Singh's Japan stop was first step to shoring up regional security

[roma]

thank you for your links

i didnt look them up and have no idea if they are biuased in favour of prc

neverthe less even if so, just your own excerpt from the last link in a sense gives some indication of what i was talking about :

"The Tibet operation continued till the early 60s when the CIA,withdrew its operations on Indian soil and moved to Nepal."

as you see india got the cia to move off it's soil and onto somewhere else - in this case nepal....that's a part of what i meant that india was friendly with prc and in this case wouldnt allow such operations on its soil - the ambience of the friendly relations

nehru openly recognised tibet as part of china - but that wasnt enough for them apparently .

anyway i'll leave it at that .

 

[pmaitra]

thank you for your links

i didnt look them up and have no idea if they are biuased in favour of prc

neverthe less even if so, just your own excerpt from the last link in a sense gives some indication of what i was talking about :

"The Tibet operation continued till the early 60s when the CIA,withdrew its operations on Indian soil and moved to Nepal."

Every representation of history has a possibility of bias. The idea is to put forward all possible interpretations, and you and I are entitled to our opinions.

as you see india got the cia to move off it's soil and onto somewhere else - in this case nepal....that's a part of what i meant that india was friendly with prc and in this case wouldnt allow such operations on its soil - the ambience of the friendly relations

I'm sorry but I do not see how India got CIA to move off its soil. The CIA did move off, but that cannot be used to conclude India got CIA to move off.

nehru openly recognised tibet as part of china - but that wasnt enough for them apparently .

anyway i'll leave it at that .

Personally, I'd rather Tibet was an independent country than part of PRC. The point is that after India recognised Tibet as part of PRC, it was foolish to cross over into Tibetan territory that we had already recognised as part of PRC. The other point is, as I mentioned, we should have prepared well before adopting a forward policy.

 

[no smoking]

LOL what does this mean?

Either the chineses you didn't tell the true thought (who wants to start a quarrel which leads to nowhere?), or you just misunderstood it. Considering the way who chinese express the feeling, I think the later is highly likely.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. You suggest that continual chinese incursions are "childish" - i.e. the CCP/PLA should not be acting so, should not be refusing to grant visas to certain regions, and should not be claiming that parts of India are in fact "South Tibet"...if this is your policy, how is you're government's actions a reflection of your views?

No, what I mean is on Tibet or Sino-india border isse, CCP happens to have most of chinese public supports.

I suggested that you are not the only Chinese citizen I have met who has such views. Hence, from my perspective, the CCP/PLA are really showing ZERO concern to the voice of their own people, and instead, are willing to risk another war, where MORE lives will be lost and crippled! People's republic indeed!

And I suggested that you are wrong. Tell me:did these "Chineses" tell you that china should return Aksai Chin to india?
Both countries are childish, chinese incursions (which we will not read from chinese newspaper) and india incursions (which will always be ignored by india newspaper) are all childish.

Very confused...what are you trying to say?

China has vast territory that belongs to itself, and due to the weakness of the rest of the world, now claims Tibet as part of China too. THAT is now your territory. No Indian is claiming parts of China as India, if anything, we wish Tibet was independent, but that ain't happenin now.

If you swap the positions of China and India in your haiku, you would be closer to the truth.

India has vast territory belongs to itself too. So, size of country is not the deciding key in these border problems. These border disputes are always settled with multi factors: cultural, race, history and diplomatic documents. The problm regarding Sino-india border is that boths can find some reasons to support their claims.

And I already swap the positions of China and india, the conclusion is that the blame should be put on both sides.

 

[agentperry]

when a country grows the prominent political parties of that country start getting money from different foreign govt to run their wark and organization in the country, in return the funding country wants the party to make the nation as a whole to do what is in the interst of funder. in todays world its called lobbying. BJP got some funders and CONG too, we can stipulate who are their funders depending upon the work they do for international community. now facing severe crunch CPI(M) decides to get a donor and henceforth they got one in form of sole powerful communist nation. i find no surprise if covertly we find cong supporting cpi to broker a deal with chinese as they are ideological cousins.
in short this event can be seen as cpi broking deal with chinese on their own or after being motivated by national parties.
this also presents the hint the national parties are going international and irrelevant small groups will be eliminated as a result of political globalization.

 

[agentperry]

moreover if nehru had mind that time then india not china would have been in the unsc. china soon after gettin unsc seat started showing their teeths. i still curse nehru he was a stupid pm

 

[no smoking]

moreover if nehru had mind that time then india not china would have been in the unsc. china soon after gettin unsc seat started showing their teeths. i still curse nehru he was a stupid pm

The funny thing about this "Nehru gave UNSC seat to China" is that there is no reliable third party document to support it. All we got are indian claim or a claim made by an overseas indian.

Another funny thing about this is the time, China, which was represented by ROC, had occupied a UNSC seat since 1945.

 

[devgupt]

India wasnt offered UNSC seat in 1945, it was offered UNSC seat in 1953. In the 50's it was illogical for ROC to hold a seat in security council when they couldn't hold on to their country.
Soviets wanted to replace ROC by PRC.To balance USSR-PRC block in Security council Americans wanted someone from Asia and hence a seat was offered to India.
But Nehru in his grand wisdom believed in Non Alignment and rejected the offer in the fear that such a move would bring the divisions of Europe in Asia.

 

[no smoking]

India wasnt offered UNSC seat in 1945, it was offered UNSC seat in 1953. In the 50's it was illogical for ROC to hold a seat in security council when they couldn't hold on to their country.
Soviets wanted to replace ROC by PRC.To balance USSR-PRC block in Security council Americans wanted someone from Asia and hence a seat was offered to India.
But Nehru in his grand wisdom believed in Non Alignment and rejected the offer in the fear that such a move would bring the divisions of Europe in Asia.

