Home > Analysis, politics > Revisiting the Sino-Indian War of 1962

Revisiting the Sino-Indian War of 1962

As the new year approaches, we should take some time to reflect that 2012 is the 50th anniversary of the Sino-Indian war of 1962. The war has shaped and will continue to shape the attitudes of people towards each other from two global nuclear (presently or soon to be) superpowers.

The war was not only interesting in itself but interesting in how current powers in the west and India have viewed it since. Tens if not hundreds of millions of Indians today continue to believe that China is blameworthy for it. They imbibe their media’s version of the events and the versions fed to them from their politicians past and present. Since India is an ally of the US, an important strategic partner in “containing” China, criticisms of India’s policies are often muted or events described to give India a favorable light and China is treated with the opposite response.

The results of the war, a devastating defeat for Nehru’s India, is hailed as a national humiliation by many Indians. There are elements within Indian politics, the media and general population that desire revenge for the alleged wrong.

Much of the west no doubt also blames China for the war. It is interesting that that opinion contrasts so sharply with reality. The narrative often portrays China as the aggressor: a nation of communist hegemonists bullying a less powerful country like India. The west’s view of India is often clouded by a (often self-serving) conception that India is a nation with a “peaceful culture.” It is also a “democracy” and as we are all taught to believe, democracies do not wage aggressive wars (e.g. the USA and Israel). Thus the war must be wholly totalitarian China’s fault.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I think the Sino-Indian war of 62 is one of the most glaring, most clear-cut examples of a war waged in the last 50 years that was waged on behalf of territorial aggression and irredentist military doctrines.

I will give a general overview of some of the research I have found on the war from some western scholars and I will end with a criticism of one such scholar (American) I believe to be biased against China in his analysis of the war. This shows that even people I believe to be generally sincere and competent can sometimes be blinded by the propaganda despite their own best (explicit) intentions bracing against such potential biases.

It is often claimed in the general media in both the west and in India that the war of 62 was started after China “invaded” or “attacked” India. There are many examples of this and it is rare to unheard of to see a mass media article about the war or anything in mentioning it in passing that doesn’t explicitly or implicitly imply that the war was China’s fault.

The facts suggest otherwise.

The war was started after India invaded both disputed and then undisputed Chinese territories. The areas that are under dispute are rather large, roughly 47,000 square miles. But because there are little natural resources in these regions and only one region, namely, Aksai Chin, has some limited strategic value for the Chinese, China was willing to negotiate with India a border settlement. China’s relationship with its neighbor was too valuable to let a border issue devolve into acrimonious or worse situations despite the fact that India’s claim on both regions seem to be based wholly on forged British imperialist evidence (maps, etc).

When India was part of the British Empire, Henry McMahon was the lead British-Indian negotiator for the border settlement issue. Realizing that China’s border claim with India rested on solid evidence from historical records and ancient maps, McMahon decided to fabricate “evidence” purporting to show that some regions claimed by the Chinese were Indian. The British clearly had intent to push the border as far north into Chinese territory as possible so as to use Tibet as a “buffer state,” as well as continue to carry out trade practices beneficial to Her Majesty’s empire.

Luckily, the Chinese delegates did not sign any treaties with the British on border issues (though for reasons other than the Chinese catching on to McMahon’s ruse). The British removed McMahon for his “chicanery” (in the words of his British handlers) in the fabricating of the bogus evidence. Corroborating witness written records of other British officials such as those from Charles Bell at the negotiations support the illegality of McMahon’s actions (also see here, Chap. 3, for a collection of citations of legal commentary on its illegality).

However, when India gained independence, it continued to maintain the McMahon claim to a border many miles north of the Chinese claimed border. This is the so called McMahon line. There were other areas to the west where the Indians inherited British claimed borders not recognized by China such as the Johnson line (whereas China claimed a “McCartney-MacDonald line” many miles to the southwest).

China was willing to negotiate a border settlement with India because it valued the relationship between the two giant developing neighbors and saw a partnership that would lead the developing world against the imperialistic western nations. India’s view at first reciprocated that sentiment. Relations soon turned sour when India’s prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru refused to negotiate with Zhou Enlai and Mao to settle a border that both can live with. India continued to unilaterally claim all of the disputed areas.

There was a brief border clash in 1959 between the two nations when Indian guards on border patrol trespassed beyond the McMahon line and shot at Chinese soldiers (Maxwell). But relations quickly stabilized (but still remained in some tension) till 1961 when Nehru implemented his “Forward Policy.” This policy was militaristic, belligerent and wholly illegal under international law.

In 1961, the task of implementing Indian claims was taken over by the army as a strategic “foward policy” which by steadily infiltrating and progressively dominating territory claimed by China, would ultimately make it untenable for the Chinese and induce their withdrawal—a hare-brained scheme born of Gandhian “non-violence” mated with amateurish militarism. (Maxwell)

Nehru was likely influenced by the many hawkish members of his government, the Indian media and Indian society at large to “get tough” on China.

The Forward Policy sought to aggressively send troops into disputed territories and occupy them. For the most part before this policy, India and China had maintained actual lines of control some distance away from each other and tacitly agreed to remain as peaceful as possible by ordering border troops to keep some distance from opposing troops when on patrol and to not engage in any hostile provocations. There were some likely accidental incursions into overlapping areas by border troops from both sides but for the most part, serious hostilities were skillfully avoided.

But beginning with the Forward Policy was a blatant attempt at provocation through the increased settlement of military posts in disputed territory. China was alarmed but did not retaliate with military engagement. It did however, eventually manage to establish some military posts of its own in response to the advancing Indian posts. It also issued numerous warnings and demands to India about its encroachment into territories China claimed (Maxwell). Despite some occurrences of brief firefights which quickly subsided without major casualties to either side, neither side initiated all out combat. These incidents occurred without serious casualties probably because the Chinese troops often quickly left the scene after being fired on by Indian troops (GarverCalvin). This was because they were ordered not to fire back and to evade as soon as they were under attack by Mao himself.

The retreating of Chinese soldiers seemed only to encouraged Nehru and his military advisers to further encroach into disputed territories thinking that the Chinese were cowardly or too battle weary (from fighting in the Korean war) to fight. Mao and Zhou thought that a retreat by Chinese troops as soon as they were fired on together with continued exhortation to negotiate would bring Nehru to the negotiating table and show that China was a sincere, peace-loving and willing ally but Nehru took this as a signal to advance further being emboldened rather than pacified (give them an inch they’ll take a mile!). The false confidence that China is not willing to fight back gave Nehru further incentive to push even further beyond what even the British and previous Indian policy claimed to be its territory.

It was only when Indian troops set up numerous military outposts and attacked Chinese troops after knowingly advancing past undisputed territory many miles north of the McMahon line that China finally decided to defend itself through military force (see MaxwellGarverCalvinWhitingClark and Abatol).

This part is not even controversial. Even Indian records show that India was well past the McMahon line when China engaged militarily.

Many Indians must have questioned India’s actions…, north of the McMahon line (and Nehru’s orders to push the Chinese back even further); pushing military force past India’s claimed boundary clearly made India the aggressor in this and some subsequent clashes. Much of the more serious fighting…was not in areas which both China and India claimed, but in areas…where China had a legitimate claim or where India had pushed beyond the McMahon line….

There may well have been room for compromise over these issues, but [stubbornness] and India’s aggressive forward policy resulted in armed conflict. (Calvin)

Many Indian military officials at the time voiced explicit reservations about advancing into what they admitted to be Chinese territory. There were some brief skirmishes in the beginning and a couple of large military assaults later on Indian outposts that usually resulted in brutal defeats for the Indian side.

In a couple months, Chinese troops advanced to the Chinese claimed border. It was then that Mao and Zhou declared a unilateral ceasefire and withdrawal of PLA troops back behind the McMahon line (in fact, some 20 kilometers behind the line). This was a gesture to Nehru to repose and come to the negotiating table. It was an offering of an olive branch. Nehru’s response was characteristically obstinate and insolent (refusing to negotiate and also still demanding China give up all disputed territory). But the war was at least now over.

India refused to negotiate a settlement for many years after 1962. To this day, the border issue is still left open and no sign that India will sincerely come to the table and seek a reasonable settlement that is bilateral and fair to all sides appears to be forthcoming. India continues to this day claim all disputed territories. Of course, China also claims all territories but it has been willing to settle, for example, it has offered numerous times to let India have all of the eastern sector (which India calls “Aranachal Pradesh,” the British call “North East Frontier Agency” and the Chinese and Tibetans call “South Tibet”) which is far more than half of all disputed territory (Calvin) in return for recognition of Chinese claims on Aksai Chin which China already had de facto control. China has settled all its border disputes today except with India and Bhutan (all through diplomatic negotiations); an astonishing feat considering that China has 14 borders with neighboring countries, more than any country in the world (Maxwell).

Within international law, there are only two recognized legitimate reasons for going to war. One is defending against unjust invasion and attack (the other is humanitarian intervention in response to gross human rights violations such as genocide). India was clearly guilty of unilateral military invasion not only in disputed Chinese territory but invading undisputed territory north of the McMahon line in blatant acts of territorial aggression. Wars waged on behalf of territorial expansionism are universally agreed by just-war theorists and legal experts to be 100% immoral and illegal according to international law. That was what happened in 1962.

The tragedy since then is that most Indians then and today as well as people in much of the west see this war as territorial aggression by China. This is largely due to effective propaganda work. The US, many European countries and the USSR were quick to blame China at the start of the conflict though the USSR suddenly had a volte-face on the issue and fully gave support to China’s side (Garver).

The narrative that China invaded India is pervasive not only among the general public but some of those in academia seem to have drank the cool-aid of China-as-aggressor theory. Even when reliable facts are generally presented by some western academics, subtle biases are sometimes sneaked in in the form of non sequiturs, fallacies, misleading or emotional wording, etc. Now most experts who have written on the topic from the west that I have read seem fair or mostly fair and provide ample historical evidence such as Neville Maxwell, Allen Whiting, Gregory Clark, Alastair Lamb and James Calvin. These scholars put the overall blame squarely on India as I believe the evidence clearly indicates it should.

I will take issue however with a scholar I believe who does not give a fair treatment of the war. John W. Garver is a China expert and a political scientist. He has written extensively on the Sino-Indian border issue and I will critique one long paper he has written on the subject now.

Garver explicitly puts the blame in this paper on both China and India (see p. 2). However, his conclusion (after some confusing, irrelevant discussions employing psychobabble) that China deserves half the blame does not follow from the very evidence he presents. In fact, his evidence seems to corroborate the Maxwell-Whiting-Clark thesis that the war was wholly India’s fault. One wonders if Garver is simply paying lip-service to “fairness” in putting the blame on both sides. In other words, perhaps he has sold-out genuine fairness to purchase a mere semblance.

Garver’s thesis is that China deserves half the blame (moral “onus”) for the war because its political leaders at the time was inaccurate in one of two beliefs. The first belief is that India had intentions to turn Tibet into its own “protectorate” or “colony” or turn the Sino-Tibet relationship to a “pre-1949 status-quo ante.” This is the belief Garver then argues is false. The second belief is that India is engaging in territorially aggressive military behavior. This belief was ‘substantially’ accurate according to Garver and thus China is partially justified in going to war with India based on the later belief. But because the first belief was inaccurate and that was one of the motivations of going to war with India (if not the primary motive he argues) China also deserves some blame for the war.

This line of reasoning is wholly fallacious. The fact (if it is even a fact) that China was wrong about India’s intentions towards Tibet is irrelevant to assign blame for the war. Basic principles of just-war theory bears this out.

First, though, as a side note, Garver focuses on accuracy of beliefs but that is odd as responsibility for war is not usually determined by an analysis of accuracy of belief but justification of belief. Just-war theorists often make analogies between individual self-defense and just war because such reasoning forms the philosophical foundations for just-war principles. It is not accuracy per se that is the issue but whether beliefs are justified. The question ought to be Was China’s belief that India had intentions toward Tibet justified at the time? Not whether they are, post facto, accurate. Hindsight is 20/20 but the fog of war tends to blind.

Take as an example: A police officer comes on a violent crime scene and is made aware that the Suspect is armed and dangerous. He sees a man fitting the description and orders him to halt. The Suspect reaches for what appears to be a gun and aims at the Officer. The Officer is clearly justified in shooting the Suspect in self-defense. Even if the Suspect turns out not to have a gun but a toy, say, it is justifiable self-defense to shoot. Just-war principles are no different. Was China justified in believing India had intentions on Tibet? I think you can certainly make a good case of it. Moreover, Garver’s own evidence seem to suggest it.

India was at the time knowingly allowing the CIA to fly Khampa rebels to fight the PLA in parts of Sichuan province from Indian military bases. Garver cites several top CIA sources confirming that India not only knew but supported these actions. Moreover, China quickly learned of India’s complicity through well-conducted intelligence gathering (Garver, Calvin). Furthermore, India had several years prior irked China by hosting the Dalai Lama’s “government in exile” and had at one point, even supplied arms to the Tibetan government in 1949 and 1950 (Garver). Garver admits that India had felt Tibet to be “essential for mastery over South Asia” (quoted in Abatol). These and many other provocations using Tibet as a point-of-contention gave the Chinese ample evidence that India did have intentions towards control of Tibet much as their immediate predecessors the imperialist British.

Garver dismisses such evidence suggesting India’s possible Tibet intentions by telling us that India could not have had them for India was the first country to recognize Chinese sovereignty over Tibet and repeatedly defended those claims publicly and at the UN.

The “official position,” not withstanding, governments often say one thing and do another with secret, ulterior motives. There may be good reasons for this. The US is a great example. The US immediately recognized Chinese sovereignty over Tibet as well soon after India but clearly, their actions belied their words as the CIA waged a secret war attempting to destabilized Chinese control of Tibetan parts of Sichuan.

The US’s hidden motivations was opposite to their official position for good reason. Governments, especially militarily aggressive ones, often benefit from waging (or aiding and abetting in India’s case) furtive military operations opposed to their official policies for they can then cast doubt or shrug-off responsibility for them in the eyes of the international community by hiding behind an “official stance.” One can also find many contemporary examples such as the US’s official position on the Israel-Palestine issue. “On paper” the US is pro Two-State-Solution and supports the right of Palestinians to self-determination in accord with international law and world opinion but in practice the US behaves like Israel’s cheerleader.

Most damaging and relevant against Garver’s thesis, the issue of accuracy or even justification regarding India’s alleged intentions towards Tibet are wholly irrelevant to assigning blame for the war. Even if China was inaccurate (and unjustified) in its belief that India had intentions on Tibet, the Chinese were still justified in fighting the war because the second belief attributed to them by Garver, namely, that India was behaving aggressively towards its territory provides wholly sufficient grounds for justifying the Chinese actions, morally and legally. China’s justified belief in that claim is wholly sufficient for their defensive war against Indian aggression.

Again, another example will bring this point into focus. Imagine that Canada invades, occupies and attacks American soldiers stationed in North Dakota. Canada explicitly makes claims on N. Dakota as its own in unilateral declarations. Now the US government is privy to some evidence which it believes shows that the reason the Canadians have invaded and occupied N. Dakota is because it has intentions on the whole of the US Midwest and that it wants to use N. Dakota as a launching off point for that larger annexation. Imagine further that, as it turns out, this belief is false. Canada only wanted to annex N. Dakota. The US then attack the Canadian invaders and drive them back behind the US-Canada border.

It would be fatuous or confused to say that the US deserves half the blame for this war because their belief that Canada had intentions on all of the Midwest was wrong. That belief is simply irrelevant. What justifies the war for the US side was Canada’s actions in invading and occupying US territory in gross violation of international law, the right to territorial integrity enjoyed by every modern country, and the rights of US citizens under attack and occupation. The US is 100% just in defending itself and Canada is 100% wrong for invading in this hypothetical analogy. The US’s false beliefs about Canada’s intentions on the Midwest simply drops out of the moral and legal equation. It is a red-herring which has no bearing on responsibility. One wonders why Garver even brought it up as a question of responsibility. It seems that it would have been far more relevant in assessing responsibility, say, to critically evaluate India’s belief that the disputed territories were theirs. Such a belief was what initiated the unilateral move to invade first disputed territory then undisputed Chinese territories. Garver elides on this evaluation in his paper.

