontation, out of respect to India's ancient culture and sympathy that it had suffered a similar painful past of oppression by colonial powers. However, India's persistent provocation eventually breached China's bottom-line, and the People's Liberation Army (PLA) was forced to join the battle in self-defense.
-The PLA decisively halted its military operation and pulled back its troops. China's decision to fight back against India in the 1962 border war was to strike a peace with its neighbor.
-While fighting with the Indian troops, China constantly urged the Indian government to end the conflicts and solve the border issue on the negotiating table.
-China's peaceful intentions were further testified by its unilateral ceasefire on November 22, 1962, and its withdrawal of troops a few days later to 20 kilometers from the line of actual control since November 7, 1959.
-Mao gave India room to maneuver and think during the war. By calling for a unilateral ceasefire when in an advantageous position, pulling back troops and returning prisoners of war and well-maintained weapons to India, Mao wanted to send a message of peace to India, and to lay a good foundation for long-term friendship.
So exactly how is "China tricking India into a war" here? How is China playing "mind games" when Mao offered plenty of opportunities to return to the discussion table, instead of continuing with the fight? Nehru chose to pursue his aggressive "Forward" policy of building military bases, and did not want to negotiate with China peacefully.
Even in one of my previous source, China is willing to cede Aksai Chin to India in exchange for Tawang of Arunachal Pradesh, but India rejected this proposal still, so which country is being difficult here?
Lastly, you continuing to label Shenzhou as an Aircraft is just further showing you unrepentant ignorance. Shenzhou is China's first manned space mission, allowing China to join the ranks of USA and Russia as countries who have launched successful manned missions. Who are you to simply call it a missile or even an aircraft? Can an Aircraft reach above the stratosphere into orbit? You Indians don't even have any "spacecraft" of your own, and that's why you ignorantly call it an aircraft. I don't insult your name or anything like that, so why do you insult mine? You are the one first brought up issue of Shenzhou being a missile into this discussion.
Regarding China's land disputes, China has settled boundary dispute approximately of 20,000 km with 12 countries out of the 22,000 km and is yet to settle about 2,000 km of boundary involving India and Bhutan.
-In 1961, Nepal and China signed border agreement.
-In 1962, Mongolia and China signed border agreement.
-In 1963, Afghanistan and China signed border agreement.
-In 1963, Pakistan and China signed border agreement.
-In 1991, USSR and China signed Sino-Soviet border agreement.
-In 1992, Laos and China signed border agreement.
-In 1994, Kazakhstan and China signed border agreement.
-In 2011, Tajikistan ratified a 1999 deal to cede 1,000 km2 of land to China and China also cede over 28,000 km2 of Tajikistani territory.
China has 21 talks with Bhutan and 19 talks with India but still fail to settle our countries borders. So why is it China can settle disputes with all our land neighbors except for Bhutan and India here?
1
-
Adityaa Chaubey The Diaoyu Islands were initially Chinese territory, before Japan occupied them and stole them from China during the war. After Japanese signed WW2 surrender treaty in 1945, Japan pledged to give up all its occupied territory, so shouldn't Diaoyu islands be rightfully returned to China?
China claims South China Sea Islands under 9 dash line. North Vietnam leader Phan Van Dong had acknowledged that the Spratly and Paracel Islands were historically Chinese.
When Philippines became independent, it drew its national boundaries and did not include Scarborough Shoals or other islands west of Philippines as within its national boundaries.
Because of this, China assumed nobody is disputing Chinese claims to South China Sea Islands, but slowly in 1970s, those countries began encroaching into Chinese territory. There were various treaties governing South China Sea dispute, but what makes you think other countries claims are correct over China's claims? Since India is not a claimant to any of those islands, it should remain as neutral observer, instead obviously taking sides in this dispute.
Regarding Aksai Chin, you mentioned Nehru's claims in the 1940s but do you know exactly when? China was still under KMT (ROC) control until 1949, when PRC was founded so perhaps you were referring to the previous Chinese administration? China lost Tibet in 1912 and regained control in 1951 but China was not planning to invade India. Tibet was historically part of China but India wasn't and China only claimed territory that was Qing dynasty's right up to 1912.
As mentioned in your source, even if you believe China was going to war, Mao gave Nehru plenty of time to maneuver, such as retreating to 20 KM demilitarized zone and attempting to get Nehru back to negotiating tables instead. But Nehru refused and continued building military bases at our disputed border. Like I quoted earlier, India had about 60 such bases so it was not just a few bases at one time. Why not take the option to discuss things instead of building more bases?
