How did India give UNSC seat to China?

[xiaocao]

its indian friends insist that you give the p5 membership to china ,and you can see what they try to prove it .with such point of view ,du you think china will suport u to be a p6?

 

[xiaocao]

after reading Sino-Indian War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia i dont c any chance we will support you as a p6 ,

 

[LETHALFORCE]

what a shocking revelation.

 

[S.A.T.A]

As it was the case with the NSG waiver, the midgets will eventually come around...........

 

[ppgj]

even today, India is still not in the league of UK,France ,German and Japan, let alone USA, RUssia and CHIna,although India has potential......India always has the potential...:blum3:

why do you think they are talking of g-20 than g-7 nowadays if they were in the league that you are talking about.

 

[badguy2000]

how did an undeveloped China get in this league??

a full industry chain is the backbone of a real power,while India and Brazil have not such a full industry chain.

Russia was almost bankrupty in 1990s,however even at that time, Russia still had a industry chain much more full than India and Brazil today.....that is why nobody dare belittle Russia,however poor RUssia is .

Sudia Arabia is much richer than Russia in 1990s,however even Israel can crack it,because S arabia had not independent industry chain.


IMHO only 4 economies in the world have independent industry chain and can wear long-term total war independently ... those 4 economies are USA ,Russia, CHina and EU(as a whole). India and Brazil is not in the league.
that is why UN is controlled by the big 4 ,and India and Brazil are maginalized .

frankly speaking, in the global politcal arena today, only USA ,Russia ,China and EU( as a whole) are independently players ,the others (including India and Brazil) are just chessmen.

Until India can build its own independent full industry chain, India can not get out of the fate of " a chessman"

 

[tarunraju]

a full industry chain is the backbone of a real power,while India and Brazil have not such a full industry chain.

That is true. What's also true is that neither Britain, nor France had a full-fledged industry, when constituting the P5, they don't have them now either.

 

[badguy2000]

That is true. What's also true is that neither Britain, nor France had a full-fledged industry, when constituting the P5, they don't have them now either.

guy, UK and France were the 3rd and 4th biggest industry power when UN was founded in 1945.

however ,after WW II,quite a part of industry bases of west countries (including UK and France )were shifted to Japan,Asia tigers ,then to CHIna.

compared with that in 1945, the industrybases of UK and France today have shrinked while that of CHina and Japan rise up.

before 1949, CHina could manufacture nothing but rifles,that was why chinese troops were kicked ass by japanese during WW II. but in 1959, CHina could already manufacture tanks, jet fighers,cannon,autos and warships.

 

[tarunraju]

guy, UK and France were the 3rd and 4th biggest industry power when UN was founded in 1945.

however ,after WW II,quite a part of industry bases of west countries (including UK and France )were shifted to Japan,Asia tigers ,then to CHIna.

Right, and that's exactly what I'm talking about. Having a full-fledged industry was never a criterion. Both Britain and France had considerable infrastructure losses in the war. It really doesn't matter if countries like India, Japan, and their service-sector economies eye their place amongst the P5.

 

[badguy2000]

Right, and that's exactly what I'm talking about. Having a full-fledged industry was never a criterion. Both Britain and France had considerable infrastructure losses in the war. It really doesn't matter if countries like India, Japan, and their service-sector economies eye their place amongst the P5.

guy, are you really think that india's economy is post-industry serivce-based economy ,just because 50% of its eocnomy is service?

India's economy is a abnormal economy....or premature serivice-based economy . its service section occupy most share of its economy, not because its service section is very developed ,but because its industry section is too undeveloped.

Unlike India, Japan has consolidated industry base( however still not as full as Russia, China, USA and EU). its economy is a post-industrialization service-based economy.

BTW, although the industry chain of UK and France is not as full as it was in 1945, UK and France are still the 5th and 6th biggest industry power and have much more full industry chain than India and Brazil.

 

[tarunraju]

No, it's really because the service-sector is 'too-developed', and growing at a great pace. Does your government for example guarantee 2 Mbps internet connection for 36 RMB per month (250 INR) in every city and town?

 

[badguy2000]

No, it's really because the service-sector is 'too-developed', and growing at a great pace. Does your government for example guarantee 2 Mbps internet connection for 36 RMB per month (250 INR) in every city and town?

service sections includes hotels, bars, rents,banks,telecoms.transportations...etc

pls ask tourists to compare the quality of India's above sections with that of other economies such as china and southeast asia .let alone developed economies,before you say"No, it's really because the service-sector is 'too-developed'

 

[tarunraju]

Foreign tourists get world-class accommodation anywhere in the country, unless the 'foreign tourists' you're talking about are people who are fleeing PRC into India via Arunachal.

There are plenty of good bars. Only, no strip-clubs. So unless you need a wank, you can certainly get drunk, in good company, with good music.

Rents (rented accommodation) are very affordable and of good quality. People from all over the country like to go outside their towns for better opportunities, and this is a decent industry.

India's telecom infrastructure is enviable. You'll probably not find a country with such population, offering megabit+ broadband internet to every household in the towns and cities, and offering free dial-up connection to anyone in the country with a landline phone. India is the only place where you'll find AT&T, Vodafone, DoCoMo, and Virgin competing in the same city as cellular carriers.

