Chinese Troops Intrude into Indian Territory in Ladakh!!!

what options India have if china doesn't pull back from ladakh?


  • Total voters
    131
Status
Not open for further replies.

MAYURA

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
888
Likes
250
. Do you think India has any reason to trust PRC?

Trusting PRC is as dangerous as trusting a lion by deer.


the problem is that we indians lack longer historical perspective just opposite to chinese, the problem with chinese is not because of communism or PRC but it is rooted in land grabbing han habit.


I say with full responsibility that hans have been biggest land grabbers in history and this is coupled with their determination to crush any opposition without any regard for mercy.

The modern day south chinese are products of han males and south local women whose husbands were killed or castrated some 1500 years ago.

from a rump in shensi province they have now grabbed 10 million squarekm .
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
I'm honestly curious as to why India feels accepting Chinese sovereignty over Tibet is a 'favor' that India did to China. India never had much in the way of political responsibilities to Tibet, even while Tibet was nominally independent - any such responsibilities were carried out by the British Viceroy.

Second, the Indo-Tibetan border was drawn up by the British; on the issue at hand, India has inherited Britain's position, and China has inherited Tibet's position. From a normative perspective, why should China accept the land?

If the reason is simply that India has done China a 'favor' by accepting Tibet, that's a patent non-starter - China could just as easily retort that China has done India a 'favor' by accepting Indian rule over Kashmir and the Indian liberation of Bangladesh.

If, however, the reason is that the border makes sense from some established principle of international law, then China could accept that. Contrary to what many DFIers here think, China is pretty interested in adhering to international rules and norms, since those rules and norms have helped make China rich over the past thirty years.
Don't be so honest. Every one knows tibet is not chinese territory in the immediate historic past.

If it was so then Why did Tibetian authorities sign the accord which led to the indo-Tibet border, the MAC MOHAN line'
(Not India -china border)with the then british,


It is not for nothing it was called indo-Tibetian border. And British enjoyed suzernity over tibet with no armed resistance, meaning there was no chinese presence in tibet for centuries.

the chinese officials also participated in the talks but cleverly didn't sign the accord , fearing historical proof of the independance of Tibet.They just waked out at the last minute.

At that time Chinese were not the ruling authority in tibet,If they were then, what is the need for peaceful liberation of Tibet? and invasion by chinese army? killing and looting in tibet, which led to fleeing of dalailama.

By the same token If India is unfair in claiming british position, keep in mind most of the claims which are being made by chinese in all borders of with the neighbours are infact with china when the mangolian rulers ruled china after subjugating it.
So china too is infact claiming the areas which were part of a nation when the mangolians ruled in China.

if you advance the claim on tibet based on some obscure chinese occupation of Tibet centuries ago. india can claim pakistan, bangladesh, and even some areas in afganistan, following the same logic of Maurian empires.

So don't be so diplomatic.
 
Last edited:

MAYURA

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
888
Likes
250
he pakis did in Rann of kutch exactly what the chinese are doing today, thinking India won't act if it did some mischief there. But he ordered a military response, smarting from 1962 debacle.
The pakis did not have any nuke then ( not that I care) and let pakis without nuke do same even today and you would see even napunsaks fighting with pakistan.

the pakistan economy was one fourth in 1965 of india and it was clear that you will win.


infact the whole analogy is making me laugh ( laughing is better than tensions) , you order your army to fight a 4 times smaller nation and you become hero.


are you considering china is pak?


SASTHRI WITHSTOOD THE IMMENSE PRESSURE FROM SOVIET PREMIER FOR SOME CONCESSIONS FROM INDIAN SIDE AT tashkent.
Have you read anything about hajipir ? where did he withstand soviet pressure.

btw, my home( the place from where i am posting ) is 13 kms away from birth place of shastri.


And she withstood the US pressure which was aimed at asking China to open a second font and withstood the despatch of Seventh fleet.
you certainly do not know much as it was soviet warning that prevented that fleet. Indira signed a shimla accord which is worse than toilet paper.


read up some history before making tit for tat comments.
Par upadesha kushal bahutere
 

MAYURA

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
888
Likes
250
Don't be so honest. Every one knows tibet is not chinese territory in the immediate historic past.

