India-China 2020 Border conflict

cannonfodder

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
936
Likes
1,921
Country flag
Now I believe Chinese Wet there Pants No Soul Will convince Me Contrary

Bloody 274 billion $ Defense budget And 3 Trillion $ Forex But Lack balls :shoot::shoot::shoot::shoot:

Indian Army Has balls Steel :india2::india2::india2::india2::india2:
Did any thing more happen after IA capturing some peaks?
 

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
7,958
Likes
29,008
Country flag
Well well


My guess as to what the larger phenomenon is:-
China's insistence that India acknowledge it as the next super power & fall inline or face consequences

If so, the next question is, if we are "sitting down for a solution", what is the solution? :)
Like Pakistan, China is a revisionist force. You don't "sit down for solutions." The only real solutions you can expect will come out of a post-war negotiation. MEA vastly overestimates its mandate in dealing with China.
 

Cactus09

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
215
Likes
1,120
Country flag
Like Pakistan, China is a revisionist force. You don't "sit down for solutions." The only real solutions you can expect will come out of a post-war negotiation. MEA vastly overestimates its mandate in dealing with China.
No the only real solution is to tell China that we won't be freeing Tibet and Xingjang when you go for Taiwan. Else be prepared to be screwed by IA first and then Quad later.
 

Blue Water Navy

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2020
Messages
1,569
Likes
5,675
Country flag
Now I believe Chinese Wet there Pants No Soul Will convince Me Contrary

Bloody 274 billion $ Defense budget And 3 Trillion $ Forex But Lack balls :shoot::shoot::shoot::shoot:

Indian Army Has balls Steel :india2::india2::india2::india2::india2:

LOL you are convinced now. I am convinced since Doklam, they are nothing more than just a paper dragon.

But I didn't think that they will be this much stupid. :dude:

I mean what they gain? Seriously speaking. Some stone, pebbles?! And what they lost? Billions of dollars of contracts, trust from the other countries, Chinese propaganda bubble, the list goes on and on. And as the time will pass the number on the list will only increase.

All of these basically for what? To make India focus on its army and air force rather than on navy? And also there is the fact is that their humongous ego about teaching India a lesson after Doklam..

As, I have stated many times. This happens when you had your propaganda drink too much which was actually meant for your citizens. You become delusional of the reality.:crazy::crazy:

The truth is everybody knew about the CCP's atrocities. But nobody said nothing because most powers were making money. US citizens lost jobs yet, Democrats kept pushing Chinese propaganda. Hiding their reality. Trump bhau came into the office and made people see the truth. On the CCP part, when you do something wrong you keep your voice down. But CCP under XI's leadership is more arrogant as hell. They have started becoming rich since when? A couple of years now!! And see the arrogance they are showing in their attitudes.

It all comes to the fact that it happens when you had your propaganda drink too much.:bplease:

Well this is my point of view. Some other members might say otherwise. @utubekhiladi @Bhumihar @scatterStorm @fire starter @garg_bharat @mokoman @Knowitall @Shashank Nayak
 

dumdumdum

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2017
Messages
283
Likes
1,760
Country flag
This is horribly off of topic ...but what the hell..thread has gone to dogs & even Mods don't care. So here I go.

<offtopic>
1947 was like a childbirth. Every childbirth involves incredible pain. Easiest way to avoid this pain is to give anesthesia to mother. That does have its own bad effects, huge risks but if your primary objective is to minimize pain this what you will do. Liberalism was that anesthesia.

Without that, wouldn't a healthy baby have been born? Absolutely wrong. We would have had a very healthy baby. But it would have involved lot of pain , lot of bloodshed, bloodshed till an equilibrium had been reached. The effects of anesthesia have remained for a long long time. Post delivery slumber lasted a long time.

India would not have become a stable nation state in absence of Liberalism is a lie. Yes, we would have seen a prolonged tumultuous violent civil war, which would have ended in a decade or so. Would that have been better or worse than the decay that happened for 7 odd decades is anybody's guess.
</offtopic>
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,988
Likes
23,569
Country flag
Like Pakistan, China is a revisionist force. You don't "sit down for solutions." The only real solutions you can expect will come out of a post-war negotiation. MEA vastly overestimates its mandate in dealing with China.
I really wonder if Jai Shankar is planning to further defang the Indian Army? How can MEA tolerate an alternative tool of conducting business with PLA? Defending the turf Indian way involves throwing your competitor down the cliff...

Sad, but true the Indian ruling class just have no ideas of application of Military power in attaining foreign policy objectives.... But they have no qualms using that tool internally..
 

Knowitall

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2019
Messages
2,296
Likes
7,419
Country flag
Well that's a real shame that people are discrediting
Father of the Nation. It's not about Modi or Congress, its respecting your history.
What father of nation tumhara baap hoga humara nahi.

Respecting our history???

Mughal rule and british rule is not our history it is akin to nazi germany occupation of france.

So called bapu of the nation is responsible for the bengal famine for the death of countless Indians and delaying of our independence by a nice 20 years.

He and nehru are solely responsible for the shit we are in today.

He is the father of british India not India learn to understand the difference.
 