As for transport, we have one of the largest rail networks, the largest railroad carrier (in terms of number of people transported each day), and are actively building 4 to 6-lane highways everywhere. So yes, our service-sector is shining.

 

[Known_Unknown]

There is absolutely no hard evidence that India was ever offered the UNSC seat. This myth of India giving up the seat for China was invented by some right wing Indian politicians during Nehru's time as a stick to beat him with after India's defeat in the 1962 war. The successors of these people spread this idea and even some who weren't affiliated with the Jana Sangh/BJP/RSS fell victim to this propaganda.

People sometimes forget that even during Nehru's times, there was a strong opposition (and all credit goes to Nehru for encouraging democratic traditions), which often used underhand tactics to undermine the tremendous popularity of Nehru among the Indian people. So they spread all kinds of rumours to defame Nehru personally, one of which appears to be the myth above. Another, off the top of my head, is the rumour about a physical relationship between Lady Mountbatten and Nehru. A third, is about physical relationships that Gandhi had with his lady disciples.

All these are regularly repeated by RSS ideologues since such baseless and slanderous rumours are their only ammo against the greatness of our founding fathers.

 

[Rage]

You didn't even read the whole thing. Just look around the UN official page. Somewhere in there says that representatives from [51 or 26, can't remember] countries deliberated on the draft based on the proposal by USA, UK....China. That was at minimum was what China did other countries didn't.

Let me give you a little history lesson : The United Nations first officially came into existence in nomenclature on January 1 1942 when 26 governments signed the Atlantic Charter, pledging to continue the war effort. The term itself and the idea was an exclusive conception of the U.S. State Department in 1939 and of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt. The United Nations first officially came into existence as a international confederacy on 24 October 1945 upon ratification of that Charter by the members who proceeded to become its Permanent 5 AND a majority of the 46 other signatories, of which India was a part. Therefore, yes, India is a founding member of the United Nations in the capacity of Imperial India and under the aegis of an imminent postliminiary independent state. Do you understand what that means? Just as Taiwan was a founding member of the United nations in its capacity as (perceived/recognized and postliminiary) [purely] de jure sovereign of a nation-state that was in de facto ruled by someone else.


Again: "Deliberation upon the draft resolution", "original signing of the declaration" or "mooting of the proposal" does NOT in itself constitute an entitlement to a P5 position. That is a fatuous correlation. Let me not berate the point.


The purpose of the UN is not to prognosticate a form of world government or to make laws. Rather, it is "to provide the means to help resolve international conflicts and formulate policies on matters of world concern". That is from YOUR source. The ability of an international organization to solve "world conflicts" and to "address matters of international concern" depends in large part upon two things: the ability and puissance of its member nations and; their representativeness, none of which Taiwan had de facto claim to.

The un page doesn't go into details, but do you deny that it says China played a key role in the establishment of the UN?

'Details' I can give you in far more 'detail' than any page can. The answer to that question is provided exhaustively above.

The drafters of the UN charter decided, China was one of them.

Yes, and that was a matter of politicking, a tool of geopolitical expediency, an instrument of anticipating, preempting and straddling the spread of Communism in Asia in an environment of a Cold War genesis where the US was already concerned of the Soviet Union's designs to expand the Comintern into Asia - it was NOT an evaluation of the ROC, the PRC or civil war China, or for that matter of forthcoming independent India by any objective, pragmatic or efficaciousness criteria.

Sure, Indian troops had some victory, but against against how much IJA force.

Do not spread the lamp of your ignorance here. British Indian troops played a key role in everywhere from the South and South-east Asian theater to the Middle East to Africa, Italy and Europe. This should give you a start:

India in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Rage]

guy, UK and France were the 3rd and 4th biggest industry power when UN was founded in 1945.

however ,after WW II,quite a part of industry bases of west countries (including UK and France )were shifted to Japan,Asia tigers ,then to CHIna.

compared with that in 1945, the industrybases of UK and France today have shrinked while that of CHina and Japan rise up.

before 1949, CHina could manufacture nothing but rifles,that was why chinese troops were kicked ass by japanese during WW II. but in 1959, CHina could already manufacture tanks, jet fighers,cannon,autos and warships.

Guy....what a load of crock! You don't know JACK SQUAT about what you are talking.

At the time of the Inter-War years, India had one of the largest Industrial bases in the world, where the capacity to manufacture most consumer and capital goods existed, even though imports were still sizable and important:

The benefits and costs of import ... - Google Books


Dr. Stephen P Cohen, Professor emeritus PhD. at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, senior Fellow of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution, adjunct Professor at Georgetown University, former member of the Policy Planning Staff of the U.S. Department of State, and Senior Research scientist in the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security (ACDIS), who measured the Purchasing Power Parity of India at the onset of Independence in 1947, puts India's PPP at $1,661 billiion, not far behind Japan's $2,928 billion in gross PPP terms. He insists that "India emerged after World War II as the world's fourth largest Industrial power and the world's second most populous state".