If it was so then Why did Tibetian authorities sign the accord which led to the indo-Tibet border, the MAC MOHAN line'
(Not India -china border)with the then british,


It is not for nothing it was called indo-Tibetian border. And British enjoyed suzernity over tibet with no armed resistance, meaning there was no chinese presence in tibet for centuries.

the chinese officials also participated in the talks but cleverly didn't sign the accord , fearing historical proof of the independance of Tibet.They just waked out at the last minute.

At that time Chinese were not the ruling authority in tibet,If they were then, what is the need for peaceful liberation of Tibet? and invasion by chinese army? killing and looting in tibet, which led to fleeing of dalailama.

By the same token If India is unfair in claiming british position, keep in mind most of the claims which are being made by chinese in all borders of with the neighbours are infact with china when the mangolian rulers ruled china after subjugating it.
So china too is infact claiming the areas which were part of a nation when the mangolians ruled in China.

if you advance the claim on tibet based on some obscure chinese occupation of Tibet centuries ago. india can claim pakistan, bangladesh, and even some areas in afganistan, following the same logic of Maurian empires.

So don't be so diplomatic.

My friend you should also add that chinese representative did not object to indo tibet border itself and his concern was on china tibet border and whole concept of suzerainty and sovereignity.



the chinese claim on tibet is as good as portugal claim on angola.

tibetans have nothing to share with chinese , they are not hans and have always revolted against chinese rule.
 

MAYURA

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
888
Likes
250
I'm honestly curious as to why India feels accepting Chinese sovereignty over Tibet is a 'favor' that India did to China. India never had much in the way of political responsibilities to Tibet, even while Tibet was nominally independent - any such responsibilities were carried out by the British Viceroy.
Just as modern day hans have inherited a manchu empire, we indians have inherited british india.

simple as that.
 

MAYURA

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
888
Likes
250
China could just as easily retort that China has done India a 'favor' by accepting Indian rule over Kashmir and the Indian liberation of Bangladesh.
this is a lie and nothing less than that.

china has never recognized indian rule in kashmir and is even entering into disputed area ( between india and pak).

Liberation of bangladesh was not in anyway related with china as china did not have border or refugee problems with that country.


and do not forget giving tibet to china is like a muslim giving mecca to an american.
 

ladder

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
7,255
Likes
12,207
Country flag
My contention against Kapoor was that he used the current situation as a justification for further increasing the share of the defense budget that goes to the IA and IAF. India needs to focus on its navy if it ever wants to properly control the IOR, and controlling the IOR is the key to finally getting real leverage on China in negotiations - the kind of leverage that can lead to a border treaty and even Chinese support for a formal Indo-Pakistani reconciliation process.

Trust me, China would much rather have the IN with de facto control over the western IOR than the USN. At least China has real bargaining chips with India - with the US, China barely has any bargaining chips at all.

Finally, the point of war is not real estate - the point of war is security for your 'core'. Additional real estate is useful only insofar as it helps the interests of your core or makes it safer.
Well that is your understanding.
I feel he wasn't using this particular incident for justification but he was discussing Indian military preparedness in the backdrop of this situation.
As we grapple with the current situation, it has reignited introspection as to our level of preparedness should things go from bad to worse.
The possibility of a standoff like the present one on the LAC flaring up into a bigger confrontation can never be ruled out.
Yes India needs to focus more on Navy.
Controlling IOR surely has its own leverage but your assertion that about its effectiveness for border pact is debatable.

Control of seas is a complex matter where it is always multi-lateral platform.

Yes war is not real estate. But it is a powerful tool for negotiation table.

Who is talking about additional real-estate?

From a national security perspective, it would, therefore, be prudent to be prepared for a threat to our territorial integrity. The last thing that India would want is a repeat of 1962!
It is only denial of that real estate bargaining chip to China.

Well for the 'Core' issue, it is more valid for you than us, read Tibet and Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.
 

t_co

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
2,538
Likes
709
Just as modern day hans have inherited a manchu empire, we indians have inherited british india.

simple as that.
Pakistan would beg to differ.

Taiwan would beg to differ.

So would Mongolia.

The reality of what border a state can claim to inherit from a previous state is always quite messy. Normative claims over an area 'belonging' to a particular group of people or not always return (after you go back through the treaties, through the accords, through the formations of nation-states, through the establishment of kingdoms) to an original situation of some group of people genociding the shit out of somebody else. It's just that in the modern era, we should be better than that. Can we really rise to that level?
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
looks like China invented the paper and they also invented to claim through old (manufactured) maps :rofl:
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
Pakistan would beg to differ.