Lastly, this is my post, started by me to express my opinions, and you people are the ones coming here to comment. Nobody is forcing you to write comments if you don't want to, but what right does that give you to stop me posting? This is my post and I have cited sources to support my claims so what am I doing wrong here? Who is the one doubting other people's identity and mocking other people's names?
1
-
Adityaa Chaubey You called me stubborn, said I will never give up and that this discussion meaningless and will go on forever. Then I could also say the same thing about you. You keep on dismissing my sources simply because they are "Chinese" so why should I believe anything you say? Who is the one in denial about Nehru's aggressive "Forward" policy here and simply blame everything on China?
I have given China's view towards South China Sea Islands, but instead of attacking them you just claim other countries rejected them, that's all? Shouldn't Japan relinquish control of Diaoyu islands? Why is Vietnam justified in going against its own wording? You are simply biased against China and will side with any other country, as long as it opposes China, so what makes you justified here? At least I provided points here but you just simply deny them that's all.
In 1947, China was still under previous administration (ROC). Also, Zhou Enlai became Premier in 1949, so how can you claim he agreed to Nehru's claim in 1947? You are simply making up lies to justify your biased views towards China that's all.
Nehru was democratically voted in by Indian people so its your peoples choice to choose someone with poor decision-making and easily deceived to represent india. China had nothing to do with Nehru's election and we treated Nehru with respect befitting India's historical culture. Mao thought India would make good ally against the Western Colonial powers (as shown in your source) but USA and Russia manipulated Nehru into opposing China and straining our potential relations. Our countries has had no great conflicts throughout history, prior to Sino-Indian war and we could have become allied powers against Western colonialism if things were different.
As a leader, Nehru also should have fought harder for India not to be partitioned in 1947 by British and for India to remain independent with all the territories of British India intact. Much of India's political problems stem from the partitioning. In my opinion, India should not have given up its own territory to form Pakistan. Once Pakistan is independent, India can no longer control it and it may grow to become thorn in India's side (as it is now) India also supported Bangladesh independence from West Pakistan, creating another independent country. Each separation weakens the original country. This is why China fight so hard to retain control of Hong Kong and Taiwan. We don't want end up like India and Pakistan, and keep on fighting each other even till today, while British secretly laughing in the background.
India's leaders like Nehru were soft and because of this, other countries leaders will step all over your country. Even Gandhi while non-violent in his approach, was taken advantage of by Britain and in the end he was assassinated by Hindu nationalist who felt that the partition was unjust.
1
-
+Adityaa Chaubey China wanted to befriend India too. Remember that Zhou Enlai proposed Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence 和平共处五项原则 to define China-India relationship? Both Pakistan and India were among the first countries to recognize PRC in UN, over ROC, but in the end, PM Nehru sowed the first seeds of suspicion among Chinese, by providing asylum to 14th Dalai Lama, during Tibet uprising in 1959. The 14th Dalai Lama was traitor who worked with CIA in separatist movements against the government, and CIA aided his escape to India.
The issue between 14th Dalai Lama and China should be internal Chinese affair, but PM Nehru provided asylum to 14th DL, and because of that, China no longer had reason to believe any good intentions of India. Even in the events leading up to the war, Mao Zedong withdrew the PLA 20KM, and proposed demilitarized zone, but Nehru continued his aggressive "Forward" Policy. This gives China the impression that India wants control of Tibet, since India already has 14th DL in its possession. This action taken by India, was perhaps the starting point of the deterioration of relations between India and China, and because of this, China choose to developed better relations with Pakistan instead.
At that time, China was under civil war, so which China (Communists or Nationalists) are you referring to? Neither side of China were invited to sign the Treaty of San Fransico, but the Western powers proceeded with the signing without China's input. As a result, China is not one of the 48 countries that signed treaty of San Fransisco, as shown in the following source
Treaty of San Francisco
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Francisco#Signatories_and_ratification
As for Vietnam, the North Vietnam leader Phan Van Dong had sent a diplomatic letter to Zhou Enlai in 1958, acknowledging that the Spratly and Paracel Islands were historically Chinese. But they broke their word, and slowly began encroaching into Chinese territory.
