Ceding Aksai Chin not an option for India

[TrueSpirit]

This is important since China takes comfort that if trade booms, then other countries will drop their difference with China

However, for such people they should not forget that that China settled its border differences with Russia, Myanmar, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and others when it had no worthwhile trade ties with them, and is currently asserting its territorial claims on Japan and other Southeast Asian countries when its trade and investment ties with them are flourishing.

Nice observation, Sir.

My personal belief: In context of the countries that China settled its border differences with, China would have negotiated from a position of strength & got the other party to concede disputed territories, forego their historical/documented claims, extracted viable concessions & in a subtle but diplomatically acceptable way, coerced them to compromise on their territorial integrity (with or without the other party realizing/accepting the reality). They never had much of an option against an assertive China, at least, no option that can be exercise safely without facing apt repercussions.

It would have been in the larger interest of the other parties to give seemingly minor territorial concessions in lieu of being in good books of a rising World power in their immediate neighborhood.

So, China has all sorts of leverage over most of these nations. Regarding Russia, Kremlin feels demographically threatened by the Dragon & it has every reason to feel so. It's but a matter of time before the HAN colonizes the Russian Far East in veneer of some industrial projects, under the aegis of some "mutually-beneficial-agreement", of course. Anyway, Russia has failed to develop Siberia, commensurate with the amount of potential this region enjoys, sans some oil/gas extraction endeavors.

Further, Russia-China are too mutually-dependent & strategically intertwined in the bigger scheme of things so they would not like to jeopardize the fragile bond between the two, especially with constant US/NATO presence in their immediate neighborhood's & both facing extremist/seccionsit movements in theri variou manifestations, arising across a common region. Addressing that threat tops the agenda of SCO.

Coming to India, we figure a lowly 15th on their list of trading nations so economically, we hold limited potential for them. Our market size is just "average" in comparison to their massive production outputs & US/Europe/Middle-East + Africa is a higher priority to fulfill that need of market. Yes, they need India for its mineral ore, maybe Thorium also in some distant future (but there are multiple suppliers that are nearer/bigger like Turkey, Kazakh & Australia) & also, our presence & capability in major sea-lanes across IOR region.

But most of all, they want us not to join the US-Japan-Australia Pacific Axis because even a minor inconvenience/unrest on its Southern doorstep would slow down it stride towards its mission of dominating Western Pacific & Central Asia.

But then, they know India all too well & understand that, we would willingly not join any military-alliance aimed against its larger neighbor. Goes against our non-aligned policies & plays against our insecurities arising out of past experiences (colonialism).

But, then again, China does not take many chances & hence the regular needling it does to us serves two purposes: One, we are reminded that we don't stand a chance against them (debatable, of course) & two, we are kept preoccupied, rather than being able to focus on how to contain the strategic clout of China throughout Eurasia + Africa.

Having done this, they literally knock out the potential competition that India can offer to them on most fronts. Our global ambitions are nipped in the bud when have vexing issues throughout our borders. They try to make us realize that our power-projection capabilities are a farce, at best & we are, much to our dis-pleasure, a South-East Asian minor regional player of limited consequence & one, who is destined to be limited to that region.

Overall, in the larger scheme of things, India is not indispensable to China. They are already dominating our markets & they have already secured vital energy lanes across Central Asia/Middle East through land-routes. Excellent relations with Russia (even if, just on the surface) do help the matters & assist them in consolidating their position on all fronts.

Since, their energy security as well as economic security is more or less secured, they are free to focus their attention on "flexing of military-strategic muscle" in all possible ways. Thus, the HAN asserts/ensures it's supremacy in Asia & beyond.

 

[TrueSpirit]

Second, I just give the advice which I believe should make a lot of indians here lot easier.

Old Indian saying: "Advice"is one commodity in market whose supply vastly exceeds the demand.

 

[MAYURA]

Are you five years old?

If you were that troll hiding behind some western name, i would be five years old.

 

[SamwiseTheBrave]

What can India do?

layyyyyyyyy the smacK down on your roody-pooh candy han ass !!! @t_co btw am still awaiting the answers on those threads.
your post quality and logic skills are.... weak !