Taiwan would beg to differ.

So would Mongolia.

The reality of what border a state can claim to inherit from a previous state is always quite messy. Normative claims over an area 'belonging' to a particular group of people or not always return (after you go back through the treaties, through the accords, through the formations of nation-states, through the establishment of kingdoms) to an original situation of some group of people genociding the shit out of somebody else. It's just that in the modern era, we should be better than that. Can we really rise to that level?
Will Tibetians also beg to differ?
 

t_co

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
2,538
Likes
709
Will Tibetians also beg to differ?
Tibet could beg to differ, if it existed and had real power. Tibetans cannot. Neither can Pakistanis or Taiwanese or Mongolians - the only logical way to deal with the world is on the basis of accepting the functioning state, and not the individual, as the fundamental building block of national legitimacy. Any alternative conception risks throwing the world into chaos.
 

t_co

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
2,538
Likes
709
Will Tibetians also beg to differ?
Basically, existence precedes legitimacy, not the other way around. De facto is the source of de jure, even though governments like to pretend otherwise - and this phenomenon is especially true in international relations, where there is no higher power to arbitrate between states.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Basically, existence precedes legitimacy, not the other way around. De facto is the source of de jure, even though governments like to pretend otherwise - and this phenomenon is especially true in international relations, where there is no higher power to arbitrate between states.
Agree with that completely. One has to first occupy the ground and hold it. Acceptance will follow only after that.
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
Agree with that completely. One has to first occupy the ground and hold it. Acceptance will follow only after that.
we can have some harappa mohenjo daro period maps which show half of China as part of India and then we can claim what ever we want...................:rofl:
 

ladder

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
7,255
Likes
12,207
Country flag
we can have some harappa mohenjo daro period maps which show half of China as part of India and then we can claim what ever we want...................:rofl:
Then you may be interested on the basis of Chinese claim on Spratly Island ( acc. to wikipedia)
Basis for PRC's and ROC's claims
China claims to have discovered the islands in the Han Dynasty in 2 BC. The islands were claimed to have been marked on maps compiled during the time of Eastern Han Dynasty and Eastern Wu (one of the Three Kingdoms). Since the Yuan Dynasty in the 12th century, several islands that may be the Spratlys have been labeled as Chinese territory,[21] followed by the Ming Dynasty[22] and the Qing Dynasty from the 13th to 19th Century.[23] In 1755,[24][25] archaeological surveys the remains of Chinese pottery and coins have been found in the islands and are cited as proof for the PRC claim.[26]
Source wikipediaSpratly Islands dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

MAYURA

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
888
Likes
250
@t_co

how can you support portugal rule over angola and if you do then you should not complain about opium wars and nanking ( infact i think you should but not with same standards you are using ).


Tibetans received their religion, script and lot of texts from india originally ( do not start the crap that we all are africans and such . it does matter to you and me what happened in classical antiquity, middle ages and modern period. no chinese is happy or sad about events occuring 10,000 years ago but it does matter to chinese if it is concerned with shang, han or ming era. so an event of historical period is really important ) and since originally means a lot, tibet falls in Indosphere just as korea falls in sinosphere .

also, indians have their holiest place in Tibet whereas chinese have no relation with tibet on basis of culture which makes your rule as valid as british rule on india that is a colonial rule by massive force.


it is so sad that whole world is free today but one people with so distinct national identity are still in colonial grip of land grabbing habit of han people who have started from a rump and now control 10 million sq. kms.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MAYURA

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
888
Likes
250
China claims to have discovered the islands in the Han Dynasty in 2 BC. The islands were claimed to have been marked on maps compiled during the time of Eastern Han Dynasty and Eastern Wu (one of the Three Kingdoms).
Tibet was known to rigvedic aryans in 1100 bc.

hahaha
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
we can have some harappa mohenjo daro period maps which show half of China as part of India and then we can claim what ever we want...................:rofl:
No, you misunderstood me. What I am trying to say (and what @t_co was saying) is that what matters is what your are actually in possession of now, not what you possessed 5000 years ago. Only if you hold something, can you proceed to get the world to accept that you own it. In other words, de jure follows after de facto.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top