One China? What about One India policy: Sushma Swaraj to Wang Yi

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

India is the one who publishes an article 3x per week on it; China stays mum.

china talks more than india on south tibet. Right now china is mum and the reason is china will be miserable as it is already facing japan,vietnam,america, philippines , south korea.

 

[no smoking]

china talks more than india on south tibet. Right now china is mum and the reason is china will be miserable as it is already facing japan,vietnam,america, philippines , south korea.

And India is still so afraid of this miserable China.

 

[arnabmit]

So media decides diplomatic policy of a country?

India is the one who publishes an article 3x per week on it; China stays mum.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

And India is still so afraid of this miserable China.

its china that is miserable , hence the sweet talks with india......

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

So media decides diplomatic policy of a country?

don't you know that its government who runs media in china

 

[arnabmit]

Of course, but not in India (under a non-congress govt)

don't you know that its government who runs media in china

 

[t_co]

its china that is miserable , hence the sweet talks with india......

Offering to negotiate is not an automatic indication of weakness.

 

[Ray]

Offering to negotiate is not an automatic indication of weakness.

Totally correct.

That is the way one can iron out the problems.

 

[Compersion]

Xi has said that, "We need to innovate in our security concepts, establish a new regional security-cooperation architecture, and jointly build a shared, win-win road for Asian security." But China's actions suggest that its leaders view Chinese hegemony as the only viable security structure for the region.

Subordination to China is certainly not Modi's goal. The question is whether he can work with China and other Asian actors to design an alternative framework for regional peace.

Read more: India and China must design a framework for regional peace | Opinion , Commentary | THE DAILY STAR
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: Breaking News, Lebanon News, Middle East News & World News | THE DAILY STAR)

 

[Compersion]

India has 'access' to the mountain. China has ownership.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Kailash



China even banned people from climbing the mountain, out of deference to Hindu and Jain religious sensitivities.



Asking the PRC to cede that mountain on the basis of its significance to Indian tourists would be like China asking France to cede all the luxury malls in Paris on the basis that Chinese people love going there for China's national religion...

What was status of PRC in aksai chin before 1960 and reason for talking on getting "access" and "ownership" on land through and owned by india. What's the difference between that and access and similar ownership to mount kailash a area that has historical connection to india much more compared to PRC west. Is war the only solution in your mind. What is PRC doing in aksai chin (the reason) it's to do with access.

Cessation is something that has many variations that PRC is a expert at defining. I am sure something can be developed to suit the PRC audience. Permanent solution to indo sino border needs something to make both the parties move

Also a piece of advise the shopping and gambling traits of people is not a (national) religion and be used in historical context.

If PRC people were crossing land owned by india before 1960 to get to area that was only accessible through such a route ... Why PRC start talking and eventually trouble india on getting ownership. Why india cannot apply the same principle.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

Offering to negotiate is not an automatic indication of weakness.

this is strength. The weakness is continuous violation of border by chinese. One is recent when chinese helicopter violated the border

 

[no smoking]

Offering to negotiate is not an automatic indication of weakness.

You are wasting your time.

The simple Indian rule is:
1. What India claims is India's, what India occupies is India's.
2. What China claims is not China's, what China occupies is not China's.

 

[t_co]

You are wasting your time.

The simple Indian rule is:
1. What India claims is India's, what India occupies is India's.
2. What China claims is not China's, what China occupies is not China's.

Surely not everyone in India is as thickheaded as you imply. I hope.