Conclusion

I have argued that the war between India and China in 1962 was wholly due to India’s aggressive military posturing and illegal invasion of disputed and undisputed Chinese territories. That much is well supported by the facts. I have also argued that John W. Garver’s thesis that China deserves half the blame is based on fallacious rationalizations. China’s false (if it is even false) belief about India’s intentions on Tibet are totally irrelevant for assessing blame for the war. What is relevant is India’s actions which Garver agrees with previously mentioned scholars suggests that India’s military aggression was the casus belli.

Finally, why should we look back at this war? What has it to do with the modern world? It would be nice if we could bury this tragic debacle in history’s dustbin, put on historical blinders and chant “Chini-Hindi-Bhai-Bhai,” but its legacy has continually affected the present Sino-Indian relationship and gives pause for deep concern. The reason is that both India and the west has continually blamed China and because that propaganda has inculcated millions of Indians into thinking they were the wronged party, that India was humiliated and its national pride trampled by an aggressive Chinese state.

Moreover, the war is used as evidence for a China-threat theory which portrays China as desiring the destruction of India and is bent on world domination. This China-threat theory seriously harms relations and endangers security in not only Asia but the whole world. Two large nuclear powers are still in a state of stalemate over their border with one side perpetually obstinate in coming to a reasonable compromise. India’s claims to that disputed territory still rests wholly on “concocted” British evidence (Maxwell). Flareups of bellicose rhetoric from India’s politicians and media are now common and increasing in frequency. The west fans those flames (as well as India’s spoiled, bastard stepchild the TGIE) and encourages India every time there is rhetorical saber-rattling between the countries. Resentment, hostility, distrust is whipped up this way and can easily spiral out of control.

This may induce the population to put pressure on Indian politicians to “get tough” on China much as public pressure did so 50 years ago and the effects may be similar or even far worse. It was that pressure that brought India to play reckless and arrogant games of brinkmanship resulting in a costly war. Though much of the Indian population today are unaware or unconcerned about the details, we see the same vicious cycle begin to increase in intensity in recent years. A demand for a “repayment” in blood has surprising currency among militant Hindu nationalists who tend to number in the many millions.

Categories: Analysis, politics Tags:
  1. Naqshbandiyya
    December 24th, 2011 at 19:34 | #1

    Always quality posts from melektaus. I can’t help but have pity for the Chinese leaders in that time, who as genuine communists, probably took their own propaganda about third-world solidarity too seriously and got horsewhipped for it.

    Democracy or not, I don’t think the Indians will ever come to accept their government’s culpability in the war of 1962. Nationalism requires the denial of one’s nation’s wrongdoings to uphold one’s personal dignity. The crimes of the Nazis are a big exception, that required years of occupation and denazification to overcome. Even today, the Turkish and French parliaments are battling each other about “recognizing” and “denying” Armenian and Algerian “genocides” that happened decades ago.

    But there’s something uniquely dangerous about Indian nationalism, and that has to do with Indians’ self-perception as the nonviolent, colonized, eternal victim. Accordingly, the British Raj’s borders are holy, and India’s aggressive border policy against China is “Gandhian”. India’s suppression of its Muslims is overlooked; Pakistan’s self-determination is considered a national tragedy. India feels entitled to alliance with America just by being “the world’s largest democracy”, even as the people of Kashmir and South Tibet suffocate under the Hindu chauvinist boot.

    Plus, as long as it keeps the TGIE under its tutelage, India has a powerful tool to deflect any moral criticism away from itself and towards China. China needs to take a page from the Indian playbook and start having conversations with the world about Kashmir, Sikkim, Nagaland, Hyderabad, Goa, and however many more skeletons that illegitimate colonialist fiction of a nation has in its closet. If India (if there is even still an India) needs 200 more years to shake off its racist British mindset of entitlement, that is not a lot of time for China.

    Anyway, I’m extremely appreciative that you wrote this post. There’s just not enough contemplation or scholarship among Chinese about this war, and the English-language literature is saturated with the saccharine self-pity of Indian irredentists. Where else in history can one find such perfect moral clarity; such clear applicability of the doctrine of self-defense? I hope you cover the Sino-Vietnamese war next, which should surely become more relevant as the South China Sea heats up.

  2. Antioxidants
    December 24th, 2011 at 21:03 | #2

    Excellent article from melektaus. India is always a land grabber from the very start. Here is an article describing how the Tibetan town of Tawang was invaded and annexed by India in 1951, almost 4 years after India was created in 1947.

    http://kanglaonline.com/2011/06/khathing-the-taking-of-tawang/

    In 1975, India turn its attention to Sikkim and invaded and annexed it after years of working toward this goal.

    http://www.nepalitimes.com.np/issue/35/Nation/9621

  3. Antioxidants
    December 24th, 2011 at 21:12 | #3

    In 1990, India attempted the same feat to try to annex Bhutan like it annexed Sikkim fifteen years earlier. Thankfully the world was alerted to this trick and the hegemon fails this time.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/07/world/india-based-groups-seek-to-disrupt-bhutan.html?src=pm

  4. Antioxidants
    December 24th, 2011 at 21:24 | #4

    Naqshbandiyya is correct that the Chinese in South Tibet is suffocating. How? If you were hungry because the government there has no food and you dare to complain to the authorities you will be sent to jail.

    “Three men from Arunachal Pradesh’s Kurung Kumey district bordering Tibet were arrested for ‘anti-national’ activities last month. Their crime: a letter to the state’s food and civil supplies director complaining about the irregular supply of essential commodities to the district. Heavy rains had caused landslides and disruption of road links to Kurung Kumey, and the state had been slow to airdrop food. The three men, members of the NGO Kumey Valley Federation, said in the letter that if the authorities failed to address the food shortage, they would cross over to China, which, they contended, took better care of its citizens. This was seen as ‘anti-national’ activity. The trio spent two weeks in jail till a local MP intervened.”

    http://www.openthemagazine.com/shorts/smallworld/2010-10-02#4

  5. tc
    December 24th, 2011 at 21:28 | #5

    ” Garver dismisses such evidence suggesting India’s Tibet intentions by telling us that India could not have had them for India was the first country to recognize Chinese sovereignty over Tibet and repeatedly defended those claims publicly and at the UN. ”

    One day about two years ago, I walked over to talk with my co-worker, who is from India. I was shocked to see the Indian calendar hung on her wall had the map of China with entire Xizang missing.

    Not sure if any Chinese have Indian map excluding Kashmir and Punjab.

  6. SP
    December 25th, 2011 at 09:57 | #6

    Merry Christmas, everyone!

    An excellent post overall, melektaus.

    India/Indians have the following necessities that will push them to confront China militarily, at least at border areas, in the FORSEEABLE future:

    Social and Genetic factors:

    1. Indians are “proud” people, justifiable or not by history. They prefer revenge if given a chance;

    2. Indian elites are used to “high caste” statue they inherited as much as the self-righteous attitude of Britsh Raj. The resulting undeserved arrogance (and combined with ignorance more ofern than not- recall “we are now a lot stronger than 1962” from many Indians) is a right recipe for sudden initiation of aggressions;

    3. Low average IQ : this includes a large section of India’s governing elites. Low IQ produces the following: complete mis-judgement of complex situations such as power balance, testosterones overdose (relatively), over represented self-esteem (relatively)… all good fertilisers for wars. A look at Africa or Central LA will remind you abundance of such symptoms.

    4. Envy: India and China were at the same line of starting point in early 80s, yet one almost made it and another appears increasingly failing. The envy of most Indians towards China is as strong as category IV curry. Envy produces hatred, and hatred requires an eruption point, often sudden and violent, to be released.

    5. India is actually a feudal society ruled by Dynasties with limited press freedom. As a consequence, India’s governing elites are prone to act with even much more impunity than the Chinese counterparts – that is to say, Indian government could start a war if required with less repercussion from the domestic masses than the Chinese do, particularly with a “democracy” mask and tacit agreement of Anglo-American main stream media.

    External Factors:

    1.The Western encouragement: the West is envious of China’s rise. In the eyes of Anglo-American elites (Zionista Neocon by and large), there is nothing, no one in the world who is more perfect than low IQ India (bordering China) that could slow the pace of China’s development. It reminds me a scene when a criminal is chased by cops, he will throw anything he could grab, a garbage can usually, to the floor to slow down the latter. India is disposable in any situations hence ideal for the West : currently US-Japan-India “Strategic Dialogue” is on…

    2. Western arm vendors have to make money one way or the other. India has been the largest weapon importer of the world for years hence a perfect milking target. US, Russia, France and Britain are the largest arm vendors to India. India is now filled with advanced western arm of all kinds. As a Chinese saying more or less goes that “when given a gun, even a mouse will start to dream shooting a cat”, with all the new gears in hand, India is having a quite realistic plan of how to revenge China ( e.g. within a couple of months, India will test its new missiles nicknamed “China-Killer” ) should an opportunity arises.

    3. There is a rumour in anti-communist Singapore and Taiwan amongst ethnic Han Chinese elites (around them one can also find many ethnic yet patriotic Indians), that due to Hu Jin Tao’s resolute policy of “peaceful rise” and “harmony”, India could push the develop as far as it can because Hu WILL AND DARE NOT go to a war, not even a skirmish. Therefore, India has the impunity and the strategic upper hand over China – this has been fully reflected in India’s recent formal “Look East” Policy (i.e. ally with Japan ), “Indian Navy in South China Sea” ( ally with Viet Nam, and possiblely a military base therein in the foreseeable future) , a newly formed Global Forum – annual US-Japan-India “Strategic Dialogue”, and India’s recent sharp refusal on border talks…

    After 50 years, India’s brand-new China War is well on its way…

    Modern wars usually happen all of sudden and out of surprise of many war veterans. Without immediate attention, China might just let India get away with the incoming “revenge” in one form or another… I hope that history , under such a scenario, will hold delusional “Harmony Hu” and his think tank ilk (a bunch of imbeciles and traitors), responsible for any erosion of China’s sovereign rights.

  7. December 25th, 2011 at 10:49 | #7

    I’ll quote two paragraphs from William Overholt’s book, Asia, America, and the Transformation of Geopolitics

    Page 39:

    “India has always been nationalistic and assertive. India marched into Goa and seized it, refused to compromise with Pakistan over Kashmir, acted decisively to split Bangladesh from Pakistan, and both ignited civil war in Sri Lanka and later sent an expeditionary force (unsuccessfully) to quell that civil war. Gunfire occurs daily across the India-Bangladesh border. What has changed for India is that rapid economic growth has given it the resources and confidence to assert its nationalistic impulses in ways that were once beyond its means. Everywhere in India, one hears a sense of emergent national destiny, cocktail talk of dominating Asia, and leadership demands that other countries acknowledge India as a great power.”

    Table 4 on page 199

    “Are Democracies More Peaceful?

    CHINA
    • Denies having great-power ambitions
    • Has compromised 12 of 14 land border issues
    • No foreign bases as a matter of principle
    • Naval ambitions focused on Taiwan, close seabed issues
    • Rarely intervenes in neighbors, supports stability
    • Friendly relations with most neighbors
    • Serious seabed issues

    INDIA
    • Insists on entitlement to great-power status
    • Border disputes with most neighbors
    • Seeks foreign bases; has one in Tajikistan
    • Naval ambitions from the Persian Gulf to the South China Sea to Africa
    • Intervenes frequently in neighboring countries
    • Difficult relations with most neighbors
    • Serious watershed, sea-boundary issues”

    Also, Indian writers frequently invoke the idea of “Greater India” to claim a sphere of influence over the entire Subcontinent, Tibet, and Southeast Asia for themselves. I have never seen anything similar from the Chinese.

    @tc: Yea, there are Indian maps showing Tibet, Thailand, Myanmar, Malaysia, Singapore, western Indonesia, Sri Lanka, etc… in Indian colours.

  8. zack
    December 25th, 2011 at 11:11 | #8

    india isn’t considered as much of a strategic threat as it is an annoyance; to strategists in Beijing, India might (stress, might) become an ally but only if Indians cease trying to curry favour with the white man (like the white loving masters in singapore).

    also, this should prove a lesson for Beijing that the only thing the west respects is power; not morality (shit, the Qing officials who tried to stop the opium trade were as moral as anything but did that matter?), not being a democracy (as the mossadegh affair and several CIA backed coups against latin democracies testify) or even common values (as the experience of the Bahraini protestors demonstrate).

    the white man only respects power, meaning the stick. Therefore i approve of the Chinese military’s accelerated military program; let the American establishment think twice about starting shit in China’s backyard when Chinese bases (officially, they won’t be called bases, but rather, ‘resupply areas) are set up in venezuela, cuba, argentina, and even Mexico one day.

  9. December 25th, 2011 at 11:59 | #9

    This is an excellent post that I have placed on our featured post list.

    Reading this reminds me to answer another good post on the border issue in our sister blog (we could have copied it to HH, but for logistical reasons eventually did not) at http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2010/03/26/a-brief-history-of-the-sino-indian-border-dispute-and-the-role-of-tibet/.

    I want to answer a question raised in that other post, the proposition that China is willing to restrain its claims, resist history, and compromise, and that given China’s history to compromise territorial disputes by giving up a majority of the land under dispute, China should compromise with India.

    I have no problem with compromise, and one can definitely buy peace with land (by giving away land). But I have a problem with the proposition that China must compromise with India on essentially Indian terms. While China has given away millions of square miles of land, that doesn’t mean it should give away land simply for the sake of giving away land. For example, in terms of land size, China could give away Taiwan I suppose (given it has given away many times more times land in its territorial settlements with Russia and Central Asian nations over the last half a century), but I don’t think most Chinese will go with that today. Thus, I don’t think China must necessarily follow the path of trading land for peace with India. Yes, China should compromise in the spirit of friendship, but that’s not an execuse for Indian aggrandisement.

    The prejudice against China on territorial issues is truly amazing. Even in China’s most recent compromise with Tajikistan to cede away some 96.5% of its disputed territory with Tajikistan, it is still reported in the English press (based on casual Google Search) as if it’s China on the prowl making “advances” or some kind of “expansion.”

    For example:

    Tajikistan: China’s Advance Causing Increasing Unease among Tajiks

    Tajik Land Settlement Expands China’s Territory

    China’s land mass increases by 1,000 sq km, thanks to Tajik

    Tajiks Trade Land for Friendship with China

    SINO-TAJIK BORDER: SETTLEMENT OR ENTRAPMENT?

    Tajikistan officially cedes part of its territory to China

  10. Antioxidants
    December 25th, 2011 at 14:00 | #10

    China will almost certainly be a great power, not by intention but by default. Chinese people are basically glad that China came out in one piece (more or less) after WWII, after all that has happened to them in the last 150 years. India on the other hand is a different animal. The sub continent has never have a single unified country before throughout its history. It takes an Imperial Britain to cobble together hundreds of the princely states to create a country what we today called India. In the process, Britain built all the infrastructures (railways, roads), purposely build a new capitol, New Delhi, completed with all the grandeur deserved of a great empire, established the civil and military institutions necessary for a modern state and provided the disparage people with a common language to govern the country. So there is every reason for the Indian people, the elites especially, to feel a sense of euphoria and a sense of manifested destiny when the British left them with an instant country in 1947. Added to this, the caste culture makes the Indians have such a deference to their former colonial master that colonial British imperial and expansionist instinct were wholly ingrained into contemporary India foreign policy orientation. It is this kind of mindset that is at the core of India’s superpower fetish.

    Now that the certified bully has spawned a little bully on China’s doorstep, how to manage this little bully will be a subject for China for many years to come.

    Here is an article typical of the thinking of India’s so called strategic establishment:

    http://the-diplomat.com/2010/03/29/india%E2%80%99s-great-power-plans/

  11. Antioxidants
    December 25th, 2011 at 14:21 | #11

    This article starts with the premise that India will be a superpower. I don’t think this will happen. Here are the reasons from the perspective of a Russian:

    http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/2010/07/08/century-without-indian-summer/

  12. jxie
    December 25th, 2011 at 14:37 | #12

    A great piece. Not sure if I agree with all comments though.