 

[TrueSpirit]

@t_co @CCTV @amoy

What's up with this:

A military plane Thursday crashed into the sea off China's eastern Shandong province, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy said.

The accident occurred around 10 a.m. when the seaplane from the Beihai Fleet was conducting a flight drill above Jiaozhou Bay near Qingdao city, Xinhua quoted the naval authorities as saying.

A rescue operation was launched, but it was not clear whether there were any casualties.

Reports of crashes and other military mishaps had been relatively rare in the past but the traditionally secretive People's Liberation Army has been making greater efforts at transparency as it seeks to transition into a modern military.

The North Sea Fleet operates four Shuihong 5 seaplanes dating from the 1980s and used primarily for low-altitude maritime patrol and surveillance missions. Each carries five crew members.

 

[amoy]

@TrueSpirit sir theres already a dedicated thread for the accident. Dont see how the North Sea fleet is related to our Aksai Chin

Sent from my 5910 using Tapatalk 2

 

[TrueSpirit]

Can the moderators delete my previous post, since it is irrelevant to the thread.

 

[no smoking]

This is important since China takes comfort that if trade booms, then other countries will drop their difference with China

However, for such people they should not forget that that China settled its border differences with Russia, Myanmar, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and others when it had no worthwhile trade ties with them, and is currently asserting its territorial claims on Japan and other Southeast Asian countries when its trade and investment ties with them are flourishing.

No, I don't think China is expecting other countries to drop their difference due to trade booms. On the contrary, China is expecting to drop the difference by compromise from both sides. The problem in sino-india conflict is that India insist to take nothing less than all.

 

[pmaitra]

No, I don't think China is expecting other countries to drop their difference due to trade booms. On the contrary, China is expecting to drop the difference by compromise from both sides. The problem in sino-india conflict is that India insist to take nothing less than all.

PRC's stand here is dubious. PRC grabs Indian territory, and then says, "you keep half while I keep the other half." Under sch circumstances, there is never going to be a compromise. We have reached a point that India will eventually have to plan for a full scale war with not only the aim to recover Aksai Chin, but also to get East Turkestan and Tibet their freedom.

 

[no smoking]

PRC's stand here is dubious. PRC grabs Indian territory, and then says, "you keep half while I keep the other half." Under sch circumstances, there is never going to be a compromise. We have reached a point that India will eventually have to plan for a full scale war with not only the aim to recover Aksai Chin, but also to get East Turkestan and Tibet their freedom.

Or really. There was no treaty been signed between India and China regarding the border. The land was claimed by both side. So, technically, it is no one's land. Let's see what indian professional and professional from third country says.

A G Noorani
Nehru's China policy

Quote:
"Para 8 shut the door to negotiations on the boundary - "not open to discussion with anybody". India unilaterally revised its official map. The legend "boundary undefined" in the Western (Kashmir) and middle sectors (Uttar Pradesh) in the official maps of 1948 and 1950 were dropped in the new map of 1954."

In another article, this indian historian also wrote:

"In 1954, Jawaharlal Nehru decided to redraw maps showing firm boundary lines where earlier colour wash reflected an unsettled boundary. Aksai Chin became entirely Indian territory. Nehru further declared that the border was firm and not open to discussion."

Looks like "Indian territory" could change any time and anywhere as long as Indian say so.

Let's check another report by an australian official Dr Gregory Clark:
"When serious fighting broke out on October 20 as Chinese troops moved south across the Thag La Ridge area following Nehru's October 12 order to have Indian troops occupy the Dho La Strip territory, I made it my job immediately to check where the disputed Dho La Strip territory was actually located. Extremely detailed and seemingly objective material coming out of Beijing, including copies of the original McMahon Line agreement, complete with maps, seemed to confirm that both the Dho La Strip and the Thag La Ridge were indeed north of where the McMahon Line was supposed to be. In which case, India was clearly the aggressor. "

Chinese checkers on border board: Will India make the winning move? - Page 2 - Economic Times

 

[pmaitra]

Or really. There was no treaty been signed between India and China regarding the border.

Why should India sign a treaty with China? India does not share a border with China. India shares a border with Tibet and East Turkestan.

Do you know where China is? It is east of Chamdo, south of the several Great Walls that were connected by Huangdi.