Last edited:

cereal killer

Senior Member
Joined
May 14, 2020
Messages
1,683
Likes
6,148
Country flag
It is the guys like Chandrasekhar Tiwari (Azad) who are responsible for India's freedom. His last stand, in which he fought alone against a contingent of British soldiers armed with two pistols is testament to a life filled with action and devotion. However in a nation ruled by likes of Nehru, there was no place for a hero like Chandrasekhar Tiwari (Azad). A country which does not honor its heroes is doomed.

Basically the biggest thing is Country was not united.. There was no India or Bharat concept those days. The 1857 revolt revealed the difference.. South was decent different, North was different. So what Shaheed Chandrashekhar & shaheed Bhagat Singh did was inspire the people.. That was not visible in 1857 when it was about kingdoms not country. Both of them knew what their actions would lead do. Bhagat Singh even surrendered.
Gandhi, Patel, Nehru & other leaders had their part to play. Gandhi was like face of India which was vital in itself in international community to gain support. Keeping the country together.. Otherwise our country is just too diverse... To understand each other. Language & cultural difference were too vast. British utilized this weakness to the fullest. Previous leaders before Gandhi Patel tried hardcore approaches like Tilak but were limited to big cities.. They weren't able to take it common mass in small cities.
Everyone had their role to play basically.
 

Knowitall

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2019
Messages
2,296
Likes
7,419
Country flag

How does MEA expect any sort of meaningful disengagement is they prevent Indian army from changing status quo.

Until and unless we capture something on their side of the LAC what are we going to negotiate.

Their honey laced words won't give us our territory back.
 

Hfg..

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2020
Messages
30
Likes
105
Country flag
Basically the biggest thing is Country was not united.. There was no India or Bharat concept those days. The 1857 revolt revealed the difference.. South was decent different, North was different. So what Shaheed Chandrashekhar & shaheed Bhagat Singh did was inspire the people.. That was not visible in 1857 when it was about kingdoms not country. Both of them knew what their actions would lead do. Bhagat Singh even surrendered.
Gandhi, Patel, Nehru & other leaders had their part to play. Gandhi was like face of India which was vital in itself in international community to gain support. Keeping the country together.. Otherwise our country is just too diverse... To understand each other. Language & cultural difference were too vast. British utilized this weakness to the fullest. Previous leaders before Gandhi Patel tried hardcore approaches like Tilak but were limited to big cities.. They weren't able to take it common mass in small cities.
Everyone had their role to play basically.
Sardar Vallabhai Patel should be given the credit for uniting all the kingdoms to make Bharat. Gandhi played no role in keeping Bharat united. He just became a popular face among the common people and that’s it!
 

Knowitall

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2019
Messages
2,296
Likes
7,419
Country flag
Basically the biggest thing is Country was not united.. There was no India or Bharat concept those days. The 1857 revolt revealed the difference.. South was decent different, North was different. So what Shaheed Chandrashekhar & shaheed Bhagat Singh did was inspire the people.. That was not visible in 1857 when it was about kingdoms not country. Both of them knew what their actions would lead do. Bhagat Singh even surrendered.
Gandhi, Patel, Nehru & other leaders had their part to play. Gandhi was like face of India which was vital in itself in international community to gain support. Keeping the country together.. Otherwise our country is just too diverse... To understand each other. Language & cultural difference were too vast. British utilized this weakness to the fullest. Previous leaders before Gandhi Patel tried hardcore approaches like Tilak but were limited to big cities.. They weren't able to take it common mass in small cities.
Everyone had their role to play basically.
Wrong.

There was very much a concept of India and bharat long long before the british came.

People often confuse the terms country, nation and a state. Country is a geographical term.

Was India a country as defined by a geography? Yes. Greeks and Persians and Arabs and Europeans used it for thousands of years.

India is also a nation as defined by common cultural norms and behaviors. Outsiders recognized common patterns & thus called the people of the nation Hindus. And the insiders too recognized common patterns and called the nation from Kashmir to Kanyakumari as a single cultural unit called the Bharat. The two ends of India - name Kashmir comes from sage Kashyapa and Kanyakumari comes from the goddess Parvati - both important elements of Hinduism. The Pandits of Kashmir chant the exact same Vedas in the exact same order of words as in any other part of India. And across India we revel in Ramayana and Mahabharata. All of these make us a nation.


Has India been a sovereign state - as defined by common political systems - all the time? No. In fact, none of the major countries of today existed as a nation state a few centuries ago. The concept of a nation state is only about 3 centuries old. There have been rise and fall of empires that have ruled a chunk of the country. Sometimes the political union was made and other times it was unmade. That was true for every other civilization. They just differ on how long they have stayed together in political terms.

While country and nation are fairly static entities, a state is a very fluid entity. Even 70 years ago, we didn’t have many parts of present day India as part of the present political union. We added Kashmir, Hyderabad, Junagadh, Manipur, Tripura, Goa and Sikkim to our political union. Just because the union increased in size since 1947, mean that our union changed in character? We added Sikkim only in the 1970s and Siachen glacier in 1980s. Does that mean our state didn’t exist before then?

For most of Indian history, the political union was not very important. The nation was united more by social systems than political systems. Whoever rules at the top has always been skating at the surface.

A good answer I have saved for people to understand the concept of bharat.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top