    The most ludicrous narrative was that China “backstabbed” India while singing “Chini-Hindi Bhai Bhai”. Nehru’s “Forward Policy” should be quite well known. If such policy was chosen, what else would you expect other than a war? Nehru’s mistake was over-reading China’s weakness and under-estimating the military strength of China in 1962. Maxwell’s “amateurish militarism” is an ouch but very much to the point. In 1962, China barely recovered from the famine created by the Great Leap Forward, and just broke off with the Soviet Union. To an unstudied outsider, it would appear that China just suffered from a double-whammy, and was severely weakened.

  13. Wayne
    December 25th, 2011 at 17:32 | #13

    Another thing people tend to forget, and perhaps are afraid to bring up, is the no small matter of national differences in IQ between China and India.

    China’s average IQ is around 105. India’s around about 80. Basically a difference of about 1.7 standard deviations, meaning only a very small percentage of India’s population has the potential to be tertiary educated.

    Whether this problem is genetic or otherwise, and to avoid the charge of ‘racist’ I will argue otherwise, the problem is there (for India) and is not going to go away quickly, and inasmuch as IQ correlates (not perfectly) with academic aptitude, my money is on China to wipe the floor with India.

    Not that China will, militarily speaking. Because the Chinese are a non-imperialistic people. And they don’t have pretensions of being the big guy on the block like Indians do (I find many Indians today have this pompous mentality – they often try to be more english in mannerisms than the english themselves – the overall effect is rather comical).

    Of course the servant mentality of Indians comes through even more clearly when they get their back scratched by their white masters for being the world’s biggest ‘democracy’. They take great delight in that.

  14. December 25th, 2011 at 19:49 | #14

    @Antioxidants

    That’s a great find. TGIE are always trying to kiss India’s ass by saying how great a democracy it is and how much freedom of speech they have. I guess if you complain that you’re hungry, you get jail time in “Aranachal Pradesh” does speak well for that freedom.

  15. zack
    December 26th, 2011 at 04:09 | #15

    see now this is the kinda shit i’m talking about:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-20/us-china-solar-trade-dispute-may-see-india-joining-with-probe.html

    what is it with democratic governments who consistently feel the need to excuse the incompetance of their own leaders by pointing the finger at foreign countries and blaming others instead of accepting responsibility and (most of all) change and adapt accordingly??

    i speak also of obama and his embarassing loss of face with respect to solyndra’s collapse. what was his response? chuck a hissy fit and point the finger at China.

    well i’ve got news for the pair of them; as the largest market, innovator and consumer of Green technology, the outcome of the battle has already been decided without even going into a trade war (or a shooting war for that matter); more to the point, if these companies can’t hack it, then they shouldn’t be there in the first place; there’s a reason why it’s called competition.

  16. scl
    December 26th, 2011 at 13:38 | #16

    Do not take the hype about IQ differences too seriously. The reason Indian has a lower national IQ is because of wide spread poverty and malnutrition. If you survey the rural poor areas in China, it won’t be much better. This is why it is so important for both countries to make more efforts to reduce and eventually eradicate poverty.

  17. LOLZ
    December 26th, 2011 at 19:15 | #17

    Articles like this one are long overdue. It’s unfortunate that many (if not most) Indians will never accept this more truthful point of view. In the recent decades, India has engaged in far more military conflicts with its neighbors than China, has far more internal conflicts, and has suppressed (killed) far more its citizens under the banner of “internal security” than China. However the Western media has still painted India as a peaceful nation. All of this is to setup the backdrop of the next cold war which the military establishments in both the US and China are hoping for. India is becoming more or less a pawn in a proxy cold war between China and the US.

    In regards to Sino-India relations, it’s worthwhile to point out that the relationship between the two Asian giants has been actually good (if not great) for the last two millenias. This in itself is a rarity in history. Powerful nations sitting next to each other typically see each other as threats and fight. Instead China and India absorbed each others’ cultures and avoided direct conflicts for a long, long time. There were certainly brewing tensions, but IMO Tibet was the catalyst which destroyed this relationship. TGIE (or whatever it is called nowadays) was and still is a vehicle for the West to destabilize China. With the global economic and the inter-dependency of the China and the Western powers Tibet is becoming more of a political leverage than anything else. If there is one government which actually has incentive to care about the Tibetan people it would be the Chinese, simply because the revolts and suicides are bad for everyone. Western governments on the other hand loses leverage when Tibetans in Tibet are actually satisfied, thus the former will always minimize any media exposure which talks positively about the developments in Tibet.

  18. Vishun
    December 27th, 2011 at 06:11 | #18

    Really Interesting comments , especially Since I have heard the same but with Role reversal in Western media ( That China is the aggressor , people with Low IQ,…..) . Anyway I personally think that Truth is somewhere in between..!?

  19. kchew
    December 27th, 2011 at 10:40 | #19

    Thanks Melektaus for this well written article on the contentious Sino-Indian border saga. I will have this piece in my blog too.

    @Vishun, on China being the aggressor – I think it is not a reasonable possition to take “middle path” given the facts being presented therein. It is not much different from putting the head in sand in this case.

  20. December 27th, 2011 at 11:13 | #20

    The irony is that the TGIE blames China for “illegally occupying” Tibet but it is their host country India that is the only country that has occupied Tibet (South Tibet). China’s sovereignty over Tibet is 100% legal but you can make a good case that India’s current occupation of “Arunachal Pradesh” (or what the Tibetans call ‘Tibet’!) is through illegal means.

    Many Indians have such a conceited conception of themselves as victims of imperialism but at the same they see themselves as, democratic and peaceful that any evidence to the contrary to those self-aggrandized beliefs induces in them soul-crushing dissonance. Such fragile egos must be protect from any signs of threats to the self. For a people that prides themselves on having developed “selfless” philosophies they sure get upset over any signs that their atman is threatened.

  21. December 27th, 2011 at 12:31 | #21

    I think the Sino-Indian relationship will be as great as a threat if not greater to Chinese security as the Sino-US relationship. I hope the Chinese leadership is watching the relationship carefully but I fear that situations will not get better only worse. India is a very belligerent country to its neighbors. It’s invaded Goa, Kashmir, attacked Pakistan twice and invaded Sikkim, occupied NE Territories and of course its actions against China. The level of conceit, arrogance and hostility is great in the population and among its politicians and that will shield them from future conciliation. It also has a very inegalitarian society with its caste system and its hostility towards it minorities is among the worst in the world. Only 10 years ago there was a genocide (a real one, not a “cultural genocide”) in Gujarat against Musilm minorities committed by the local fascist BJP party which is the second largest political party in India.

  22. December 27th, 2011 at 12:41 | #22

    What should we do with India besides pleading with them and the West for more sanity?

  23. December 27th, 2011 at 13:34 | #23

    @Allen

    That’s the million dollar question and I’m not sure how to answer it. I’d start by developing the Chinese business interests in India. That way there’ll be a large business class in India that will demand peace between the two neighbors if only for pragmatic reasons. I’d also improve the Chinese media and encourage Chinese in both China and the west to be not only media savvy but go into media such as news or film so that a pro-China or friendly Chinese image and perspective is shown to the rest of the world but that is a long term strategy aimed at today’s youth.

  24. December 27th, 2011 at 14:27 | #24

    Here’s an interesting book review of Martha Nussbaum’s book on modern Indian fascism. It’s a interesting perspective on how it developed.

    http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2007/06/12/martha_nussbaum/

  25. Antioxidants
    December 27th, 2011 at 18:58 | #25

    @Allen
    I don’t know what should China do to India, although I have some ideas. But I know what China shouldn’t do. And that is to concede the territories of South Tibet to India for the sake of good neighborliness. I am pretty sure that even if China do that, Indian people will not appreciate the gestures and instead their characteristic self-righteousness will ask why it takes China so long to come to its sense.

    Note that unlike China, India is still in a precarious stage of nation building. There are a lot of forces inside India that threatens to tear it apart. China’s strategy should be to wait out India till it breaks apart. Once that happens the people in South Tibet will be liberated.

  26. Chris Devonshire-Ellis
    December 28th, 2011 at 09:33 | #26

    This is an interesting article, but one also flawed in the assumption that Tibet has always been part of China and administered by it. This is a disingenuous argument.
    Concerning “South Tibet” ( Arunachal Pradesh) the State used to send tributes to Lhasa, which the Communist Party claim demonstrate that the region was subservient to Lhasa and therefore under it’s administration and part of Tibet. However, much of Arubachal Pradesh is Buddhist, those tributes were being paid to the Dalai Lama, not China. “South Tibet” has never, ever been under Chinese administration at any point in it’s history. To suggest otherwise is somewhat distorting the facts. 
    Concerning Sikkim, this State was not invaded by India. Rather, it remained an independent Kingdom and a British Protectorate until 1975, when a referendum amongst it’s nationals opted for integration as part of the Indian Union of States. There was no “invasion”.
    Again, a nice piece, but one which I feel is rather less than accurate and within which I personally detect the hand of pro-China activists in what ought to be a more academic, if not more historically accurate exercise.  

  27. December 28th, 2011 at 09:45 | #27

    By Chris Devonshire-Ellis’s logic displayed in #26, places in the great state of California such as the County of Los Angeles would also not be part of the U.S. since it was never administered directly by the central gov’t at Washington D.C. Not unexpected logic from someone with barely a high school education though…

    Also by the way, for everyone else, most in South Tibet are not Buddhists and have little to do with the Dalai Lama. That issue has been extensively discussed in our blog by people (e.g. buru, Sangos) with connections to South Tibet (see e.g. comments in http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2009/06/india-friend-enemy-or-both/ or http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2009/06/23/india-friend-enemy-or-both/)

  28. raventhorn
    December 28th, 2011 at 10:22 | #28

    @Chris Devonshire-Ellis

    The 6th Dalai was born in Arunachal Pradesh, in the 17th Century, when China had already administered Tibet, which had the administration of Arunachal Pradesh, Tawang.

    To suggest the connection as merely “tributes” to DL, is rather distorting the facts.

    On that note, a “referendum” is merely a bunch of paper of People’s biased opinions, and OPINIONS are not historical facts.

    Where Sikkim’s status is decided by Opinions, it is “invasion” by propaganda.

    If “referendum” counts, then I have no doubt that China can win all of its territorial claims.

  29. Chris Devonshire-Ellis
    December 28th, 2011 at 11:20 | #29

    @Raventhorn – a referendum is a decision to be made based by a vote of the people, not as you suggest a biased bunch of peoples opinions. It’s called democracy, in other words, as in power to the people in deciding their own destiny. Something Indians possess and Chinese do not.

    @Allen – [deleted by Allen for making insulting, irrelevant comments, including how much his comments count over everyone else given how much he has traveled the world and how many people he has met…]

  30. December 28th, 2011 at 11:37 | #30

    Chris Devonshire-Ellis :
    This is an interesting article, but one also flawed in the assumption that Tibet has always been part of China and administered by it.

    I never assumed any such thing for the article. Tibet HAS NOT “always” been a part of China. So if your argument is going to be based on the assumption that my argument is based on that assumption then right off the bat, you would be mistaken in your conclusion.

    The assumption which I have made is that Tibet was a part of China *at the time India invaded China*. Since India, China and Tibet all claimed that China had sovereignty claims over Tibet as well as every nation on earth and the UN, that is not a problem for my argument. There was no controversy as to the status of Tibet in 1962 as well as today.

    “South Tibet” has never, ever been under Chinese administration at any point in it’s history.

    No, Tibet has. And South Tibet was under the administration of Lhasa so it was under the administration of China.

    To suggest otherwise is somewhat distorting the facts. 

    I never distorted the facts but it is apparent that you have both distorted my argument and the sino-tibetan history.

    Concerning Sikkim, this State was not invaded by India. Rather, it remained an independent Kingdom and a British Protectorate until 1975, when a referendum amongst it’s nationals opted for integration as part of the Indian Union of States. There was no “invasion”.

    Wrong again. There was an invasion. The referendum was *after* the invasion.

    It would appear that the propaganda of the Indian and western media has made another victim.

  31. December 28th, 2011 at 12:02 | #31

    This Chris Devonshire Ellis’s only aim seems to be self promotion. The fact that he has traveled to these regions has nothing to do with the history and politics of the border dispute. other than the fact that he has business interests in these areas and has traveled to Tibet and India (so what? so has many of the posters here), he seems to have avoided substantive debate altogether. With that he also loses all credibility as a informed commenter.

  32. raventhorn
    December 28th, 2011 at 12:10 | #32

    @Chris Devonshire-Ellis

    “@Raventhorn – a referendum is a decision to be made based by a vote of the people, not as you suggest a biased bunch of peoples opinions. It’s called democracy, in other words, as in power to the people in deciding their own destiny. Something Indians possess and Chinese do not.”

    A vote by the ignorant is rather biased opinion, and not a legitimization of ignorance and bias, I would say.

    And since you brought up Indians, considering their literacy rate of around 66%, I would question the FACTUAL basis of their “vote”.

    Which points to the problem with “democracy”: Ignorance with “Democracy” is still IGNORANCE. It’s just noisier.

  33. jxie
    December 28th, 2011 at 12:20 | #33

    When the Sikkim referendum was held in 1975, Indian Army was stationed in Sikkim. No international observers backed by potential forces were there, to show Sikkimese if they wanted another alternative they could.

    This conceptually isn’t much different from PRC’s annexation/liberation of Tibet in 1951, or the US’ Hawaii annexation in 1898, or many other historical precedents. Look, everybody had put up the necessary shows and gone through the mandatory steps to satisfy the progeny. In the case of PRC/Tibet, since China’s narrative was that Tibet had been always a part of China (since at least Qing), there wouldn’t be the need for a referendum, so the key step to seal the deal was the 17-Point Agreement for Peaceful Liberation. Under duress, maybe, but so were the other cases. If China nowadays is to annex, let’s say Kygyzstan, even for a “non-democratic” country, a referendum is for sure needed.

  34. December 28th, 2011 at 13:57 | #34

    @melektaus

    By little Chris’ logic: since I Allen have traveled to the U.S. – that makes me an expert on everything there is to say about the U.S. – what the heck, the West.

    Anyways, if you google his name, you’ll find a lot of bad things said about him – including being a fraud about his credentials. I’m not going to get into it because he’s not worth my (nor your) time. Suffice it to say that it’d not be beneath his ilk to simply make fake credibility up even in blogging, here going out of his way (deleted now by me) arguing how valid his comments are because “I’ve traveled there” or “I know people there” or whatever.

  35. December 28th, 2011 at 14:43 | #35

    @Allen

    Thanks for the heads up. definitely red flags on that guy. Guy seems like a lying sociopath if only half of what is said about him by others is true.

  36. Chris Devonshire-Ellis
    December 28th, 2011 at 15:25 | #36

    A lying sociopath eh? It seems the Bolsheviks never really went away. You permit yourselves to have your own opinion, yet abuse and insult those who have a different one. Given the article, I might have guessed, however it doesn’t change a thing. Enjoy your debate Gentlemen, I prefer a more educated group to banter with. Merry Christmas! (it seems you need cheering up) – Chris

  37. Antioxidants
    December 28th, 2011 at 16:44 | #37

    Hey Chris, you are still alive! I know you. You scammed the Hong Kong people and was chased out by the Hong Kong government and last I know you set up your shop in Mumbai. Have you reformed yet or you are still a fraudster? Do you know that your name stinks to high heaven? Just google your name and you will know what I am talking about.

  38. Antioxidants
    December 28th, 2011 at 16:53 | #38

    Hey Chris, you are pretending to be a upper class Englishman but you are not. Were you scamming the British people also?

  39. Wayne
    December 28th, 2011 at 16:59 | #39

    Just googled his name…..hahahahhahahahaha….so typical. Hong Kong (where I live) abounds with these types of people. Also throughout Asia. FILTH (failed in london try hong kong).

    Most expats in Asias are LOSERS in their own societies, and many like our Mr Devonshire, complete sociopaths.

  40. LOLZ
    December 28th, 2011 at 18:14 | #40

    @Chris Devonshire-Ellis

    Chris Devonshire-Ellis :
    Again, a nice piece, but one which I feel is rather less than accurate and within which I personally detect the hand of pro-China activists in what ought to be a more academic, if not more historically accurate exercise.  

    In Chris Devonshire’s less than accurate comments I personally detect the hand of a pro-Free Tibet activist in what ought to be a more academic, if not more historically accurate exercise.