Even according to your own analysis, there was no way india got this offer.

ROC was US's most reliable ally. Its own survival was counting on US 100%, which it would make its vote completely under US instruction. In another word, US owns 2 vote in UNSC at that time. Do you think US would give this precious power to inida, which was employing an independent diplomatic policy?

So, without US and USSR support, do you think who can turn this offer to a deal?

 

[Tianshan]

India wasnt offered UNSC seat in 1945, it was offered UNSC seat in 1953. In the 50's it was illogical for ROC to hold a seat in security council when they couldn't hold on to their country.
Soviets wanted to replace ROC by PRC.To balance USSR-PRC block in Security council Americans wanted someone from Asia and hence a seat was offered to India.
But Nehru in his grand wisdom believed in Non Alignment and rejected the offer in the fear that such a move would bring the divisions of Europe in Asia.

nehru already said that rumour was completely fake...

read his entire statement please...

Prime Minister Nehru has categorically denied any offer, formal or informal, having been received about a seat for India in the UN Security Council. He made this statement in reply to a short notice question in the Lok Sabha on September 27 by Dr. J.N. Parekh whether India had refused a seat informally offered to her in the Security Council.

The Prime Minister said: "There has been no offer, formal or informal, of this kind. Some vague references have appeared in the press about it which have no foundation in fact. 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. There is, therefore, no question of a seat being offered and India declining it."

The Hindu : Miscellaneous / This Day That Age : dated September 28, 1955: UN seat: Nehru clarifies

 

[devgupt]

Even according to your own analysis, there was no way india got this offer.

ROC was US's most reliable ally. Its own survival was counting on US 100%, which it would make its vote completely under US instruction. In another word, US owns 2 vote in UNSC at that time. Do you think US would give this precious power to inida, which was employing an independent diplomatic policy?

So, without US and USSR support, do you think who can turn this offer to a deal?

You didn't got it.
India was not offered a UNSC seat at the expense of Chinese(ROC or PRC) - we were offered the hypothetical 6th seat.The Chinese seat was never in threat.
Since Soviets were making efforts to replace ROC by PRC , Americans felt that to counterbalance PRC in Security Council they would need another Asian country and hence the offer of the sixth seat to India.

 

[Tianshan]

You didn't got it.
India was not offered a UNSC seat at the expense of Chinese(ROC or PRC) - we were offered the hypothetical 6th seat.The Chinese seat was never in threat.
Since Soviets were making efforts to replace ROC by PRC , Americans felt that to counterbalance PRC in Security Council they would need another Asian country and hence the offer of the sixth seat to India.

didn't you read what nehru 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. There is, therefore, no question of a seat being offered and India declining it."

The Hindu : Miscellaneous / This Day That Age : dated September 28, 1955: UN seat: Nehru clarifies

 

[devgupt]

didn't you read what nehru said?



The Hindu : Miscellaneous / This Day That Age : dated September 28, 1955: UN seat: Nehru clarifies

Why did Nehru had to clarify in Parliament in the first place?

 

[Tianshan]

Why did Nehru had to clarify in Parliament in the first place?

because

"Some vague references have appeared in the press about it... which have no foundation in fact."

too many false rumours. even today some people belive them, even though the un charter is very clear on who is unsc power.

 

[Ray]

Historically, China has always had an animus towards China and vice versa.

China is also very worried about the growing understanding between the US, Japan, Philippines, Vietnam and India over the growing aggressive intent of China.

Therefore, it is in the interest of China to break up this understanding to offer sops to all concerned, inter alia, India.

Containing China is more important than a seat in the toothless UN body, more so without the veto powers.

 

[pmaitra]

^^

You are very correct Ray Sir.

The only problem I have with this is ROC, which you have not mentioned, who is part of this so called alliance, if you will, which claims even more Indian territory than PRC. I do not see any alliance coming up excluding ROC. We simply cannot chose the worse (ROC) over the bad (PRC).

 

[roma]

^^

You are very correct Ray Sir.

The only problem I have with this is ROC, which you have not mentioned, who is part of this so called alliance, if you will, which claims even more Indian territory than PRC. I do not see any alliance coming up excluding ROC. We simply cannot chose the worse (ROC) over the bad (PRC).

hello pmaitra - what you said above about roc claiming more territory - might , just might be true - but they wouldnt enfore the claim as fiercely as prc - just would have remained a claim

 

[devgupt]

because



too many false rumours. even today some people belive them, even though the un charter is very clear on who is unsc power.

So r u implying UN charter is not open for modification?

 

[Tianshan]

So r u implying UN charter is not open for modification?

extremely difficult to modify

requires approval from every single one of the p5 members, as well as 2/3 majority in the general assembly.

Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XVIII: Amendments

it is SO difficult in fact, that the un charter has rarely been modified and only for minor issues

 

[devgupt]

extremely difficult to modify

requires approval from every single one of the p5 members, as well as 2/3 majority in the general assembly.

Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XVIII: Amendments

it is SO difficult in fact, that the un charter has rarely been modified and only for minor issues

So why was ROC unable to veto the resolution 2758 that resulted in PRC entry in UN and replacing it?. ROC had veto power and had used it earlier too.

 

[Tianshan]

So why was ROC unable to veto the resolution 2758 that resulted in PRC entry in UN and replacing it?. ROC had veto power and had used it earlier too.

the seat is not for ROC or PRC, it is for "CHINA".

when the countries in the world recognize that prc represents China instead of roc, we got the place

russia also got the unsc seat from the soviet union because they were the successor government, like prc to roc

ussr -> russian federation, roc -> prc.

the country never changes, only the government