Now, regarding border with Tibet and East Turkestan, the map below explains what belongs to whom.

 

[Ray]

Extremely detailed and seemingly objective material coming out of Beijing, including copies of the original McMahon Line agreement, complete with maps

This is where the problem of interpretation of the man lies.

Original copies?

Carbon dating done?

 

[t_co]

Why should India sign a treaty with China? India does not share a border with China. India shares a border with Tibet and East Turkestan.

Do you know where China is? It is east of Chamdo, south of the several Great Walls that were connected by Huangdi.

Now, regarding border with Tibet and East Turkestan, the map below explains what belongs to whom.

ROFL I can draw lines on a map too!

Those maps come out of a pro-Indian mapmaker; the Chinese side never agreed to any line like that.

If you want to believe that Xinjiang and Tibet should be independent or pro-India buffers between India and China, I invite you to imagine what New Delhi and Beijing would look like following a few megatons of thermonuclear ordnance. That is the only way you can achieve your point of view.

 

[t_co]

All I'm saying is that you have a right to believe whatever you want - but there are some beliefs, that if you act upon them, will trigger a no-holds-barred response.

C'est la vie.

I doubt the GoI has the guts to even think of daring to adopt those beliefs.

 

[pmaitra]

ROFL I can draw lines on a map too!

Those maps come out of a pro-Indian mapmaker; the Chinese side never agreed to any line like that.

These borders are not Chinese borders, they are Indo-Tibetan and Indo-East-Turkestan borders. China agreeing or not agreeing is only relevant as long as PRC has military superiority.

If you want to believe that Xinjiang and Tibet should be independent or pro-India buffers between India and China, I invite you to imagine what New Delhi and Beijing would look like following a few megatons of thermonuclear ordnance. That is the only way you can achieve your point of view.

Neither side will use nukes in case of a conflict, so no use using that as a threat. It's not impressive enough.

 

[t_co]

These borders are not Chinese borders, they are Indo-Tibetan and Indo-East-Turkestan borders. China agreeing or not agreeing is only relevant as long as PRC has military superiority.

By the same logic, India agreeing or not agreeing is irrelevant as long as India does not have military superiority.

Neither side will use nukes in case of a conflict, so no use using that as a threat. It's not impressive enough.

Actually, China would - it keeps nuclear warheads in the territories you're referring to, so putting those territories at risk would also put its nuclear arsenal at risk. Heard of 'use it or lose it'?

 

[pmaitra]

By the same logic, India agreeing or not agreeing is irrelevant as long as India does not have military superiority.

Agreed.

Actually, China would - it keeps nuclear warheads in the territories you're referring to, so putting those territories at risk would also put its nuclear arsenal at risk. Heard of 'use it or lose it'?

If PRC keeps nukes in Tibet, it is PRC's headache. No one is stopping them for removing them if they stand threatened. PRC's nukes, PRC's responsibility.

 

[Ray]

By the same logic, India agreeing or not agreeing is irrelevant as long as India does not have military superiority.

Neither does China.

Actually, China would - it keeps nuclear warheads in the territories you're referring to, so putting those territories at risk would also put its nuclear arsenal at risk. Heard of 'use it or lose it'?

Insurrection is the leveller!

 

[pmaitra]

By the same logic, India agreeing or not agreeing is irrelevant as long as India does not have military superiority.

Neither does China.

No offense @Ray Sir, but that is what I call is underestimating the enemy. PRC does have military superiority over India, and let's not be an arrogant Nehruvian and respect the enemy for what it is. My humble yet firm opinion.

P.S.: I know you are not a Nehruvian, but you sure do sound arrogant here.

 

[Ray]

No offense @Ray Sir, but that is what I call is underestimating the enemy. PRC does have military superiority over India, and let's not be an arrogant Nehruvian and respect the enemy for what it is. My humble yet firm opinion.

P.S.: I know you are not a Nehruvian, but you sure do sound arrogant here.

Superiority, as I understand, is not merely numbers.

It is the end statement in the geopolitical and geostrategic realm.

China has more to lose if she appears to be an aggressor.

She has to appear to be a responsible player if she is to have her place in the sun and that would be the last thing that she would like to lose.