    For more information on Chris Devonshire-ellis, you can read in an essay posted by none other than FORAP (http://foarp.blogspot.com/2008/11/chris-devonshire-ellis-is-not-lawyer.html) Rarely do you see someone who is getting bashed by both the pro-china and the anti-china camp. Life must be difficult when your past misdeeds are archived by google.

    LOL.

  41. John Thomas
    December 28th, 2011 at 20:07 | #41

    I thought you guys didn’t allow personal attacks. …..from racist diatribes about “our women” to this. You guys really are a classy lot eh….

  42. December 28th, 2011 at 21:11 | #42

    OK – let’s stop focusing on Chris. It’s polluting these pages. Usually I take everyone as they are, regardless of background, past deeds, etc. But Chris is different. We had corresponded before, and he was a bitter person – trying to uncover this and that blogger – trying to get me to remove this and that link on the blog – and lying about things…

    Anyways, going back to comment #26, where he called for more academic rigor, yet the thrust of his comment is that the sino-indian war must be understood in the broader context of the legitimacy of Chinese rule in Tibet.

    I should bring focus again to the main point of this article, which is to focus on the legality of the sino-indian war.

    India and all of the rest of the world had officially recognized Chinese sovereignty over the Tibetan plateau at the time of the war. That is not disputed. Under such contexts, had India had intentions on Tibet and moved to encroach Chinese territories, China would have been justified to exercise self defense under International law.

    In fact, as melektaus had made clear in the article, if there is any criticism of Chinese motivation for war, it would appear to be that India never had any grander designs. There is some sort of Chinese mis-estimation that India had ulterior intentions for the Tibetan plateau.

    Yet – Indians today do seem to want to bring up the point of Tibet in discussing the sino-indian war. Little do these people know that if the true intention of India in transgressing Chinese territory in the leadup to the 1962 war was Tibet, then China would slam dunk have been justified to have gone to war in 1962. There would have been no mis-estimation.

    But even if India had no such intent, and China did mis-estimate India’s intention, China would also have been legally justified to go to war, since India did physically encroach on Chinese territory – sufficient to make it a war of self defense for China.

    That to me is a key take away of this article.

  43. December 28th, 2011 at 22:12 | #43

    @John Thomas #41

    I hope you understand what “personal attacks” mean… If you see “personal attacks,” please point them out to me.

  44. December 29th, 2011 at 00:07 | #44

    Good article. Indian analysts have tried hard to convince people that the war was China’s fault. The average Indian views China with complete abhorrence coupled with jealousy. It is abundantly clear that China was as defensive as it can be with regards to the dispute and the war. The Indian media has succeeded in creating a myth that China was responsible for the war and that it is an aggressive country. And this myth has become reality in Indians’ minds. Ask any Indian and the reply will always be the same – that China “betrayed” India and that India was the innocent “victim” of Chinese “aggression”.

    I had written two articles on the dispute last year:

    You Scratch my Back, But I Won’t Scratch yours

    A Brief History of the Sino-Indian Border Dispute and the role of Tibet (Both of these were reproduced at FM, and the second one is the original version of the post Allen linked to above.)

    1. China made repeated diplomatic protests to India regarding the Forward Policy, but to no avail.

    2. It was then that, after a lot of deliberations, China finally decided to push in, much to Nehru’s surprise. It is well known that the PLA General Staff Department headquarters told Chinese troops to implement the rules of engagement strictly, and explained the guiding principles in greater detail:
    • If Indian troops do not open fire, Chinese frontier guards should not open fire.
    • If Indian troops press on toward a Chinese sentry post from one direction, Chinese frontier guards should press on towards the Indian stronghold from another direction.
    • If Indian troops encircle Chinese frontier guards, another Chinese force should encircle the Indian troops.
    • If Indian troops cut off a retreat route for Chinese forces, Chinese frontier guards should cut off the Indian troops’ retreat.
    • Chinese forces should keep a distance away from Indian troops, leaving them some leeway, and withdraw if Indian forces permit withdrawal.

    The last point is particularly telling, and all of this just serves to prove that China was literally forced to attack.

    3. Gregory Clark, who worked in the Australian external affairs ministry, said that even Henry Kissinger remarked that if he had known the facts of the Sino-Indian Border dispute and the subsequent 1962 Sino-Indian War earlier, his image of China as inherently aggressive would have weakened, together with his support for US intervention in Indochina. Former US secretary for Defence Robert McNamara has also confirmed that the Washington view of China as aggressive was the key factor behind that intervention in Vietnam, with its three million deaths in Vietnam plus another million or so deaths elsewhere in Indochina.

    5. Whether or not Nehru wanted to “annex” Tibet is beside the point. His actions made it look like he did, and the Chinese were most certainly not going to sit back and wait for India to attack. Just imagine – a country pushes its troops forward, and then expects the other country to just sit back and do nothing!

    6. And regarding Allen’s point about the Sino-Tajik border dispute – I have given a breakup of Chinese order settlements with 12 of its neighbors in the first of my two articles linked above. China kept only
    4% of the disputed Pamir mountain range in Tajikistan’s case – an area that is extremely rich in resources. People (including Indian analysts) have tried to justify this by giving multiple excuses.

    The most common excuse is this – China asks for more land to begin with, and then keeps less in the settlement, in order to provide a favorable impression. There are many examples of this, and here is the most recent:

    However, there is more to it than meets the eye. The territorial concessions that China is believed to have made are not quite as substantial as they appear to be. Srikanth Kondapalli, a China expert at the Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi pointed out that China’s strategy of stepping up territorial claims and then settling for less has enabled it to appear to be making a major territorial concession to reach a border resolution agreement. In several disputes, “whether China actually gave up territory or made a substantial concession is a debatable question,” he told Asia Times Online.

    However, there is no evidence to prove that claim. Chinese border claims have remained the same since the beginning, they have not increased during the course of the negotiations. This is in fact like one of those god arguments – I can’t prove that god doesn’t exist, but at the same time you can’t prove that he does. Similarly, we can’t prove that China did ask for more land to begin with, in the same way that we can’t prove that it didn’t! Such type of arguments are the very definition of bullshittery, which is what the Indian establishment excels in. )

    4. And finally, one can keep arguing about history till the cows come home. China understands this and wants to move forward. India, on the other hand, is not interested in resolving the dispute at all cause
    it wants to appease the votebank. The voters want India to be nasty to China, and some sane voices in the government know that its hands are tied. The extremely one-sided (towards India) swap deal offered by Zhou En Lai was refused by India. Deng Xiaoping also offered the deal multiple times, and it was refused by India each time. The main argument was that China was not actually giving up anything, since Arunachal Pradesh/South Tibet was not China’s to begin with. And herein lies the naivete of Indian policymakers. All you can possible need to know about Indian diplomats and the government can be gauged by this simple statement. When the Indian government explicitly recognizes Tibet as Chinese territory, and always has, then if a region belongs to Tibet, then obviously it follows that it belongs to China too, since China belongs to Tibet! A schoolchild would understand this simple concept, but it doesn’t get into the head of Indian analysts and diplomats. The argument that Tibet was not part of China during the Simla conference is also wrong, since Britain is/was not the “decider” of what is part of China and what is not.

  45. December 29th, 2011 at 00:26 | #45

    @Maitreya #44

    Thanks for chiming in.

    I do appreciate you bringing up the Indian perspective explaining away China’s settling for so little as merely evidence that it had asked too much to start with. I have little to add besides your pointing out that China’s claims have been relatively static over the years. There does not appear to be any negotiating maneuvering going on.

    In any case, in terms of background norms, I do want to bring one issue out. Melektaus has already discussed the fraud that is the McMahon line. But I do want to bring out the point that even if McHahon were not a fraud, from the Chinese perspective, the McMahon line is but a vestige of British colonial adventures in Asia. Any negotiation should not start out with the McMahon line. (It may ultimately end in that line, but that’s another matter…)

    While that may sound good to Chinese ears, it is sacrilegious to Indians, the reason being that the legitimacy of India as a political unit starts with British colonialism. When India declared independence, self determination was exercised for India the colony as a whole. People voted on whether India should declare independence, not whether each state or other regions should declare independence and definitely not whether each should join the India union.

    So – even though Chinese may have very good reasons to discount the McMahon line, they must also take into account India’s particular sensabilities. While China would like no less than turn the page on British colonialism, British colonialism defines the soul of the Indian identity …

    Just my 2 cents…

  46. December 29th, 2011 at 00:30 | #46

    @Maitreya #44

    The argument that Tibet was not part of China during the Simla conference is also wrong, since Britain is/was not the “decider” of what is part of China and what is not.

    Very important point. Many Chinese point to International recognition of Tibet as the source of Chinese legitimacy in Tibet. Those are at best secondary evidence. Primary source of evidence for Chinese legitimacy lay not in foreign documents, but the archives of the Chinese Imperial courts, the ROC and PRC governments.

  47. December 29th, 2011 at 01:45 | #47

    @John Thomas #47

    Yes – where relevant.

    As a general rule, as I discussed in #42, one’s background is not relevant. However, if the person makes it an issue, then it can become relevant. In some rare cases, as in the case of Chris, where we’ve had private contact, and where he had publicly and privately to me made fraudulent statements (he’s also tried to impersonate other posters – a big No-No in blogging), then it can become an issue every time he shows up on this blog.

    To summarize: in general, I prefer not to make anyone’s background be an issue, as it detracts from the purpose of this blog. We don’t require registration, and we don’t verify anyone’s identity. So there is really no point to make anyone’s background an issue.

    Back to Chris, if you have more dirt to pull up on Chris, I prefer you not disclose here. I’d prefer to be done with him already.

    Hope that helps…

  48. Chris Devonshire-Ellis
    December 29th, 2011 at 03:02 | #48

    ???? Some wires crossed somewhere methinks. Anyway boys, you have your fun. I’m still who I say I am, and that’s also easy enough to check out. However it seems I’m not welcome, but I nevertheless extend a Happy New Year to you. – Chris

  49. raventhorn
    December 29th, 2011 at 05:44 | #49

    Chris Devonshire-Ellis :???? Some wires crossed somewhere methinks. Anyway boys, you have your fun. I’m still who I say I am, and that’s also easy enough to check out. However it seems I’m not welcome, but I nevertheless extend a Happy New Year to you. – Chris

    Sure you don’t want to put your identity up for a “referendum”?? 🙂

    According to the popular opinions about you on the net, you are all fake titles, Chris.

    But hey, You want “democracy”, right?

    There’s your Happy New Year from “democracy”.

  50. LOLZ
    December 29th, 2011 at 06:09 | #50

    Chris Devonshire-Ellis :
    ???? Some wires crossed somewhere methinks. Anyway boys, you have your fun. I’m still who I say I am, and that’s also easy enough to check out. However it seems I’m not welcome, but I nevertheless extend a Happy New Year to you. – Chris

    Sorry about the irrelevancy of this post, but does someone really need to post multiple comments saying that he won’t be coming back here? In post #36 CDE stated that he prefers “a more educated group to banter with” and bid his farewell. Yet half of a day later he feels the need to bid this forum farewell again. I wouldn’t be surprised if sock-puppetry is next on the list if it hasn’t happened already.

  51. Chris Devonshire-Ellis
    December 29th, 2011 at 08:15 | #51

    [deleted by Allen for false promotion and advertising. First the man runs 2 offices yesterday, today it’s 20; maybe it will be 200 tomorrow? (note a growth rate of 1000% in one day becomes an annual growth 1e365 if unstopped!) Then the man falsely claims HH is not accessible in Beijing. My cousin just accessed from his private home in Beijing last night; my sister-in-law just accessed it from a hotel in Beijing last week.]

  52. raventhorn
    December 29th, 2011 at 08:44 | #52

    @Chris Devonshire-Ellis

    You already had plenty of “final says” on your piece, Chris.

    I don’t see how this current article is “relevant” to your “business spread”, except for perhaps as opportunity for you to SPAM to gain notoriety for yourself.

    If that’s the case, you have nothing relevant to contribute, (you are proving the rumors about you to be true), and your comments should be treated as spam.

  53. Al
    December 29th, 2011 at 08:50 | #53

    Chris, bullshit again…I access this website from Beijing, and it’s not blocked, nor it has ever been…..I guess ur old game continues

  54. Chris Devonshire-Ellis
    December 29th, 2011 at 09:37 | #54

    ????
    Interesting you deleted my piece. Anyway have it your way boys. I’m sure you’re right in whatever you wish to say about anything. There’s no point in continuing this if you won’t allow people to have their say.
    Over & Out
    CDE

  55. raventhorn
    December 29th, 2011 at 09:48 | #55

    @Chris Devonshire-Ellis

    We don’t allow your “say” of your SPAM. Good luck finding a home for your canned meat-like product.

  56. colin
    December 29th, 2011 at 13:12 | #56

    From CDE’s self promotion, he seems to be linked to several organizations in the UN and China. If he is really linked, anyone care to point out to those organizations the various questions surrounding CDE’s credentials and apparent fraud? He apparently is some vice-chairman to some UN program on the development of china. I’m sure all parties would not want a fraud on that board if it is proven the CDE is in fact a fraud.

    Self promotion runs both ways.

  57. December 29th, 2011 at 13:58 | #57

    @colin #55

    Don’t spend too much time on his self promotions. A cursory look at his links lead you to private clubs here and there (there is even a link to a yacht club!). The tumen programme reference is probably the close you get to something somewhat more legitimate, but if you search for his name there, you find nothing. He is at most a participant at some “investment” conferences sponsored by that institute (who has taken some money – how much we don’t know – from some sub organization from the UN). You know how those thing are…

    Again, for readers here, I am not interested in smearing Chris. Let’s part ways. The world is large enough for everyone to live well and pursue their dreams. I just don’t want this blog to have anything more to do with him.

  58. John T Bone
    December 29th, 2011 at 14:06 | #58

    Hows the pursuing of your dreams going in America my friend?

  59. John T Bone
    December 29th, 2011 at 14:23 | #59

    And why is it that so many Han nationalists need to come to America to fulfill themselves?

  60. Wayne
    December 29th, 2011 at 16:13 | #60

    Mr Bone:

    Firstly I for one am not in the US. But that is beside the point. You are a white person. Why did your ancestors have to come to the US, and yet still consider yourselves Europeans?

    Why did the Irish come here, and yet still retain and be proud of their Irish roots? The same for the Italians, and the Germans, and every other group in the US, as with Mexicans today.

    And the big, really big question is, why did whites come to the US, from over the ocean, to a land of Asiatic type people, and still remain white supremacists? If you want to be a white supremacist, why not fuck back over to Europe – where whites are indigenous.

    As with people right throughout history, people have followed the wealth, and the opportunity. The West, and particularly the US has been a great sinking hole for the world’s wealth these past few hundred years.

    The wealth of the US were not earned fairly. The US plundered vast areas of the world, enslaved non-white peoples, invaded China, invaded the Phillipines and basically fucked us up. Chinese labourers built your railways, washed your clothes, only to have the shit kicked out of them afterwards.

    So non-white people going to the US? Why is this. Perhaps it is because white people have fucked up and robbed our countries for so long, and we are going there to get just a little bit of the wealth stolen off our ancestors. The same more or less applies to other Western countries.

    The interesting question to ask is. Why do so many whites go to our lands (and still do), and fuck us up, take our shit, yet still hate us (non-whites)?

    Your whiny ‘why do ‘they’ (non whites) come here (to white majority lands)’ can be answered in a single sentence: “Because you have fucked up our lands even more than you have fucked up your own!” (someone else first said this – or something like it).

    Now I ask you to go to a website like Peking Duck and ask the whites over there (most of them living in China, with Chinese spouses – in Richard’s case a male one), the same question you asked of us.

  61. December 29th, 2011 at 17:01 | #61

    @raventhorn #32

    @Chris Devonshire-Ellis
    “@Raventhorn – a referendum is a decision to be made based by a vote of the people, not as you suggest a biased bunch of peoples opinions. It’s called democracy, in other words, as in power to the people in deciding their own destiny. Something Indians possess and Chinese do not.”
    A vote by the ignorant is rather biased opinion, and not a legitimization of ignorance and bias, I would say.
    And since you brought up Indians, considering their literacy rate of around 66%, I would question the FACTUAL basis of their “vote”.
    Which points to the problem with “democracy”: Ignorance with “Democracy” is still IGNORANCE. It’s just noisier.