1958 Diplomatic note from Phan Van Dong to Zhou Enlai.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1958_diplomatic_note_from_phamvandong_to_zhouenlai.jpg
How is the Chinese being aggressive in 1950s? As I said, Zhou Enlai visited New Delhi 4 times, whereas PM Nehru visited Beijing only once. You think Nehru's Forward policy is not being aggressive here? Also, why would a supposedly "aggressive" PLA pull back to 20 KM, whereas Indian army didn't, and even proceeded to build military bases beyond the border into actual Chinese territory? You are unfair in that you label all Chinese actions as "aggressive" when Chinese diplomats were visiting India to attempt to solve the border issue diplomatically.
The partition of India resulted in death of many traveling migrants. Also the subsequent wars between Pakistan and India created much bloodshed. Jinah probably had some vision that he wanted to achieve for Pakistan, but he died early, and then Pakistan was left headless and without direction, and instinctively lashed out at its foster nation India. The fact that India supported Bangladesh against Pakistan, further causes Pakistan to lose more territory of its own.
But that's all in the past, and today, Pakistan is its own sovereign nation as recognized by India, and it deserves a shot at its own success. Pakistan does consider India a threat (whether real or imagined) because India had caused Pakistan to lose control of Bangladesh. Why not attempt mend relations, instead of promoting conflict? China is helping develop Pakistan through CPEC, and this represents rare golden opportunity for India and Pakistan to cooperate economically, instead of opposing each other. Pakistan and India already been fighting each other for almost 70 years, so why continue promoting this conflict?
1
-
+Adityaa Chaubey According to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_coexistence#Chinese_policy
"Premier Zhou Enlai of the People's Republic of China proposed the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence in 1954 during negotiations with India over Tibet and these were written into the Agreement Between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of India on Trade and Intercourse Between the Tibet Region of China and India signed in 1954 by Zhou and Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru.
So why is it untrue that the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence weren't put forward by Zhou Enlai? You are just trying to twist the words to make it sound like India somehow came up with it.
As for Bara Hoti, according to following source, Hoti was popular among Indian traders going to Tibet and was part of Tibetan territory, since Tibetans had once established a customs post there. In 1890, the British government had it removed and in 1952, the Tibetans replaced it. You can see that Hoti was claimed by Tibet before 1890 when British removed the outpost suddenly. In the 1954 Panchsheel Agreement on trade and pilgrimage in Tibet, India forfeited all its rights in Tibet, so how is Bara Hoti constituted as part of Indian territory now? It is part of Tibet and called Wu-Je. The Chinese also protested about armed Indian troops having crossed the Niti pass on 29 June 1954, so its not as though Indian troops haven't been crossing into our territory as well.
firstpost.com/india/whether-bara-hoti-or-doklam-india-must-resist-all-china-advances-on-ground-learn-from-history-3881263.html
What do you even know about the Tibetan uprising? The 14th Dalai Lama had acknowledged Chinese sovereignty over Tibet, when he signed the Seventeen Point Agreement in 1951 ceding control of Tibet over to China. He accepted it for 8 years without incident, but sudden in 1959, he broke his word and led uprising (which many local Tibetans didn't join, hence the rebellion failed) and 14th DL was forced to flee to India. The 14th DL had collaborated with CIA and even criticized the CIA as shown below.
CIA Tibetan program
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Tibetan_program#Criticism
According to above source, the 14th Dalai Lama criticized the CIA for supporting the Tibetan independence movement "not because they (the CIA) cared about Tibetan independence, but as part of their worldwide efforts to destabilize all communist governments".
-In 1999, the Dalai Lama claimed that the CIA Tibetan program had been harmful for Tibet because it was primarily aimed at serving American interests, and "once the American policy toward China changed, they stopped their help".
This is supported by the fact that once President Nixon visited China in 1972, America stopped caring about Tibetan independence. Today, American recognizes Chinese sovereignty over Tibet, as do other UN countries, since nobody raises the issue of Tibet during UN meetings.
India gave asylum to 14th DL, even when India forfeited all its rights in Tibet according to Panchsheel Agreement, so how can you blame China when India is not upholding its end of the bargain? If India had handled over the Dalai Lama back to China in 1959, the relations between China and India today would have been much different, and China wouldn't have grown so close to Pakistan, because India provided shelter to DL. You think every political action India takes, doesn't have its on consequences on other countries?
You think Indian troops didn't kill PLA troops during military attacks in Longju and Kangla Pass? It is precisely because of those clashes, that Mao Zedong proposed 20KM demilitarized zone and ordered PLA troops to retreat to stop. But India continued to occupy those territory which PLA vacated.