The idea of Pakistan - Google Books


Furthermore, here is an example of a confidential document indicative of India's industrial strength penned in Shimla in 1946 on the 'Consequences of the transfer of political power in India to the British Commonwealth':

Indian Independence: World War II Source 9


Don't spout your tripe when you don't know kocchie boo.

 

[no smoking]

who has disputed any other scholar's right? mr. tharoor was in the UN for a long enough time. so he will have info that you or anybody here will not have. that is what gives more credibility to what he says. you beleiving it or not does not count.

I didn't question his creditity, either. What I point out is: considerting his age and the year of this event, he was not the one sitting besides Nehru in the meeting room when the offer was made. There must be someone else told him about this event. What i asked is the name of this person and the person's clarification. Or if he cannot provide these, at least tell us who is the USA representive and what did this american say about this claim. Did I ask too much or This indian just made it up?

that is your opinion based on your ignorance.

If Dr Shasi cannot provide any least supporting evidence, then it is only his opinion based on some intentions we don't know.

 

[Rage]

You didn't debunk me, you ostensibly debunked the UN.

We shall see, shan't we?

Since when did you start believing "commie propaganda". Don't just cited it here because it happens to fit your purpose.

'Communist propaganda' AHAHAHAHA. So it's 'commie propaganda' now that it doesn't suit your purpose.


Do not respond to me unless you've read every single one of the assertions in my sources- yes including the (neutral) sources- and can come up with a rebuttal to each one of these.


Nowhere have I alluded to official Communist historiographies of the war. And unlike your brethren, I do not live in a communist state which attempts to curtail and cull my resources or recruits two-cent party posters or attempts to make monitoring mandatory on my cyber activities, am more virulently right-wing than most, and am not subject to the dogmatism or promulgations of a single party toe-the-line.


In further reading: From Victory to Victimization: Minjie Chen. The Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945), as Depicted in Chinese Youth Literature.

What would the world be if we now in our thought experiment take away those Indian troops?

I will not launch on a tangent to engage in an excursion that is beyond the purview of this discussion, and upon which I have already expostulated before. Indian contributions, as aforementioned, to British successes in various theatres of the War have been all too well documented.

ROC had far larger commitment in anti-Japanese war than the Chinese red army. Since it claimed to be the legitimate government, it had obligations to fight foreign invasion. The CCP and the Chinese red army were recognised as legal organisation, hence fought under the flag of ROC. Their uniforms of this period had emblems of KMT units.

'Commitment' does not equate with attainment. Furthermore, that is a false characterization. Chiang Kai Shek's sense of 'obligation' amounted to nought. As I've said before, he held the policy of dealing with domestic insurrection as opposed to external aggression first throughout, had to be coerced into a cessation of hostilities with the Communists by the Soviet Union, and had to be kidnapped by his own generals to acquiesce to the forming of the 'Second United Front'. Notwithstanding that all of these alliances were in name only, broke down on multiple occasions whenever the first opportunity arose- and documented conflicts between the KMT and the Communists regular, due in large part to the KMT's constant attempts to simultaneously outmaneuver the Communists but also vice versa.


As for 'fighting under the flag of the ROC', that arrangement was only nominal and has been documented to have both been vitriolic and volatile, as well as an alliance in 'eponymous' more than anything else. For the most part, the KMT and the Communists engaged the IJA separately and independently, while remaining wary of each other, as demonstrated copiously by the 8th Route Army and the New Fourth Army, and in accounts of the '22 major engagements'.

Withou KMT troops, Japanese army could divert forces from the frontline to fight the Chinese and Soviet red army. Hitler would've loved to see 4 million Japanese troops on Soviet's behind. Who knows what this will lead to. The Soviet Union might be beaten. Hitler would be able to focus on the west. Europe might not be liberated.

Yes, speculation can have no end. Likewise, could it have been speculated that the KMT might have succumbed sooner or would not have been able to sustain the war entirely without CCP help [or more likely, independent engagement], as it looked like doing on several occasions prior to substantive Soviet and American intervention during the war.


Game, set and match.

 

[p2prada]

And so did Britain.

You wouldn't have done so without China tying down Japanese troops, who would not tie down Soviet troops, who tied down German troops.

East African operations were strategically insignificant.

China commited far more than 2.5 million.

Please don't even think about comparing volunteers with conscripts. In India nobody is forced to join the military, the officers don't even approach you for enlisting. You have your own choice to make. It was the same in WW2.

African operations were very significant. Else Hitler wouldn't have sent Rommel to do the dirty work.

It was the US which tied down Japan and not China. You were merely resisting occupation, we were invading foreign shores and occupying. Right now, Taliban is resisting while Americans are invading. See the difference, big big difference.

 

[p2prada]

Until India can build its own independent full industry chain, India can not get out of the fate of " a chessman"

We have a full working industry chain. One of the largest too. Did you forget we just piped you in car exports?

Our military also has its full independent industry chain. Else, HAL wouldn't have said we are able to make the Su-30 from scratch.

We are also building our own ships, not to mention we are half way done with an Aircraft Carrier. China is yet to start with a Carrier of her own.

It's China which does not have a full military industrial complex.