    I think we need to distinguish between democracy as a positive norm and democracy as a faith.

    As a positive norm, a decision of the people is the decision of the people. It matters not when a whole deranged people decide to do something crazy – because it is their decision. As long as the people get to decide, that is all there is. Sure one might argue whether the decision is informed, but hey, in the end, a decision is a decision – as long it’s decided by the people, being informed represents only secondary considerations.

    On the other hand, there is democracy that is taken as faith to achieve justice, happiness, good results and turn a blind eye when it does not. For example, a group of racists will demand racist policies; but just because the “people” made a decision does not give the decision a free moral pass. Often times people need to be restrained. A blind faith in democracy often lead to injustice and bad governance.

    Anyways, thought I’d bring the point up – lest we blindly attack these two notions of democracy…

  62. Antioxidants
    December 29th, 2011 at 19:11 | #62

    @Allen
    Very good point. Think of Hong Kong. The treaty of Nanking was negotiated and signed by two sovereign governments and Hong Kong (the Hong Kong island and area in Kowloon south of the Boundary street, north of the Boundary street (the New Territories) was on a 99 year ‘lease’) was ceded to Britain in perpetuity. But Britain finally relinquished not only the New Territories but the whole Hong Kong back to China because to continue Hong Kong as a colony will be morally unsustainable and Britain knows it. On the other hand, the treaty of Simla was dubious to begin with. It was unilaterally cook up by a certain MacMahon, was not signed by two sovereign governments (even by Britain’s own recognition, Tibet was not a sovereign country) and China never recognized it. South Tibet is the legacy of colonial land grab. So for India to demand China to recognize India’s sovereignty over South Tibet will be even more morally reprehensible.

  63. December 29th, 2011 at 21:47 | #63

    @John T Bone #66

    Hmm. I see no problem here.

    Firstly I for one am not in the US. But that is beside the point. You are a white person. Why did your ancestors have to come to the US, and yet still consider yourselves Europeans?

    Why did the Irish come here, and yet still retain and be proud of their Irish roots? The same for the Italians, and the Germans, and every other group in the US, as with Mexicans today.

    “here” = “US” of “Why did your ancestors have to come to the US” not necessarily where Wayne is or is not. If you read further, the writer references the “US” to be the home of “Asiatic people” and sympathizes with them and writes from their perspective.

    I guess you are the one making funny inferences and making fun at your own inferences. Stupidity usually takes longer to catch up, but not in this case. Some remedial English also might not hurt.

    Who is the xiao didi of the xiao didi?

  64. Wayne
    December 29th, 2011 at 23:02 | #64

    John T Bone, really whether one lives in America, or one lives in the North Pole is irrelevant. To me I don’t care if you lived all your life with your head up someone elses ass. The stuff you write would leave me to believe I am not far wrong.

    Nevertheless, where you or I live is irrelevant to the content of the discussions here.

    And those who do live in America, (I most definitely do not), live there probably for similar reasons that more and more white people are domiciled in the east.

    In Hong Kong, you have white expats who have permanent residence, many from before the handover. They are about the most racist bunch of people on the earth. They deride Chinese people, and continually moan that they can’t find fish and chips, or marmalade like home. And they are most active in coming out, with their chinese female dogs, on June 4 memorial days, and other anti-china activities.

    Now why are there so many chinese (and other non-whites) living in the West.

    I tell you why. Because of economic opportunities. The world is economically unbalanced. And unfair. The West has all the loot that it took from the developing world over several centuries.

    That is why Chinese, and other non-whites go to the West. As they have every right to.

    Tell me John T Bone. What was the intial impetus for the so-called ‘Age of Discovery’? Why did Columbus get on those boats and sail west?

    If you are too stupid to answer I’ll tell you why. It was to get to the fabulous riches of the East, the riches of China and India.

    Up until almost a century and a half ago, China was at least as wealthy as Europe.

    And Bengal in India was one of the wealthiest places on the planet.

    After a century and a half of Western imperialism China and India were the two poorest places on the planet. China even poorer than India. Tell me bright guy, what happened in between?

    The wealth of the west belongs to non-white peoples before it belongs to white people. We have every right to be in the West to claim back what is really ours in the first place. If you white people don’t like it, why don’t you white Americans, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders fuck right back off to where you came from.

    And by the way, we will soon be handing you a bill for the Opium war and the boxer indemnities. There is a strong legal case for this and sooner or later some smart lawyer is going to take it up.

  65. Nalayaf
    December 30th, 2011 at 08:47 | #65

    @John T Bone, “Hows the pursuing of your dreams going in America my friend?”
    So far so good, but it’ll get even better in 10-15 years when “Europeans” become minority here.

  66. December 30th, 2011 at 12:28 | #66

    @John Thomas

    I think people tend to confuse the conditions in which the ad hominem fallacy applies. This kind of fallacy does not mean that it is always illegitimate to question someone’s background and creds in a debate. It is *not* an ad hom when the evidence presented is based on testimonial evidence as personal credibility is relevant in assessing strength of evidence for personal testimonial evidence. Notice that the only “evidence” Chris has adduced so far is the “fact” that he has business interests and have traveled to the regions under discussion. Now I don’t see what that has to do with the political history of the region but since that kind of evidence is based on his own testimony, his credibility and thus his personal history is completely relevant to the discussion.

    See this

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Questions_about_the_notion_of_an_ad_hominem_fallacy

  67. December 30th, 2011 at 12:34 | #67

    @Maitreya

    That was a very informative post. Especially regarding the motives of Kissinger and McNamara in their past SE Asia policies. I also enjoyed your post on your blog very much. The breakdown of the Chinese border disputes in the past was very informative.

  68. denk
    December 30th, 2011 at 20:42 | #68

    i’ve been wondering for yrs
    some of the most vociforous china baiters, mostly anglos, claim to be
    living /working in china for many yrs, many boasting a chinese wife/girl
    friends to boot.

    which begs the question, if china sucks so much, why dont they go back
    to where they come from ?

    or why dont they move their ass to india or indonesia , where everything
    is groovy n cool as per their msm ?

    come to think of it, while there’s an army of such self styled *hr*
    crusaders who live in china taking up the cudgers for the tibetans, flg, liu
    xiao bao, blind dissidents [sic], uighurs etc
    i’ve yet to come across any anglo expats in india or turkey or indonesia
    etc, opening touting themselves as champions for the kashmariis,
    nagals, assamese, dalits, kurds, west papuans, acehnese etc etc.
    or if there’re such a species, their no must be so miniscule that i havent
    noticed in more than a decade of career as an amateur political observer ?

    many chinese are wondering why is china being singled out for treatment
    by these anglos blowhards, who’re banksters, teachers, lawyers,
    executives or just layabouts by day, but become reborn *hr* activists by
    nite [while they arent screwing some han ladies] ?
    otoh, i’d rented out my place to some students from india’s NE, who look
    more like chinese than indians.
    they lamented that how come everybody is fixated on tibet, tibet etc,
    why no one give a damn about the plight of the NE, which is after all,
    formally southern tibet ?
    *are we one of those *unpeople*, they asked rheotorically ?

    whichever way u look at it , these anglo *do gooders* are just god
    damned hypocrites.

    u might’ve heard of this character michael turton, he represents anglo
    hypocrisy at its best [worst ?]
    a typical expat who went to tw, liked the place, married a local lassie n
    settled down
    from then on he became a *greener than lee teng hui* *taiwanese*
    for the past decade or more he has been mounting an endless anti china
    campaign , china according to him, is THE evil empire bullying ,
    scheming to take over *his* [sic] beloved tw !!

    the last time we crossed sword , he was comparng china to nazi
    germany, at a time while his motherland amerikka is charging all over the
    world like a demented gorilla.
    http://tinyurl.com/6qemfpc
    whats up with the anglos, something in their water i guess.

  69. Wayne
    December 30th, 2011 at 22:14 | #69

    Anglo Saxons are the most repugnantly racist, self-righteous people on the face of the earth.

    Even if one deals with French people, or Germans even, Italians, they are far better to deal with than Anglo Saxons.

    Anglo Saxons are also the most violent aggressive people – look at EVERYWHERE they have gone and colonised, they murder off the indigenous people either completely or to 1 or 2% of the population, and then these same Anglos turn around and criticise the Chinese for Tibet when since 1950s, Tibetan population has DOUBLED, life expectancy has DOUBLED, and Tibetan life expectancy today is higher than Australian aborigines, even though Australia is a far richer country per capita than China.

    They are the biggest hypocrites in history.

    And yes. You are right. A very huge number of these anti-China haters have Chinese girlfriends.

    In Hong Kong if you look at Victoria Park for the June 4 commemoration, almost half of it is filled with these anglo losers and their chinese female dogs.

    I worked in an engineering consultancy in Hong Kong for many years, around these fucking anglos. They would be paid at least three times as much as the Chinese, have expat terms which meant free housing, have a chinese female dog companion, and yet still complain about the local chinese, yelling and screaming at them in the office, making fun of chinese people….

    Yes. Michael Turton, Richard (of Peking Duck —although his partner is a man hahhahaha), John Derbyshire, this wanker called stuart on another site called ‘found in china’,,,,,the ones with Chinese girlfriends seem to hate China and Chinese people more than anyone else.

    Christian Bale is of course another….we hand him a flock of chinese woman…make him a national ‘hero’…and what does he do? Goes out of his way to humiliate the Chinese government.

  70. Wayne
    December 30th, 2011 at 22:23 | #70

    This is what that ugly crone Madeleine Albright said about the deaths of half a million Iraqi children:

    Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”

    Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8

    Imagine if a Chinese leader had even said the death of ONE person was worth it for China’s interests. Imagine the outrage from these anglo saxons!

    Yet it is OK for the USA to murder half a million Iraqi children so they can get cheap oil!

    And while the imprisonment rate for Tibetans and other national minorities is less than for Han people, in the USA 1/4 blacks have been imprisoned at some stage, and the USA imprisonment rate is about 6 or 7 times more than China’s!

    Yet these Anglos self-righteously thump their chests and say ‘we are the best, we are the most kind, we are the most altruistic blah blah blah’ and dare criticise what they call the poor treatment of Tibetans in China, when Tibetans are better off than many of their own minorities, and the Chinese goverment pours treasure into developing TIbet, and uplifting the living standards and educational standards of all the national minorities.

    It just shows the extreme racism in the hearts of these Anglo Saxons.

  71. zack
    December 31st, 2011 at 00:34 | #71

    never underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance, especially amongst a ppl who’re convinced consciously and unconsciously of their primacy. Ever heard American propagandists speak of the US’ ‘First amongst equals’? it’s a misnomer, like American Exceptionalism.

    in my mind, ever since it became apparent to the USG and everyone in the West that the Chinese Superpower theory was no longer a theory in late 2008 as those same powers that be have done everything in their power to wage a cold war of sorts with China in all but name and economy (after all, how can you bring down an economy which is basically pulling the entire world along, yours included?). Do you remember that massive propaganda campaign in 2009 over ‘the 20 yr anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall’ as if to convince their citizens that democracy was still kicking communism’s arse (despite the self evidence of the flaws of democratic governments in handling the GFC) and of course the attempt to hype up a war between China and India in 2009, and also, what we had last year with the japs raising a stink courtesy of white man worshipper seiji maehara, as well as the propaganda project of giving liu xiaobo the Nobel Prize despite common sense dictating otherwise (refer to the thread in hiddenharmonies by that professor from HK).

    Then we come to 2011 as it wraps up and you have the obama administration destabilising the east asia region so as to insert their way into the fastest growing economic region on the planet, and hilary clinton promoting the idea of having america in asia to suck what life there is so as to keep america afloat as she sinks in debilitating debt and declinism. And of course obama’s TPP which is obviously an anti China bloc despite protestations otherwise and all this talk of a ‘strategic pivot to asia’.

    Time to face facts, the USG has been waging cold war against China since the soviets died in ’89; they’ve only started ramping up the heat cuz they feel China’s rise is coming faster than their old projections of 2050 (in fact China could surpass the US economy by 2016 and when China’s living standards even reach Brazil’s standards, the effect would pretty much be the same as the US economy in the 90s); and they’ve had help from backstabbing vietnamese and ungrateful two faced filipinos (not meaning to demonise or generalise those two, just take my rant as is:)). It seems to me that the Chinese have been rather quiet about the challenge from the US for another Cold War, which i think is rather sensible; it’s like some drunk idiot in a bar wanting to fight you as you just sit there ignoring him doing your own thing. Naturally you have to respond once he starts to lay hands on you as we’ve seen with Chinese responses to US attacks against Chinese solar companies, and addressing their overexposure to US treasuries by diverting their savings into hard commodities and assets.

    There’s an old quote from Cicero: ‘The sinews of war are infinite money’; emphasis on money, not debt. The US spending on defence and military arms and foreign wars with a view to contain China and Russia is unsustainable, as evidenced from the massive war debt and fiscal deficit and downgrading of the US’ credit rating. What policymakers in the US are doing right now is trying to delay or dilute the day when China’s power reaches parity with US hence the massive onslaught of diplomatic/economic/indirect military assault against Chinese interest these past few years.

    If i were a geostrategist in Beijing with a long term view of the future, i’d play the US’ game against them; i’d foster good relations and economic/military contacts with countries in South America and even encourage the Brazilians/Argentines/Mexicans to become more assertive in its own neighbourhood; when US geostrategists realise their own backyard can no longer be taken for granted and that the monroe doctrine is failing, they’ll have to divert resources there which’ll take some heat off American shenanigans to create war in east asia; i’d also be doing the dividing and conquering game with the anglo countries-as i write, UK China relations have improved to the point where China recently sent pandas to scotland, something along the lines of that.

    To further keep the Americans off balance, i’d negotiate some sort of base deal with Greenland, Cuba, Mexico, Russian Siberia, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Seychelles, Sri Lanka and i’d do it near simutaneously like within a few months of each other so as to keep the anglos off balance; should it come to war, and i’m hoping it won’t, i’d go loud and fast.

  72. December 31st, 2011 at 01:04 | #72

    While I understand the frustration with U.S. foreign policy towards China, I don’t think we are anywhere near a ‘Cold War’ scenario.

    In my view, China’s strategy is definitely not to be confrontational with the U.S.. She is embracing the existing world order – with the good and the bad. China is trying to improve IMF, WB, and other international bodies dominated by the West. This is a decidedly more peaceful approach which will earn China leadership around the world in the long run.

    How do you change the situation in the school yard with a bully twice your size without engaging in a fist fight? In Prof Yan Xuetong’s words, you try to get stronger and at the same time treat everyone else more justly and humanely. That’s how you change the situation. That takes a lot of 吃苦. For everyone’s sake, it is worth it.

  73. pug_ster
    December 31st, 2011 at 01:30 | #73

    @YinYang

    While I understand that China should be the ‘good guy’ statement, it certainly doesn’t work for Japan. Playing with the IMF, WB and other international bodies is useless.

    @zack

    I doubt that would work either, at least not yet. Right now most other countries out is doing alot more trade with the western countries and don’t want to be economically isolated like North Korea, Iran, or Syria. Right now the only 2 countries who can play games with the Western Countries are Russia and China. Countries like Libya and Iraq don’t want to play ball with the West and guess what happened to them. I think that China should develop economic ties with the other non-Western Countries like you mentioned but not play military games. Even so, between the US/EU and the China/Russia, the economic tipping scale falls in favor of US/EU and until China and Russia is more economically advanced than the US/EU, I doubt that China can do anything about this.

  74. SP
    December 31st, 2011 at 06:06 | #74

    Some here doubt that Tibet was the target of Nehru’s true intention.

    Well, I don’t, not for a minute!

    Neither was Mao, I believe.

    1961: Nehru implemented “Forward Policy”.

    — It meant to grab land, but mainly trying to gain access/control to strategic height of Tibet – the main water source of the dragon ( Mao knew it! )

    — Nehru appeared to have acted alone at least, with tacit agreement from USSR and the US or not.

    Fast forward 50 years to 2011: M Singh is implementing “Look East” Policy as his top priority.