China wasn't even invited to sign the Treaty of San Franciso (even when it was about Chinese territory) so how could China have known about such a treaty even existing at all? You are just being biased against China that's all
China has said many times that India is welcome to join Belt and Road Initiative, which will help boost India's economy and hopefully repair relations with Pakistan. Before Pakistan bought Chinese weapons, Pakistan bought Russian and US weapons, so why is India complaining here? Does India even manufacture its own weapons at all while you label Chinese weapons as "stolen" US technology?
Remember, China is not forcing India to spend more on its defense budget, but Indian Army is the one entering regions like Donglong to obstruct PLA road construction and create tense situation. If you claim India doens't want to spend more on its defense, then why India taking aggressive actions in Donglong? Such actions could lead to war, and for India to spend more on its defense, so in such scenario, India has noone but itself to blame here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
China has had 5000 years of governance compared to USA's 200-300 years of democracy, so why should China adopt democracy? Ancient democratic country like Rome fell to barbarians, while Chinese civilization has survived the course of history to the present day on our own. Having Multiparty system, means that the two parties will compete against each other, instead of for the country's interest.
Take USA multi-party system for example. Present Obama spent 8 years developing Trans Pacific Partnership, only for Trump to come in and cancel the policy, because Trump doesn't like Obama (Obama humiliated him publicly with his birth cert) All the taxpayers money put into TPP all go down the drain, because of Trump's actions. USA can afford to waste billions of dollars just like that, but not China.
Having a single party like China, means that there is continuation of policies and the government can make long term policies to benefit China, instead of short-term policies that may get cancelled by another incoming party. Such a system is not perfect, but if it works for China and bring prosperity and development, then Chinese people don't see any major reason to change our government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Sam D In the case of Hambantota in Sri Lankan, China and Sri Lanka have come to a deal where Chinese buys the majority of the stakes, while leaving Sri Lanka in charge of port security. We run a business, not a charity drive here, and the terms of the deal are agreed upon by both Sri Lankan government and Chinese government.
Regarding CPEC, it is long-term project between China and Pakistan, and once project is complete, Pakistan is expected to make money from the infrastructure to boost its economy and to slowly pay off its debt. It may take 10, 20 or even 30 years to pay off the loan, but it will be paid off eventually and the infrastructure will belong to Pakistan then. It is long term project after all, and our government does not run a charity.
1
-
+Sam D What 300 year old map? Even the 1890 treaty with British isn't that old, yet you people quote Google Earth as evidence for your ridiculous claims? What makes Google Earth more reliable evidence than our maps and documents? Bhutan doesn't even have anything to show for its claims, yet India still side with it and willingly invade Chinese territory with troops?
+ANUPAM RASTOGI 14th Dalai Lama has never officially renounced his claim over Tibet. If he was truly remorseful, he would have surrendered to Chinese authorities, instead of being fugitive for almost 60 years. The truth is that 14th DL is old man, and the government is waiting for 14th DL to pass on once and for all.
The problem with Tibetan Buddhism is that people believe in reincarnation, and that the 14th DL may groom his own successor as the next Panchen Lama to continue his political agenda. Tibetan Buddhism suppose be above worldly affairs, yet 14th DL choose to involved himself in politics. The government wants to stop an endless repeating cycle of separatism by preventing 14th DL reincarnation.
Religion is not just spirituality alone, it can be deadly tool that people used over the years to achieve their political agenda, whether its Christianism or Islam and so on. Radical Islamists hijack Islam to convince their followers to commit crimes in name of their god or for rewards in the afterlife. The government is merely taking steps to stop 14th DL from continuing his political agenda, but the government does not ban Tibetan Buddhism at all.
PLA only entered Indian territory erroneously like I said earlier. Even afterwards, PLA troops withdrew after few weeks. What about Indian intrusion into Chinese territory, which has been for a month already and still ongoing?
Why is POK construction illegal? Even if Chinese people didn't do the construction, Pakistan people may choose to do it themselves, or even work with other countries on projects in POK. If India truly objects to POK construction, then India is welcome to send its troops to POK to obstruct road construction like it is doing in Donglong.
Who is are the ones with intense hatred towards Chinese people here? I began with "Chinese people don't want war", yet everyone responds with insults, name-calling and malicious posts. I tried to support my points with links whenever possible, but all you people do is dismiss them, calling me a fraud among other things. I deal in logic, but these Indians deal with emotions to justify their causes.
1
-
+dibyendust 1. The title of the video is made by the video uploader not the Chinese diplomat and spokeperson. Why accuse me being hypocritical and biased, when you fail to even notice such details?
So it's become bilateral issue between India and China? India does not claim Donglong as part of its territory, so how has building roads there become bilateral issue between India and China at all?
