Comments by "神州 Shenzhou" (@Shenzhou.) on "New chapter in India-China ties; Modi to meet Xi Jinping in 'informal' meet" video.

  1. China wants to make Asia strong through the Belt and Road Initiative, by building infrastructure in developing countries like Pakistan, Kazakhstan, other -stan countries, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Maldives, etc. China has always welcome India to come onboard the BRI to share in the mutual progress and prosperity. But even if New Delhi rejects this offer, Beijing will respect New Delhi's decision.
    2
  2. -India is not a claimant to South China Sea Issue so what's it got to do with India? -Does India want hand over the Dalai Lama to Chinese custody? This issue is China's own internal issue with Tibet, and nothing to do with India after all. -CPEC is bilateral affair between Pakistan and China, and Pakistan is its own sovereign country as recognized by India. Take up it with Pakistan if you have any issues with it. -As for occupied territories, China is willing to enter negotiations and even to make concessions in Aksai China, if India cedes Tawang to China. Contrary to what you may think, China does not claim all of Arunachal Pradesh, only the Tawang province as part of South Tibet. Source: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
    1
  3. Nagalakshmi Saladi If India can claim territory because of historical basis, then why can't China claim territory because of historical basis as well? Why the unfair double standards here?
    1
  4. Nagalakshmi Saladi If you claim Mount Kailash in Tibet is Indian territory, then how exactly did India come to acquire this territory? Through forceful occupation and annexing it? Tibet was part of China since 800 years ago, when Mongolians conquered both Tibet and Song dynasty China, making them part of Yuan dynasty China.
    1
  5. Why can't I ask you more questions? Because Mount Kailash is the name of Hindu God, automatically means Tibet is part of India? What logic is this? Tibet was conquered by Mongolians and Manchus, and incorporated into China since 800 years ago, so what makes you think Tibet is independent state? Even Indian PM Nehru recognize Tibet as an autonomous region of China, yet you claim Tibet is part of India? Prior to 1962 war, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai wanted to negotiate our border dispute with India, so he visited New Delhi and proposed the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence 和平共处五项原则 to define China-India relations. But PM Nehru wasn't interested in negotiation, instead he pursued an aggressive "Forward" policy of building military bases at our dispute borders. some bases even protruding beyond the international line and into actual Chinese territory.
    1
  6. Nagalakshmi Saladi Tibet was reincorporated back into China in 1951 and the Tibetan government signed the Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet. Even Indian PM Nehru recognise that Tibet is autonomous region of China, yet you claim Mount Kailash is part of India since time immemorial? Where's your proof? Prior to the 1962, Zhou Enlai even proposed a 20 KM demilitarised zone and unilaterally withdrew PLA forces from the region to cool down hostilities. But Indian army did not withdraw and saw this as Chinese weakness and send in troops to occupy territory previously occupied by PLA troops. So which country here is eager for war here? You are simply biased against China that's all, and only see everything from Indian point of view.
    1
  7. It is clear that you are simply biased against China, and see everything only from India's point of view that's all. Where is India's proof that Mount Kailash belongs to them? Because it is named after Hindu God? China has produced much historical evidence that Tibet belongs to China (such as Mongolians and Manchu people conquering it and making it part of Yuan dynasty China and Qing dynasty China respectively) and there is even a Seventeen Point agreement signed in 1951 by Tibetans, acknowledging Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. Even prior to the 1962, Zhou Enlai visited New Delhi 4 times in a year, but PM Nehru only visited Beijing once, so who is more eager to negotiate our borders here? You only see things from India's point of view and blame China for starting the war?
    1
  8. Who is creating false history here when India claims Mount Kailash as part of its territory because of Hindu god? And it is historical fact that Tibet was part of China since Yuan dynasty. Even the title of Dalai Lama is bestowed upon Tibetan leaders, by a Ming Dynasty Chinese prince, so how is Tibet not part of China historically? If you China to settle issues with the 14th DL, then why don't India hand him over to Chinese custody? This issue is internal issue between Tibet and China and has nothing to do with India.
    1
  9. China has 5000 years of history and is among the world's oldest 'continuous' civilizations still alive today, whereas other great ancient civilizations like Mesopotamia, Rome and Egypt have long since faded to history. How is China a rogue country when it has outlasted many other nations that have since succumbed to history? China has existed for thousands of years and it is likely to exist for thousands into the future, following this historical trend.
    1
  10. Prior to 1962 conflict, Chinese premier Zhou Enlai visited New Delhi to negotiate our border dispute and proposed the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence 和平共处五项原则 to help define China-India relations. But PM Nehru refused to sit down to negotiations, and even pursued an aggressive "Forward" policy of building military bases at our disputed border, with some bases even extending beyond the international line into actual Chinese territory.
    1
  11. USA can only temporarily send warships and aircraft carriers to South China Sea, but it can't stop China from building permanent islands and fortify them with SAM sites, etc. After maybe 5-10 years in the future, China would have built 5-10 years worth of islands and military infrastructure, whereas USA will have nothing tangible to show for its patrols.
    1