    — It means to not only maintain the statue quo of grabbed land, but also “manage the dragon” proactively.

    — Singh is acting NOT alone, but in association with Japan, Vietnam, of course the US, and likely Australia in the later stage.

    There is a leap of faith from simple “Forward Policy” to “Look East”, can’t you see?

    If the former is to go ahead to rob someone, then the latter is to do so with a gang, and a compass in hand.

    After the recent US-India-Japan Strategic Dialogue, Japan, who just announced to abandon its decades long self-imposed weapon export ban, will be the next in the line to supply India with sophisticated weaponries arranging from world-class ( on par with USA) anti sub-marine naval equipments/ships/helicopters, to almost equally state-of-art radars and electronics equipments that Japan is known for.

    Vietnam has openly offered India to set up a naval base at its shore not far from China’s Hainan Island, and India is considering it – obviously it wants it dearly, yet afraid of China’s reaction. — Let me be clear here: India is at point of making history — an Indian naval base, or even just a tiny missile base, at Vietnam coast, with India’s long distance missile dubbed unapologetically as “China Killer”, gets around the natural missile buffer of Tibet and puts all major South China population centres under its direct umbrella. IT IS the modern version of “Cuba Crisis”. And India’s aggressive posing is this close!!!!!

    And how Hu/Wen is responding? Nada, Nil! They are talking about “Harmony”, more Chinese FDI, technology and hard labours to India to build more and better Indian infrastructures (1000’s Chinese immigrant hard labours sent by Hu/Wen are working 24*7 on roads, bridges and rails IN India, NOW, AS WE SPEAK! Pathetic, isn’t it?), and aim to double and triple Sino-Indian trade volume for the coming years…

    The delusional mistake of CPC is :

    India is NOT the US or the EU; and Indians are not Whites. Economic weapons therefore can’t work out, neither CPC’s slave alike mentality of “slap-my-left-chin-then-I-shall-offer-you-my-right-one” can.

    History shows that Indians only know 1 thing, and only: HARD BALL

    — The English conquered India with a handful of guns & cannons.

    How Indians responded? “Look East” or “Go Forward”? No, They looked nowhere other than the dirt ground, kneeling to the new-found “My Lord, Sir and Masters”.

    — Mao, being forced, smashed the shit out of Nehru in 1962 within several days.

    How Indians responded? With “Look East” policy? My foot!

    Now, without being met by hardcore, Indians are talking on the global stage with an organised gang on “How to manage the Dragon”. For god’s sake, indoor-plumbing aside, Indians can’t even manage their daily 3 meals, I mean 2, they propose to manage the dragon… the ignorance, arrogance, and aggressiveness thereof certainly reflect that low 80’s IQ average is almost universal amongst India’s governing elites and the masses.

    Deducted from above situation, the final “million dollar” (really ?) question is:

    How a sane person should respond when being bullied by a weak retard, if using force is not optimal?

    — Offer your right chin after the left one?

    — More bilateral trade?

    — More “harmony” ? ( i dunno how a IQ 106 can be harmonious with a IQ 81 who is equipped with a persistent bad breath, a permanent mental state of inferiority complex, and an imported bazooka, surrounded by “white master” cheerleaders, you tell me)

    — “hidden harmony” then? (NOTE: China and India were NOT peaceful neighbours out of the conscious willing of their elites and the masses in the past 2000 years as mainstream propaganda from the both sides claim. The historical peace between the two was enforced by A/ natural separation by Himalayas; B/ mutual disinterest in bilateral trade due to not much from Indian side just like it is today, other than occasional exchanges from Buddha fanatics; C/ “India” as a giant geographic entity didn’t exist until the modern era, D/ lack of need of indulged ego boast , or curry economics, or tropical diseases-rich land gains through overseas adventures from Chinese emperors, and perhaps most importantly E/ NO “global-warming”, natural resources & water -lacking 6 billion strong and fast exploding post-industrious world. Now, all the bets are off, mind you! )

    None of above is the right solution for the retard.

    2 ways I see, simples!

    One, knock him off like 1962 replay, quick and lethal, preferably with a pretext, to put him into another 50-year coma. ( this could serve as long-waited warning shot for historically Chinese-influenced Vietnam, South China sea, Zion Neocon and the East Pacific)

    Two, as I’ve repeatedly promoted, proactively support other forces to split the sucker into 30 pieces ( Indian Spring ?) for the sake of humanity.

    Happy New Year, everyone!

  75. denk
    December 31st, 2011 at 07:00 | #75

    wayne
    * Anglo Saxons are the most repugnantly racist, self-righteous people on the face of the earth.
    Even if one deals with French people, or Germans even, Italians, they are far better to deal with than Anglo Saxons.

    Anglo Saxons are also the most violent aggressive people – look at EVERYWHERE they have gone and colonised, they murder off the indigenous people either completely or to 1 or 2% of the population, and then these same Anglos turn around and criticise the Chinese for Tibet when since 1950s, Tibetan population has DOUBLED, life expectancy has DOUBLED, and Tibetan life expectancy today is higher than Australian aborigines, even though Australia is a far richer country per capita than China.

    They are the biggest hypocrites in history. *

    +Exposing Western hypocrisy – how much more exposed can they be? Which decent human being on Earth harbours any illusions about it? These are people whose histories are spongy with the blood of others. Colonialism, apartheid, slavery, ethnic cleansing, germ warfare, chemical weapons – they virtually invented it all. They have plundered nations, snuffed out civilisations, exterminated entire populations. They stand on the world’s stage stark naked but entirely unembarrassed, because they know that they have more money, more food and bigger bombs than anybody else+
    http://tinyurl.com/ytb86z

    +And yes. You are right. A very huge number of these anti-China haters have Chinese girlfriends.
    In Hong Kong if you look at Victoria Park for the June 4 commemoration, almost half of it is filled with these anglo losers and their chinese female dogs.+

    i wouldnt be surprised if many of these creeps are mi6
    the 1965 indon genocide was launched with a mi6 planted story in a hk paper
    http://tinyurl.com/nx9gdc
    the tam *massacre myth* was originated from another mi6 psyop in hk
    http://tinyurl.com/7w625rh
    martin lee’s party was funded by the notorious ned
    http://tinyurl.com/3rjxrbg
    hk has long been the gateway to destabilisation of china
    the island is literally crawling with cia/mi6 jerks

  76. denk
    December 31st, 2011 at 07:24 | #76

    wayne
    *Yes. Michael Turton, Richard (of Peking Duck —although his partner is a man hahhahaha), John Derbyshire, this wanker called stuart on another site called ‘found in china’,,,,,the ones with Chinese girlfriends seem to hate China and Chinese people more than anyone else.*

    i have been banned by pekin duck since 2005
    since then i’ve been inviting the anti chinese brigade over there to debate me in any open forum that i was posting
    none dared to take up the challenge
    what a bunch of cowards
    hehehe

    *Christian Bale is of course another….we hand him a flock of chinese woman…make him a national ‘hero’…and what does he do? Goes out of his way to humiliate the Chinese government.*

    richard gere for tibet
    mia farrow, george clooney against 2008 beijing olympics
    they called it the *genocide olympics* [sic]
    christian bale went to china to make money on a movie
    but insisted to double as champion for *chinese dissidents*
    like i say
    would these hypos talk about kashmir etc when filming in india ?
    try joining the protest in gazza n they might end up like rachel corrie
    more to the point,
    if they care so much about *hr* n all that jazz,
    why not chain themselves to the gate of wh n protest washington’s endless war mongering ?

    when is china gonna grow some backbone ?
    the next time these hypos try such a trick
    cancel their contract n send them packing

    if china keep turning the other cheek
    these creeps would come back for an encore every time

  77. Wayne
    December 31st, 2011 at 09:25 | #77

    Yes, India has much more land riots and illegal land seizures than China, the only difference is it is supported by the Indian government:

    Recently in India:

    Farmers’ fury over land takeover spread Sunday to Agra in Uttar Pradesh as the number of dead in clashes with security forces in Greater Noida rose to four, officials said.
    http://article.wn.com/view/2011/05/08/Farmer_fury_spreads_death_toll_is_four/

    Another article about land seizures in India
    http://article.wn.com/view/2011/11/21/India_s_land_seizures_spark_furious_fight/

    Where is the Western condemnation?

    The people at Peking Duck are just a bunch of racist hypocrites

  78. denk
    December 31st, 2011 at 19:20 | #78

    wayne
    *The people at Peking Duck are just a bunch of racist hypocrites*

    n cowards to boot
    they couldnt handle the truth, so they cut me off halfway

    after that i came across richard n some duckies in another forum
    i invited them n the rest to continue the debate right there
    none of them got the ball coz they knew they’d thrashed just like before

    these assholes *won* at their home ground playing with 12 men
    n then they refused to play the return match away
    like i say
    bunch of cowardly assholes
    i hereby extend my challenge to them to continue the debate here
    buahahaha
    i know they are lurking at this site
    some might even have been trolling here
    but they wouldnt dare to use their own name
    lol

  79. zack
    December 31st, 2011 at 22:04 | #79

    @Wayne
    how the heck Western countries think it’s responsible to sell arms and hi tech weapons systems to a country that’s barely able to keep it together is beyond me. THere are already massive subcontinent sized insurgencies across India-the naxalite rebellion-where the government has had no luck in wiping out (mainly because disenfranchised tribal groups who’ve had their lands stolen as you guys pointed out earlier). And the lawlessness, a mate of mine who went to India recently told me about dacoits in the Indian countrisyde; Dacoits are Indian bandits and highwaymen.
    Yes, you heard me right, India which is supposedly going to be a superpower and a ‘rival to China’ has freakin’ bandits running amok in the interior as well as several active insurgencies and seperatist groups.

  80. Antioxidants
    December 31st, 2011 at 22:46 | #80

    @SP
    I remember on several occasions seeing some Indians in forums saying something to the effect that Tibet should be part of India or India should have maintain its presence in Tibet (when India declared independence in 1947, the British Raj still has an office in Tibet and the British officer that represented the British Raj represents the newly independent India). On another occasion, I saw an Indian surmising that had India won the 1962 war with China, Tibet would have been liberated. Here is proof that India do have ambitions in Tibet:

    http://www.peopleforum.cn/viewthread.php?tid=50744

  81. January 1st, 2012 at 00:49 | #81

    @Antioxidants
    The link you provided has a Wikileaks cable, and I quote it below:

    Viewing cable 08NEWDELHI1795, TIBETAN YOUTH SEE POTHOLES IN THE MIDDLE PATH –
    VZCZCXRO6216
    OO RUEHBI RUEHCI RUEHCN RUEHGH RUEHLH RUEHPW RUEHVC
    DE RUEHNE #1795/01 1821026
    ZNY CCCCC ZZH
    O 301026Z JUN 08
    FM AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI
    TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 2444
    INFO RUCNCLS/ALL SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIA COLLECTIVE
    RUEHOO/CHINA POSTS COLLECTIVE
    RUEHKT/AMEMBASSY KATHMANDU 1746
    RUEHCI/AMCONSUL KOLKATA 2425
    RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC
    RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
    RHEHAAA/WHITE HOUSE WASHDC
    Monday, 30 June 2008, 10:26
    C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 NEW DELHI 001795
    SIPDIS
    EO 12958 DECL: 06/30/2018
    TAGS PGOV, PREL, PREF, PHUM, SOCI, CH, IN
    SUBJECT: TIBETAN YOUTH SEE POTHOLES IN THE MIDDLE PATH –
    PART 1 OF A STATUS REPORT ON TIBETAN REFUGEES IN INDIA
    REF: A. NEW DELHI 1483 B. NEW DELHI 3617 C. NEW DELHI 1476
    NEW DELHI 00001795 001.2 OF 003

    5# “…human rights activist XXXXXXXXXXXX told PolOffs that the Indian Ministry of Defense unofficially backs the TYC and is pleased with the opportunity to humiliate the Chinese government.

    7# In Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh, Tibetan youth take advantage of one career option – the Special Frontier Force (SFF). Seven SFF units, based in Chakrata, Uttarkhand form a special division of the Indian army composed solely of Tibetans. The GOI entrusts SFF to protect its borders, stationing Tibetans along the border with China and in Ladakh. The Tibetans can only attain the rank of junior officer and earn a meager salary compared to their Indian counterparts. Yet, most Tibetan men in northeastern India join the SFF. In Gangtok, the Welfare Officer noted that the majority of Tibetan men work for the SFF; and in Ravangla, 90% of the Tibetan families have at least one family member serving. In Miao, about 350 of the settlement’s youth serve in the SFF.

    Emphasis above was mine. “human rights activist” always have their nose in separatist and subversion activities don’t they?

  82. zack
    January 1st, 2012 at 01:16 | #82

    heh, go figure; those indians don’t regard Tibetans as equals, merely expendable, and yet here they are, willing to turn traitor and fight against their motherland, against fellow Chinese and ethnic tibetan Chinese over the lies and BS of their superiors. i should expect the PLA special ops and intelligence agencies to fund and encourage the naxals, and seperatists in Asom and Manipur as well as containing and rolling back the indian threat.
    i’m going to just say it: since it’s apparent that the Indians do not want to be friends with the Chinese, it’s in China’s interest to destroy India, and i don’t mean a rain of thermonuclear bombs although that wouldn’t seem inappropriate if India invaded China (under some sort of BS pretext of ‘liberating Tibet’), but rather seek to destabilise and balkanise India, similar to CIA operations at balkanising China during the cold war and Russia’s success at tearing outer Mongolia away from China proper.

    nagaland and Assam are key areas which could potentially act as buffer states, and if the Indians decide to escalate by having a base in vietnam, then a Chinese base in Nepal housing no less than an entire armoured division as well as elements of the 2nd artillery corps involved in ABM should be stationed there as well.

  83. Antioxidants
    January 1st, 2012 at 08:49 | #83

    This is the article I was talking about. The sentiment expressed by the author is pretty typical of the so called strategic community of India.

    http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?224864

  84. January 1st, 2012 at 10:16 | #84

    Folks, but bear in mind China’s support for Pakistan is taking sides in the India-Pakistan conflict.

    Also, I don’t think it’s a good idea to talk up war. I believe China’s policy has been defensive in nature. Kissinger has made the same point before. China plunging into war would be disastrous for such a large population.

    The purpose of this blog is to seek harmony, by articulating perspectives that help get at more truth.

  85. January 1st, 2012 at 12:14 | #85

    @zack #82

    Here are some translations of Sun Tsu quotes:

    For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

    The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

    Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy’s strategy.

    To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.

    Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.

    There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited.

    You have to believe in yourself.

    Given China’s current economic development, do you think China really should expend the resources to fight a war to break India apart. China can no doubt destabilize India greatly, but the forces that will keep together is not India per se, but the other big powers. Do you think U.S., Russia, U.K., Japan will watch China attack India?

    Also, India, despite its anti-China stance, today still (at least superficially) tries to pursue an independent political strategy. It is neither too pro U.S. nor pro Russia. It is big enough to sort of stand up to them on day-to-day affairs (of course, it will continue to seek their alliance as China grows, given current strategic thinking). If India is broken apart, China may make some friends with some states, but no doubt other states will fall into the arms of U.S., or Russia, or other European powers. India will just become 40-50 Vietnams – with its potential benefits and headaches.

    So what’s the real good in breaking India apart?

    The real smart thing for China to do is to develop itself, and its process try to make India see that aligning itself with China will be to its long term benefit. Attacking India’s strategic and ideological funk might look hard today, but when China does become a true super power, that should not be too hard to do, especially if China does continue to legitimately seek win-win for all developing nations.

    China must help India break out of its ideological trap. It must help it see that the two has much to gain from each other.

    That will be a true victory for China – not just military victories followed by vengeful polities or polities that can be easily bought off by other super powers – but true friends. There really is no point for China and India to be enemies. Both have long histories, and both have long suffered under a Western dominated world. They had long traded culture and goods with each other…

    The China-India break is the same as the China-Japan break or China-Vietnam break or China-Philippine break. Some Chinese may blame Western meddling. But that’s only one side of the coin. The real story is that Asia’s political structure today is full of contradictions. The Asian inability to come together – to free themselves the narrow minded traps set by notions of nation states (imposed by Western powers – directly or through reactive forces – on Asia) – to free themselves from the divide and conquer strategy of Western powers – is the thing that has hampered and that will continue hamper Asian development.

