Comments by "神州 Shenzhou" (@Shenzhou.) on "Doklam deadlock: Bhutan reacts to India-China border standoff" video.
-
10
-
+Adityaa Chaubey According to you example, what happens if Jackie Chan suddenly becomes richest man on earth? The fault in the treaty lies with the wording at that moment in time, so how can it be accurate? On the other hand, Mount Gipmochi is an absolute, mentioned in the treaty, so why isn't it recognized?
So if India claims that the treaty cancels itself, then it has no right to claim Batang La as the tri-junction, based on the 1st verse of the treaty. If India chooses not to recognize the treaty, then what right does it have to refer to the 1st verse in the treaty for its claims? If India designates Batang La as the tri-junction, then why wasn't China consulted, or even informed of such an important change in tri-junction?
You are the one insulting me and looking down on me. I don't insult you but you have called me a fool and constantly ridicule me with your words.
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+Mohit Khanna Chinese government would do the exact same things like what is happening now in Donglong. The government would make multiple repeated requests for Indian government to withdraw its troops from our territory, in order to avoid provoking any war because of misunderstandings. We will give Indian government time to process its thoughts, but we will not be lulled into making the first shot. Indian troops are already invading territory they do not claim as their own uninvitedly, so by various definitions, they are already considered invaders
China is one of the biggest trade partners with USA, Japan, Australia and Vietnam and these countries won't want to lose their economic links to China, because of a territorial dispute by India, for land that India doesn't even claim for itself. Furthermore, Bhutan does not maintain foreign relations with USA, so why would USA want to support Bhutan's territorial claims?
And this thread was started by me, so who are you to tell me to stop commenting? You people constantly mock and insult me and don't even give evidence to support your claims, so what makes think you are justified?
3
-
3
-
+Adityaa Chaubey Chinese government has provided ample evidence support our claims, including maps and treaties. Also, what about Bhutanese government evidence at all? What right does Indian government have to take on Bhutan's territorial claims for itself? The treaty between India and Bhutan only says that India will help Bhutan, but does not say that India will fight for Bhutan's territorial claims?
You constantly mock and insult me for my evidence, but you expect me to believe you when you have no solid evidence of your own? Where is proof of ownership that Bhutan controls that territory, and why isn't Bhutan even publishing its own evidence to support its territorial claim?
+Mohit Khanna The Straits of Malacca is so much further from Andaman and Nicobar islands, and Straits is still within waters of Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia etc. so how does that obstruct Chinese trade? Furthermore like I said, China is big trading partners with USA, Europe and rest of world. You think USA, Europe etc would tolerate Indian blockade prevent Chinese goods from reaching those countries?
All you people shown is that you dimiss any evidence I provide, belittle Chinese people and our armies, and still expect me to believe you? If war breaks out, the conflict won't be restricted to Donglong, but in other contested areas like Ladakh and so on. China has demonstrated the ability to take out a satellite in orbit from a ground -launched missile (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon ) and is 3rd country in world to achieve that currently. The government can also apply cyberattacks (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberattack#China.2C_United_States_and_others ) and other venues of attack, such as disrupting India's economy and so on.
But Chinese people don't want war, which is why the government giving India plenty of time to commit to its choice. War is not in our countries interest, and will only hurt our economies while Western countries continue to progress. The BRICS summit is happening soon in China, and our countries should take this opportunity to discuss issues. We should be cooperating to resist Western influence in our countries, not fighting amongst ourselves.
3
-
+Adityaa Chaubey The only contradiction in the treaty is that the highest watershed was assumed to be Mount Gipmochi. But it is also explicitly stated that Mt Gipmochi is the trijunction. If you continue to mock my evidence, then what evidence does Indian government have to show for its claims? You have no evidence of your own, yet you continue ridiculing me?
You claim Bhutanese troops tried stop PLA road construction? Then where are these Bhutanese troops now? We have claimed withdrawal of Indian troops from our territory many times, but not Bhutanese troops, because they aren't there. So what makes you say Bhutanese army even entered Donglong in the first place?
You really think international committee siding with India? Bhutan doesn't even have diplomatic relations with other UNSC members, which are USA, Britain, France, Russia. So why would these countries care about supporting Bhutanese territorial claims, especially since Bhutanese government has not shown evidence to support its claims? China is big trading partners with all these countries, so you think they willing to risk their economies to side with India against China for territory India does not claim as its own, and Bhutan has no proof of ownership?
I think someone else here is dreaming, and needs to wake up here. Even if these UNSC remains neutral in our territorial dispute, China still has Pakistan that stands to benefit by perhaps taking the opportunity to expand its claims on Kashmir, while India being distracted by China,
Lastly, I don't insult or mock your entire race like what you are doing to Chinese people. Chinese people have been shown to be among the most hardworking and intelligent people, with long history and culture spanning 5000 years. Our culture greatly influenced other East Asian countries like Japan and Korea, and these countries have also succeeded in their own ways and are some of world's newest developing economies. Our culture has also spread beyond to the West, so much that there are Chinatown enclaves in virtually every major city in the world.
So who are you to call insult and label all Chinese people "a disease which needs to be treated"? You are simply despicable person to resort to using such derogatory terms against our people.
3
-
Mohit Khanna If Bhutanese government wants to claim that territory, then where is its proof of ownership? Bhutan doesn't even maintain diplomatic relations with any UNSC members, meaning it does not have foreign relations with USA, UK, France and Russia as well, not just China alone. Even North Korea has more foreign relations than Bhutan in this aspect. Just look at maps of foreign relations for N. Korea and for Bhutan to see my meaning.