2. If India is so opposed to Chinese building in disputed territory claimed by India, then why doesn't India enter POK and obstruct Chinese construction? In this case, the disputed territory is between Bhutan and China, not India, so why is India voluntarily sending its forces into territory it itself does not claim for itself? India claims POK, but India does not claim Donglong, so why are its troops there?
3. First off, China doesn't want conflict, which is why Chinese officials issued many official statements, including a willingness to settle this dispute peacefully. It is much better to settle dispute through talks and issuing more official statements, then it is to not talk at all So far, Chinese government has release multiple official statements, but they have fallen on deaf ears by Indian government. Furthermore, it is India that is sending its troops into Chinese territory. Is this how India's diplomacy works?
4. You have read the Hambantota port issue wrongly. Initially, the ownership of the completed port belonged to Sri Lanka, but in order to pay off the loan, 95% of revenue generated was used. Since such a deal was unsatisfactory for Sri Lankan government, our countries worked out a new deal, in which Chinese companies owned majority stake of the port, while Sri Lanka remains in charge of security. That way, Sri Lanka doesn't have to allocate 95% revenue generated into paying loans, and Sri Lanka retains the rights of security, which proclaimed that no military vessels shall call upon the port.
This is example of win-win situation that Chinese government strives for. If the deals are unsatisfactory, new terms can always be negotiated. You really think Sri Lanka is so poor that is has to sell majority stake of the port AND pay 95% of its revenue to Chinese loans? It was only one or the other, but not BOTH.
5. I did not lie about Japan not claiming any of South China Sea Islands. Japan is not a claimant to South China Sea Islands according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea
The Diaoyu Islands are in East China Sea, not South China Sea, which you claimed in your original post. The Diaoyu Islands were part of China before Japanese stole them from us during the war. After Japanese surrender, all their conquered territory should be returned to their owners, including Diaoyu Islands to China, isn't it?
About Philippines case, the court involved was Permanent Court of Arbitration, which is not an agency of United Nations, so why should China adhere to its ruling? The correct UN agency would be ICJ, not this PCA. Furthermore, China made declaration in accordance with the UNCLOS in 2006 not to accept any of its procedures regarding territorial sovereignty. Many countries including the UK, Australia, Italy, France, Canada, and Spain made similar declarations to reject settling claims of sovereignty in this manner.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_v._China#Optional_exceptions_to_applicability_of_compulsory_procedure
Back to Bhutan again, I thought you said it was bilateral issue between India and China, so why is India helping Bhutan against China? You changed its from being bilateral to multilateral, so exactly which what is it? If it is bilateral between India and China, then India does not claim Donglong as part of its territory, so what rights does it have to send its troops there?
14th Dalai Lama is fugitive from Chinese authorities, because of his separatist actives, while terrorists are the same for India. Both of us have these intimately involved enemies of our own, so how is this hypocrisy? Why India is allowed to protect such 14th DL from China, but China is not allowed to do the same? The best solution to this problem would be mutual exchange of fugitives, when India hands over 14th DL in return for China not vetoing. This is simply how real politics work in the world.
Your Austrialian journal link does not fully show. It only tells me to subscribe.
If you say I am biased, then I can also claim you are biased with your last paragraph consisting of whole string of accusations leveled at China. China is member of UNCLOS and have not broken any of its laws. Debt trap is just your own opinion, and you only highlighted Sri Lanka as your example, not various other projects by China, so who are you to keep on mocking our efforts to improve the world? I can also accuse India of attempting to prevent development to other countries by obstructing road construction, can't I?
1
-
1
-
ANUPAM RASTOGI The government only signed agreement maintain status quo, not an agreement agreeing that it is dispute. Building a road doesn't change the status quo, as look at India having military outpost on its sided of the the tri-junction. India can maintain bases in at our borders without changing status quo, but China can't even build roads on our side?
China was member of P5 of UNSC since its founding, and replacing China means that the UN charter needs to be amended. PM Nehru has clarified that India was never offered a seat in UNSC in Sept 28, 1955. PM Nehru has categorically denied any offer, formal or informal, having been received about a seat for India in the UN Security Council. He said: "The composition of the Security Council is prescribed by the UN Charter, according to which certain specified nations have permanent seats. No change or addition can be made to this without an amendment of the Charter."
But Indian propaganda continue perpetuate the myth that Nehru had given up India's seat for China, to make Indians feel wronged for rejecting such an offer, when it is clear that no such offer of a seat was even given to India.
1
-
1