  86. January 1st, 2012 at 13:09 | #86

    I don’t think anyone is saying war is a good idea. War is rarely a good idea. But the strategy of appeasement has not worked so far. I like what China is now doing. It is now demanding more than it did before (now it is also demanding the Tawang tract in settlements rather than just the de facto line of actual control). It is also strengthening its border military presence.

    This is excellent strategically. Because by demanding more than previously and putting more enforcement behind its claims, a compromise is sure to be to China’s interests. In game theory there’s a strategy where one is trusting and very willing to concede at the beginning but if the other side shows disdain, distrust, unreasonableness, aggression etc, the best strategy is to demand more than you expect and to stay firm. I believe the Chinese government is now doing precisely this.

    If India has wise rulers it would settle most of the border to the de facto line of actual control. The issue of the Tawang tract in Arunachal Pradesh ought to be settled at a later time left to “a wiser generation” to negotiate in Deng’s words.

    China may be able at some later time to secure the Tawang tract by offering some concessions for parts of Aksai Chin. Of course, much of Aksai Chin is barren and of little strategic value except for the major highway areas, which ought to be nonnegotiable, but it should give India a way to save face and back away with a symbolic victory for some other regions of Aksai Chin. Getting Tawang will be a victory for China because Tawang has the second most holy monastery in Tibetan Buddhism and many Tibetan Chinese would like it to return to Tibetan control and I’m sure even many people in Tawang would rather be under Lhasa/Beijing administration than Delhi’s. So it may be in China interests to wait it out; in the future India may have wiser rulers friendlier to China once more business and cultural contacts are established.

  87. Antioxidants
    January 1st, 2012 at 13:30 | #87

    India may not last for another fifty years. China should not conceded anything and to wait India out. Time is on China side.

  88. Antioxidants
    January 1st, 2012 at 13:43 | #88

    According to Alastair Lamb and Neville Maxwell, India’s territorial claim on Aksai Chin is based on a diplomatic forgery. To me, this negates any legitimacy India has on Aksai Chin. Other factors such as control of the territory (China was building a road on it for two years and India didn’t know anything about it until India read it in a Chinese publication) and the fact that Aksai Chin lies on the Chinese side of the watershed means that India have no business whatsoever in claiming Aksai Chin. Why should China even contemplate compromising it? The Chinese Communist party has a demonstrable history of selling out traditional Chinese land left and right. Stop it.

  89. SP
    January 1st, 2012 at 13:46 | #89

    #85 Allen,

    Despite his best intention and effort, one can’t “change” India, or “help India break out of its ideological trap”as you romantised, as much as one can’t change 1.3 billion’s IQs overnight.

    India’s problem, to itself, to China, and to the world at large, is not its political ideology, but its people — how deep is the root of Hindusm you think? how long castes have been practised there? how many layers of inter-caste hatred and cross-religion bigorties are there? and how radical Hindusm must be, since it appears to be the perpetual mirror image of radical Islam, driving the latter nuts? You think you can just flip your fingers like that to “help India break out…”?

    From Rome, to the sun-never-set British Empire, to Pax Americana, the not-so-secret rule of engagement has always been Divide & Rule. The Brits conquered entire sub continent with what, 50.000 to 100,000 men? with guns that were so primitive that would make 50’s Vietcom look like a superpower.

    It’s never been Divide & “Headache” as you envisaged.

    China’s forseeable growth story largely will be a function of world natural resouces, fresh water, arable land(food) & fuel which are all finite and some have reached the peaks. Hence before someone invents some super renewable forms of energies and super rice, it’s zero sum for everyone involved, no fantasies here.

    What we have?

    –1.3 billion and fast growing Indians are natural competitors, resourcewise, to the Chinese and others, as 1.3 billion individuals. Fact.

    –Yet the real harm from India is not individuals, but the SUM. Fact.

    The real harm that legacy of “India” casues to both its own people and to the world (China included), is that the tiny Hindu upper castes can perpetually squeeze the last several rupees out of of its sea of underclass to gather a respectable total SUM, in order to purchase state-of-the-art weapons stationed at the China border on the one hand, and on the other hand potentially outbid China (and others, in many occasions, at least unnecessarily bid up the cost by a huge margin ) on very limited natural resources available across board in the world market .

    A broke up “India”, as it naturally was before the Brits arrived, can not afford to command such a sum of purchasing power on the world stage either on resources, food, or on geopolitical influence and economic weight, hence is good for China, good for other competitors ( any Euro/Yankee readers here? raise your hands), good even for Indian’s own poor mass for they finally could have an opportunity to prosper on their own merits without being squeezed and victimised by fat cats in New Delhi – as what I said previously the move is “for the sake of humanity”. There you have your morality.

    It doesn’t have to be as rude as the Zionista Neocon (“to bomb someone into the stone age”) – a primitive bunch[shaking head]. It doesn’t have to be physically or psychlogically painful even. The opposite it could be. I am quite certain that once the aforementioned spirit is widely understood and established in CPC’s 2-digit-IQ “think tank” community, there wouldn’t be any supply shortage of Sun Tzus or Frankensteins in this world.

    After Arab Spring, there must be an Indian Summer after all, don’t you think?

  90. zack
    January 1st, 2012 at 13:47 | #90

    @Allen
    i don’t want war, and as per sun tzu’s quote, better to win victory first before fighting costly battles; from the point of view of a political realist, this means either ensuring India either collapses or is contained. btw it’s no accident i’m using the kind of language American policymakers use vis-a-vis China, and it appears there’s a very strong pro US lobby in Delhi, and Delhi appears to be more than willing to act as catspaw for the Western elites as a destabilising force against China.

    As Napoleon once said, the best thing to do when you’re being attacked is to counter-attack; the best defence being a good offence and all that. However, China isn’t without friends in India, especially amongst some of the communist parties in India, all things being equal, it’s not inconceivable for India to come to its sense and stop destabilising its own near neighbourhood for the sake of appeasing the white man. it disgusts me to see how some British Indians wish for war whilst they sit in the safety of the UK.

    And given US actions these past 2 yrs, it’s not unreasonable to make the case that the US wants war because it believes it can win with all that money invested in defence spending, and because culturally Americans love starting wars but aren’t so hot at finishing them or peacetime (of course the military industrial pentagon complex might have something to do with that).

    Imagine this scenario, encouraged by Western and Russia efforts, India makes belligerant actions towards China resulting in war between the two; it doesn’t matter who fires first, war is happening and the Western media will spin it to make China the bad guy and the culprit. the West and Russia make billions selling arms to India whilst millions of Chinese and Indians die. In the end, India’s apparent alliance with the West is assured and China is set back a few decades, which is exactly what the West wants.

    no, war would be playing into the hands of the West; they’re just dying for a war with China so they can derail the China miracle and rape her once more; no, better thing to do is leverage China’s strength, and encourage the Indians to stay on side (like cooperating together in climate change and Syria), make them see that it’s in their self interest to stand tall with their Asian brothers rather than licking the feet of the white man. If no other choice, (and given that India being a nominal democracy has to hypocritically criticise China’s human rights record) then balkanisation and the radioactive desert should be India’s lot.

  91. January 1st, 2012 at 13:55 | #91

    @Antioxidants

    If India collapses on its own then that may mean China getting all Arunachal Pradesh but it could also mean large scale warfare all over the region and many smaller independent states and that would be bad for China as well because that would destablize the region.

    According to Alastair Lamb and Neville Maxwell, India’s territorial claim on Aksai Chin is based on a diplomatic forgery. To me, this negates any legitimacy India has on Aksai Chin. Other factors such as control of the territory (China was building a road on it for two years and India didn’t know anything about it until India read it in a Chinese publication) and the fact that Aksai Chin lies on the Chinese side of the watershed means that India have no business whatsoever in claiming Aksai Chin. Why should China even contemplate compromising it? The Chinese Communist party has a demonstrable history of selling out traditional Chinese land left and right. Stop it.

    I’m not talking about legitimacy. I’m talking about negotiations which is a totally different thing. Borders must be bilateral or multilateral to be legitimate and it is in China’s interest to settle some kind of deal with India rather than perpetual confrontation over border issues. The problem is how best to negotiate for China’s interests. It’s not simple and it ultimately involves some diplomacy. It would be pragmatically stupid to get into a costly confrontation or even remain in the status quo over such barren lands, India may have yet to learn that lesson but China knows better.

  92. denk
    January 1st, 2012 at 20:54 | #92

    KUDOS TO MR Maitreya
    AN UPRIGHT MAN

  93. LOLZ
    January 1st, 2012 at 21:00 | #93

    SP :
    The real story is that Asia’s political structure today is full of contradictions. The Asian inability to come together – to free themselves the narrow minded traps set by notions of nation states (imposed by Western powers – directly or through reactive forces – on Asia) – to free themselves from the divide and conquer strategy of Western powers – is the thing that has hampered and that will continue hamper Asian development.

    Japan’s previous PM Yukio Hatoyama had the idea of an Asian Union with China/Japan at the helm and published his piece on NYT. A lot of people were shocked of this notion. Personally I think this would be the best case for Asia as a whole, but I don’t think this will happen any time soon. There are simply too many differences, ideological, physical, habits, etc. between greater Asians. The West on the other hand is united by a powerful ideology and superior technology/economy that its people can feel confident about (until very recently).

    In reality I fear what will likely to happen is the US and China going into a new cold war. India along with most of the larger SEAsian nations will choose the US, while smaller nations surrounding India will likely to align with China. This situation will only get worse when China and India are going to compete for the same strategic resources (the few which are not being controlled by Western nations) which are vital to continue the growth of their economies.

  94. zack
    January 1st, 2012 at 23:35 | #94

    @LOLZ
    the US has been wanting war for quite some time, to secure the planet’s resources and to affirm a New American Century; see the thing with the American psyche is that the concept of a war is deeply ingrained into the psyche; whether or not a war is ‘just’ or appropriate is irrelevant, winning is all that matters and it’s for that reason that the Korean and Vietnam wars are regarded as largely forgotten-because the US didn’t win (i won’t say they were defeated, but they sure as heck didn’t win); it’s why Iraq is regarded by some as a just war because the US ‘won’ (of sorts) militarily.

    It’s why Chinese strategic thinking has revolved around convincing the Americans that the price for war would be too steep; once the Americans get it into their minds that war with China is not only right but winnable, then they’ll do everything they can to catalyse a war. For these reasons i think defence spending in the Chinese military should be increased; make the prospect for war with China unthinkable as to be suicidal.

    Regarding a cold war in east asia, i don’t think it’ll be along the same scale as the 20th century because this is a globalised world economy we’re talking about and practically the entire region is dependant on China’s economy for sustenance. i do think China should leverage that and reward those who are friendly to China; punish and destroy those who willingly wish to fight for white supremacy.

  95. January 2nd, 2012 at 01:31 | #95

    @SP #89

    Interesting… this notion of history and morality you’ve painted.

    While most here believe that a strong Chinese polity will bring overall more justice to the world order, you also paint a plausible theory that a strong Indian polity will actually bring more injustice to the world – including within the borders of the Indian polity.

  96. January 2nd, 2012 at 01:51 | #96

    @melektaus #86

    Getting Tawang will be a victory for China because Tawang has the second most holy monastery in Tibetan Buddhism and many Tibetan Chinese would like it to return to Tibetan control and I’m sure even many people in Tawang would rather be under Lhasa/Beijing administration than Delhi’s.

    How sure are you about the current political sensibilities of people living in Tawang today? Does the sensibilities of the people there today even matter?

    With the exiles effectively taking the position that Tawang is part of India (heck Dalai Lama has even said that India has more claim to Tibet than China (see e.g. this article)), I wouldn’t be so sure….

    I remember Nehru has refused to discuss border issues with Chinese on the observation that he was not elected to break India apart – that he had no legal power to do so. That position has basically lasted to today – thus India would not submit to a vote issues of sovereignty in all its disputed territories or in territories where revolutions are brewing. Will of the people applies not at each province or city level, but to the Indian nation as a whole.

    I think the same thinking should apply to the Chinese side, too. Why must Chinese legitimacy in stolen lands be based on current political flavors of a subgroup of people?

    As for what the local people think in South Tibet think generally, it depends on whose “propaganda” (Buru’s words) the people there subscribe to I guess – see, e.g., references linked in this previous comment I made.

    This all issue goes back to the Sun Tsu comment I made earlier, in particular this quote.

    Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.

    Before fighting a hot war on the border to settle the border issues, China must make more advances to groups in the disputed land, including the exiles. That’s just the reality. Why risk liberating a province where there is probably (judging Buru’s words) only a 50-50 chance the people will appreciate it?

  97. January 3rd, 2012 at 03:49 | #97

    @Allen
    Here’s the thing about the McMohan line:

    1. The Simla agreement is illegal in Chinese eyes, because it was an agreement between Britain and Tibet, and Tibet,not being a country, had no right to sign agreements on its own. Britain had in fact invited China to the conference, but signed the agreement with Tibet ONLY when China refused and the Chinese representative left the conference. This point is extremely important, and it is very clear that Britain pampered Tibet to get what they wanted, and India, after independence, fell for it.

    2. The irony in the whole thing is – as far as the eastern sector is concerned – China was willing to recognize the McMohan line! It was willing to agree on a line accepted by only the British and Tibet, without Beijing’s consent – all in the interests of peace. All it wanted in return, was that barren useless land of Aksai Chin, an area where hardly anyone even lived, which would have caused no loss to India’s national interest. In fact, it was in India’s national interest to actually lose that land in order to get the much larger (by three times) and populated land of NEFA, now Arunachal Pradesh.

    And you are right to an extent that Indian legitimacy begins with British colonialism. India as a country had to ‘download’ its credentials and sovereignty from the British, and hence, by the very definition of India, it HAD to adopt a stance that the Simla agreement is legal. However, that stance implies implicitly admitting that Tibet is independent (or atleast was independent at the time of the conference), which is at odds with India’s official view that Tibet is part of China. This raises this question, which I discussed in one of my articles on the subject:

    The Indian position can also be construed to mean that regardless of whether or not Tibet is sovereign now , it was sovereign when the Simla agreement was signed; and consequently the McMahon line is legal. Which raises the question based on which 32,333 square miles of territory is disputed – Does signing a (bilateral) treaty with a foreign power on its own make a province sovereign?

    @melektaus
    Thanks. Your article is also a good succinct view of the war. And regarding Dibyesh Anand’s blog that you linked to – that blog was actually started in part to promote a conference on the dispute last year which was attended by all the big guns, including Neville Maxwell and John Graver. (Surprisingly, Dibyesh Anand actually sent me an invitation to attend! 😉 ….he must have come across my blog…;-)

    This link contains podcasts too:

    http://chinaindiaborderdispute.wordpress.com/a-conference-on-%E2%80%98revisiting-the-china-india-border-dispute%E2%80%99/

  98. January 3rd, 2012 at 10:57 | #98

    @Allen

    How sure are you about the current political sensibilities of people living in Tawang today? Does the sensibilities of the people there today even matter?

    I’m not sure but I have read in several places that the people in Tawang are envious of the development in China and that the Indian government has been a disappointment to the local population it the efforts to develop the area. I’m thinking long term as the Chinese government seems to be doing. The current dalai lama thinks Tawang is India’s but he is a politician and no telling what he will say or do in the future should the opportunity arise which is favorable to him in changing his views and no telling what the current kalon Tripa or future ones will do either. There are only two open, live options. They can either stay with the status quo or change so that they want Tawang to be a part of China. If the former China loses nothing because that is the status quo. If the later China gains Tawang. Ergo China ought to wait and see. The same strategy applies to India’s government’s attitude towards negotiation of Tawang.

  99. shahev
    January 12th, 2012 at 13:17 | #99

    i have never read so much pent up hatred about india, even in blogs from pak.. it is a hard fact that countries wage war against each other for many reasons.. but ultimately all these political lines have never existed in god’s world.. they only exist in human’s world..

    centuries have passed but that nationalistic beast within us all compels us to hate one another.. we people, with all our atom bombs & hydrogen bombs & pluton bombs, are not much different from dogs biting each other on the streets for their own petty territories..

    think about it..