What then, makes Bhutan's territorial claims more valid, then China's then? Our government already produced maps including the treaty of 1890, but Bhutanese government, as far as I know, has not produced any substantial evidence.
Normally, sending military troops into other country's territory is grounds for an act of war. The Chinese government actually being rather lenient by making multiple repeated requests for Indian government troops to withdraw from our territory. The Modi regime is already forced to give up its "swagger" and to look for a face-saving way to withdraw. The usual blusters of India’s present Army Chief have disappeared in the last few weeks. Even some Indian analysts are admitting that Narendra Modi’s foreign policy is disastrous.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Adityaa Chaubey Even if you dismiss it from being Chinese website, the end of 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 means USA is at most, neutral to the conflict.
As for Hiramatsu's statement, it could be ambiguous, because it is talking about unilaterally change status quo by force and could also perhaps refer to Indian troops entering Chinese territory by force.
Where exactly does Japan say it does not recognise Doklam as Chinese territory?
If you agree with that guy only on one specific section, then did you quote his entire comment? including the "Chinese are inferior race, and China is a disease which needs to be treated." It's obvious that you insult and mock Chinese people constantly, just because our views differ from yours.
Pakistan is nuclear-capable state, unlike Afghanistan, Israel, etc. so it's unlikely that they will attack a nuclear state when Kashmir mainly concerns India and Pakistan. They will most likely remain neutral.
Russia is neutral to both of us, but India also hold military drills with USA and Japan. If India grows too close to USA, then Russia will grow further from India.
USA fighter jets and missiles are going to cost a bomb for India and possibly hurt its economy. China manufactures our own weapons locally, so it is cheaper for long term war, unlike India which has to purchase its weapons subjected to market prices.
India cannot officially export Brahmos to Vietnam without Russia approval, since it is joint project between both countries. On 5 August 2017, Indian External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said Vietnam’s Foreign Ministry has already rejected the reports of India sales of Brahmos to Vietnam.
2
-
+Adityaa Chaubey Your first link is not working for me. It says " The web service to this account has been limited temporarily! "
According to your Forbes Article on India's GDP, "We must, of course, take such macroeconomic predictions with the necessary pinch of salt" so no one knows how its going to play out. Furthermore, it assumes that there is peace and stability in India and no war with China, in order to make that prediction.
Trump is only expected to sell the drones to India, and according to the article, India made its participation “contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid.” India has been identified as being the top recipient of US economic aid according (timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/India-top-recipient-of-US-economic-aid/articleshow/48093123.cms )
Regarding Brahmos, you are only using words like "likely" meaning that the sales is unconfirmed and both spokepersons have addressed the issue in this article (idrw.org/brahmos-not-sold-to-vietnam-india/ )
According to above article "Raveesh Kumar official spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in India has clarified that India has not supplied supersonic Brahmos Cruise missiles to Vietnam and spokesperson for Vietnam’s External Affairs also has clarified he had not confirmed the sale and just talked about defence and strategic relations with India and was misquoted by Vietnamese media."
Israel only widely believed to possess nuclear weapons according to the Wikipedia. If whole world sure of Israel possessing WMD, then why isn't Israel labelled as one?
Lastly, I did not threaten to ask North Korea to launch nuclear attack on Japan. I only said Chinese cooperation is essential to containing the North Korean missile threat. What has that post got to do with this post? Why are you putting words in my mouth? You are the one claiming "Chinese people are inferior, and that China is disease which needs to be cured" so why all you do is mock China, our people, our government and so on? Chinese people are among worlds most diligent and intelligent people, as recognized by most of world's other races. Our government is not perfect, but it has done much to lift China out of poverty and turn our country into economy juggernaut. Even now, the government is defending our sovereignty claims, backed by historical evidence, while Indian troops are trespassing into territory that India doesn't even claim as its own.
If war breaks out in Donglong, which I hope it doesn't, Indian troops will be labelled as invaders, while PLA troops will be defending our lands.
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Adityaa Chaubey In 1960, Zhou Enlai proposed that India drop its claim to Aksai Chin and China would withdraw its claims from NEFA. That way, both our countries will have sovereignty over territory already controlled by our countries. But Nehru rejected this proposal and refused to negotiate further. Zhou Enlai visited New Delhi 4 times, whereas Nehru only visited Beijing once, so who is more sincere in settling our border disputes here?
Nehru pursued an aggressive "Forward" policy of building military outposts at our disputed border. There were eventually 60 such outposts, including 43 north of the McMahon Line, so which country is the one provoking the other one here? Zhou Enlai even proposed a 20 KM demilitarized zone, and withdrew Chinese troops, but Nehru continued to occupy territory that PLA troops had vacated. Who doesn't know whose history well here? Why was Nehru building so many military bases at our disputed border, instead of sitting down to settle border negotiations once at for all?
You claim China has no solid evidence support claim to Donglong, then what claim does India have for McMahon line? It was signed by British India and Tibet, which India doesn't recognize as a sovereign state, so why is McMahon line legal? According (tibetjustice.org/materials/treaties/treaties12.html ) Great Britain recognized the suzerainty rights of China over Tibet and agreed not to enter into negotiations with Tibet except through the intermediary of the Chinese Government.
But the British broke their agreement and bypassed Chinese intermediary to signed McMahon line directly with Tibet, when Britain itself doesn't recognize Tibetan sovereignty. So why is McMahon line still valid when Britain ignored Chinese input completely?
2
-
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