  100. January 12th, 2012 at 14:40 | #100

    @shahev
    You said:

    it is a hard fact that countries wage war against each other for many reasons.

    Well, try to explain the reason to Nehru’s “Forward Policy.” If you have arguments against this analysis about the 1962 war, then do it. Otherwise you are just barking because India is not painted in the kind of light you are comfortable with.

  101. shahev
    January 13th, 2012 at 02:28 | #101

    no my friend, i am not barking, you all are.. i just came onto this blog, saw all this hatred & responded, because i felt sorry for all of you.. but let me tell you one thing.. i am an indian national & i know well about the nationalistic consciousness & pride.. but there is a level of consciousness more important than that & it doesn’t demarcate between indians or chinese or the lines they draw on grounds of dust..

    there are people in this blog who are not happy unless india is attacked & divided into 30 states & then kept chained like dogs at their doors.. i have no intention to respond to this hatred with hatred.. darkness cannot remove darkness, only light can.. but i am not a man with much light.. i’ll just go my way silently.. may you all indian-hating chinese & chinese-hating indians blow each other up to pieces..

  102. raventhorn
    January 13th, 2012 at 06:16 | #102

    @shahev

    “there are people in this blog who are not happy unless india is attacked & divided into 30 states & then kept chained like dogs at their doors.. ”

    Don’t know where you get your paranoia from.

  103. shahev
    January 13th, 2012 at 07:02 | #103

    ^ raventhorn, do a search for “30 pieces” on this page..

  104. raventhorn
    January 13th, 2012 at 07:36 | #104

    shahev :^ raventhorn, do a search for “30 pieces” on this page..

    Yes, and that’s ALL you are getting from this blog?

    “never read so much pent up hatred about india”, eh??

    Perhaps focus your paranoia on the person who makes the specific comments.

  105. shahev
    January 13th, 2012 at 10:51 | #105

    ^dude, i’m perhaps the only indian in this thread (as appears from the names, i might be wrong) & if u read from top to bottom, you’d find all the logic in the world that india is evil&wrong & china is good&righteous.. now if u want to find all the logic in the world that says india is evil & rest is good then u don’t have a case, do u?? u have already given the verdict in ur mind & all this hearing is a reverse process of justifying that verdict..

    but i guess, yes, i am paranoid.. i am the only indian here, i am taking all this hatred, & i am not giving it back.. don’t know about all those politicians but personally i am not giving it back.. i am happy to take it & go.. can’t live my life with hatred, thats what i know..

  106. raventhorn
    January 13th, 2012 at 11:14 | #106

    @shahev

    “you’d find all the logic in the world that india is evil&wrong & china is good&righteous.. now if u want to find all the logic in the world that says india is evil & rest is good then u don’t have a case, do u??”

    Again, I don’t know which comment you are referring to.

  107. shahev
    January 13th, 2012 at 11:22 | #107

    i am referring to the entire page from very first post, not any particular comment.. it starts with the “india is wrong” theme & ends with that.. & this activity of pointing out particular comments & phrases to try to drive ur own point home, is for lawyers & politicians.. we, common men, talk in ‘general’ sense not ‘specific’.. when we see a ray of light we see it as white only.. we don’t go on to analyse vibgyor in it..

  108. raventhorn
    January 13th, 2012 at 11:26 | #108

    @shahev

    “i am referring to the entire page from very first post, not any particular comment..”

    I think such generalization can ONLY be described as paranoia.

    “we, common men, talk in ‘general’ sense not ‘specific’.. when we see a ray of light we see it as white only.. we don’t go on to analyse vibgyor in it..”

    If you say so, I don’t think other “common men” would agree with your color-blindness.

  109. shahev
    January 13th, 2012 at 12:26 | #109

    dude, if u can’t do a thing, it doesn’t mean other ppl can’t.. if u are incapable of generalizing then thats ur problem.. now u can go ahead & ask me to point out 20 points from this page that has made me draw this conclusion.. but the problem is, when i do it, u’d say “take it to the person who made that comment”..

    i know where i stand & i know where all them others stand.. u know where i stand but do you know where u stand??

  110. SP
    January 13th, 2012 at 16:35 | #110

    Well, shahev , let’s see

    [quote] i have never read so much pent up hatred about India… [/quote]

    You should go out more, don’t you think?

    [QUOTE] it is a hard fact that countries wage war against each other for many reasons.. [/QUOTE]

    Correct. One of major reasons is one steals a land doesn’t belong to him.

    [QUOTE] but ultimately all these political lines have never existed in god’s world.. they only exist in human’s world.. [/QUOTE]

    Yes, greedy and 2-faced men such as Nehru ( “Forward Policy” in 1962 ) and M Singh ( ongoing “Go East” policy — Why the loser dare not “Go West” for a change after 50 years? Something wrong with his literacy level?)

    [QUOTE] .. i am an indian national & i know well about the nationalistic consciousness & pride.. [/QUOTE]

    We know whom you are. You have no clue on what is truly nationalistic consciousness & pride. What you have instead, and repeatedly demonstrated, are Jingoistic gibberish and misplaced self-esteem.

    [QUOTE] but there is a level of consciousness more important than that & it doesn’t demarcate between indians or chinese or the lines they draw on grounds of dust.. [/QUOTE]

    No consciousness is more important, more straight forward, and more basic than returning the stuff you’ve stolen to its original owner, with an apology, to start with.

    [QUOTE] there are people in this blog who are not happy unless india is attacked & divided into 30 states & then kept chained like dogs at their doors.. [/QUOTE]

    Oh, sorry, I really meant 40, no, 45 pieces instead of 30 for the sake of humanity, particularly 1 billion plus starving and/or malnutricious Indian mass underclass (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9005486/Two-fifths-of-Indian-children-under-five-are-underweight-survey-finds.html) who are subsidising India’s despicable and fast expanding colossal war machine targeting at China – Manmohan Singh’s “Go East” Policy.

    I’ve never mentioned “attacked”. You did.

    I’ve never mentioned “chained like dogs” either. You did, as if you are quite into it… I am curious.

    [QUOTE] darkness cannot remove darkness, only light can.. [/QUOTE]

    What, is that the latest Bollywood Facial Cream commercials?

    Why you Indians are such obsessed with “dark” and “light”?

    Why can’t you feel proud with your own dark skin for a change?

    The [B]only[/B] light is to go to nearest police station and return the item that you’ve stolen before it’s too late, you hear me?

    [QUOTE] but i am not a man with much light.. [/QUOTE]

    I believe that we all knew it, judging by the style and contents of the writing.

    Nonetheless, you might have a minimum degree of feeling guilty and shame. Am I asking for too much?

    [QUOTE] i’ll just go my way silently.. [/QUOTE]

    …while in the darkness looking for the next victim, following M Singh’s “Go East”? So typisch Indian, isn’t it?

    [QUOTE] but i guess, yes, i am paranoid.. i am the only indian here… [/QUOTE]

    What are your other symptoms? I know a good psychiatrist…

    [QUOTE] i am taking all this hatred, & i am not giving it back.. don’t know about all those politicians but personally i am not giving it back.. i am happy to take it & go.. can’t live my life with hatred, thats what i know.. [/QUOTE]

    — authentic dumb criminal mentality: Steal, Run and Denial.
    Does Tawang sound like Gupta to you, or do they look like Patels?

    [QUOTE] i know where i stand & i know where all them others stand.. [/QUOTE]

    What you know? You stand on a pile of s*** and you don’t have shoes for it.
    Second thought, silly me, as you kind are used to it.

  111. raventhorn
    January 13th, 2012 at 16:48 | #111

    @shahev

    “now u can go ahead & ask me to point out 20 points from this page that has made me draw this conclusion..”

    You can’t even point to 2 points of specifics without going all “I can only see white”.

    Let me know when you get to 3 points.

  112. raventhorn
    January 13th, 2012 at 16:52 | #112

    @shahev

    “dude, if u can’t do a thing, it doesn’t mean other ppl can’t.. if u are incapable of generalizing then thats ur problem.”

    I can generalize that you can’t point to specifics, and you are color-blind.

    I don’t know what shade of “white” you are talking about, because you are color-blind.

    I can generalize, but I’m not a mind-reader, so I still don’t know what you are talking about.

    Hey, better go find a forum full of mind-readers who can understand your generalizations and know exactly what you are talking about.

  113. shahev
    January 14th, 2012 at 00:48 | #113

    Dude i am happy that you have finally opened up. I know your stand completely now. We all know about the problems with Akshay Chin & Arunachal Pradesh, but the way you are talking about it (& apparently gnashing your teeth along) points to clearly who has the paranoia. You go on saying words like loser, authentic dumb criminal mentality, pile of s***, break up into 40-50 pieces & see whether they’ll help in resolving anything in the long run. I am not gonna use them back. This is my choice & you can do nothing about it. So go on hitting me all you can.

    Btw, [QUOTE] darkness cannot remove darkness, only light can..
    What, is that the latest Bollywood Facial Cream commercials?
    Why you Indians are such obsessed with “dark” and “light”?
    Why can’t you feel proud with your own dark skin for a change? [QUOTE]

    from my line, this was your synopsis?? ha ha ha ha.. that line was taken from Martin Luther King.. But i guess you think kung fu solves everything..

    btw~ this was your showstopper..
    [QUOTE] India – colossal war machine [QUOTE]

    paranoid alert!!!!!!!!

    check & compare annual military spending of China & India..

    lastly, i REALLY REALLY feel sorry for you about this~
    [QUOTE] but there is a level of consciousness more important than that & it doesn’t demarcate between indians or chinese or the lines they draw on grounds of dust..
    No consciousness is more important, more straight forward, and more basic than returning the stuff you’ve stolen to its original owner, with an apology, to start with. [/QUOTE]

    you just showed your maturity level here..

  114. SP
    January 14th, 2012 at 05:47 | #114

    Shahaz, I thought I was done with you. Stop taking advantage of conteous hosts by vomitting on this fine thread your utter chaotic frontal lobe tissues and filthy con jobs which you and your crying foul quasi-Sub-Sahara-IQ fellow Bahrats are naturally entitled to and do it to every single country & www space you people are fortunate enough to immigrate to. And leave your intellectual masters alone before being banned will yer?

  115. shahev
    January 14th, 2012 at 05:53 | #115

    raventhorn & SP..

    who’s actually bothered whether or not i am banned here!!

    but yes, u people are seriously sick..

    get well soon…

  116. SP
    January 14th, 2012 at 06:04 | #116

    Goodbye Shahev, before your being packed into the next cargo ship sending straight back to your original habitat, a permanent 4th world thuggish dump called “India”.

  117. shahev
    January 14th, 2012 at 07:11 | #117

    well if india is such a thuggish dump & u guys belong to an elite country of heavenly beings, why do you intend on crossing the himalayas & encroach upon indian soil to break it up into 40 parts?? u sound like nazis when u talk in that fashion; everybody knows what happened to them.. you should be happy staying in your yellow river basin eating chili cockroaches, oops, maggots, oops sorry again, chicken..

    learn to respect other people’s opinions when u open a blog.. if u can’t do that, hang a sign saying “RESTRICTED TO INDIA-HATING NINCOMPOOPS ONLY”

  118. raventhorn
    January 14th, 2012 at 07:11 | #118

    @shahev

    “who’s actually bothered whether or not i am banned here!!”

    Not me.

    I don’t know why you want to ask me about it, because it sounds like you have just a personal beef with SP.

  119. raventhorn
    January 14th, 2012 at 07:14 | #119

    @SP

    @shahev

    OK, guys, you sound like you have personal issues with each other.

    I suggest you take it outside of this forum.

    We are not going to keep on with the generalized cultural name-calling here in this thread.

    Cease and desist!

  120. raventhorn
    January 14th, 2012 at 07:27 | #120

    @shahev

    “why do you intend on crossing the himalayas & encroach upon indian soil to break it up into 40 parts??”

    I don’t think SP wrote such “crossing the Himalayas & encroach upon indian soil”, nor “40 parts” (I thought it was 30 pieces)?

    This kind of exaggeration is deliberate misrepresentation of other commenters. And it will not be tolerated.

  121. shahev
    January 14th, 2012 at 07:27 | #121

    [QUOTE] Oh, sorry, I really meant 40, no, 45 pieces instead of 30 for the sake of humanity, particularly 1 billion plus starving and/or malnutricious Indian mass underclass (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9005486/Two-fifths-of-Indian-children-under-five-are-underweight-survey-finds.html) who are subsidising India’s despicable and fast expanding colossal war machine targeting at China – Manmohan Singh’s “Go East” Policy. [QUOTE]

    check ur own bullshit first..

  122. raventhorn
    January 14th, 2012 at 07:29 | #122

    Where is the “crossing the Himalayas & encroach upon indian soil”?

  123. raventhorn
    January 14th, 2012 at 07:37 | #123

    @shahev

    I asked you nicely to clarify your assertion about other commenter’s words.

    You are going to the SPAM filter since you continue to use your personal issue with SP to smear this entire blog. (I have already warned you, Take it outside of this forum!)

  124. LOLZ
    January 31st, 2012 at 07:30 | #124
  125. Antioxidants
    January 31st, 2012 at 18:19 | #125

    @LOLZ
    Great read. Also I want to thanks for Maitreya’s comment. He is the only Indian I found that has any sense of objectivity.

  126. February 1st, 2012 at 14:44 | #126

    @LOLZ

    Indeed, good find. I have always argued that India is not very democratic despite what many people think. Even the US is not very democratic and as the writer shows, India is just an ersatz version of the US “democracy”.

    I will write an article about democracy in the future to show why there are very very few if any real democracies in the world.

    China, I believe, is actually on its way to becoming a real democracy in a much more robust sense of the word. In fact, the largest democratic experiment in the world right now is not happening in India as many westerners and Indians like to believe. It is actually occurring in China with inspiring success. How ironic.

    It ought to pain every Asian to see a fellow Asian nation so uncritically accept western notions of democracy and ape western prescriptions when they need to be building on and inventing their own conceptions of democracy suitable to their needs.

  127. Naqshbandiyya
    February 28th, 2012 at 16:42 | #127

    For all we like to gripe about the Western media, the Asian media isn’t that much better. One of the enduring effects of the Sino-Indian War of 1962 was the intense antipathy it generated towards China in the Indian press.

    As documented by Debasish Roy Chowdhury in the Asia Times, the headlines from India scream with war hysteria, giving examples such as “Indian Army preparing for limited conflict with China: US intel chief“, “China inching closer in Arunachal“, and “Manmohan to Wen: Back off on South China Sea“.

    The fodder for most of these stories about Chinese “instrusion”, “aggression”, etc. is the fact that there is no mutual agreement on the line of actual control. Hopefully the Indians will decide at some point that the stress and lost opportunities from keeping up hostilities is not worth the prospect of gaining a few thousand square kilometers of arid desert.

  128. melektaus
    February 29th, 2012 at 14:47 | #128

    @Naqshbandiyya

    True, we need to pay attention to the propaganda spread by other Asian powers especially that of the Asian countries that are western lapdogs: Japan, S. Korea, and India.

    Journalists from these countries are often every bit as lazy, ignorant and prejudiced as western journalists and many times even more so.

  129. February 29th, 2012 at 15:29 | #129

    MIT Political Science Professor M. Taylor Fravel believes Chinese leaders see India’s rise as giving weight to China’s strategic interests, because the two countries share common goals:
    http://taylorfravel.com/2011/10/china-views-indias-rise/

    In this chapter for Strategic Asia 2011-12, I examine how Chinese foreign policy elites view the rise of India. I make two main arguments:
    •Contrary to the conventional wisdom, China views India’s rise as a positive development that promotes China’s own core interests and strategic objectives more than it threatens or challenges them. Enhanced cooperation with a rising India allows Beijing to avoid a potentially costly confrontation that would harm the growth of both countries, block the formation of a close U.S.-India relationship, and reduce the overall influence of the U.S. over China.
    •China’s strategy toward a rising India combines engagement with deterrence. China pursues comprehensive political, economic, and international engagement with India to advance its broader strategic objectives. China also seeks to deter India from undermining Chinese interests by withholding cooperation or maintaining its policies on specific issues, such as its ties with Pakistan.

You must be logged in to post a comment.