Mar 12

Could China & India Go To War Over Tibet?

Written by Steve on Thursday, March 12th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Filed under:-mini-posts, General, News, politics, religion | Tags:, , , ,
Add comments

I came across this opinion piece recently and thought it might engender a good discussion among us. I don’t agree with the author’s conclusions at all and will give my critique after his article. We’ve discussed China’s relationship with the “West” on numerous threads, but we haven’t talked much about the relationships with her neighbors. India has come into our conversation not directly but only in random comments measuring the relative progress of both countries.

This opinion piece talks about Tibet as it relates to both China and India, bringing up historical disputes between the two countries and recent developments that the writer feels could portend future troubles. I realize very few will agree with his Tibetan historical perspective but we’ve gone over that in other threads so I’d like us to concentrate more on the present relationship between the two nations.

Could China and India go to war over Tibet?
Tue, 03/10/2009 – 10:47am

By Dan Twining

Today is the 50th anniversary of the Lhasa uprising. Much of the associated commentary suggests that Tibet is, at most, an internal human rights issue in China, albeit one that impacts China’s foreign relations with Western democracies who care about the plight of the Tibetan people. Indeed, the Dalai Lama’s admission that Tibet is part of China, and that he seeks true autonomy rather than actual independence for his people, reaffirm this view. There is also, however, an external dimension to the Tibetan crisis, one that implicates core national security interests of nuclear-armed great powers.

This is the role Tibet’s dispensation plays in the conflict between China and India. Indian strategist C. Raja Mohan puts it bluntly: “When there is relative tranquility in Tibet, India and China have reasonably good relations. When Sino-Tibetan tensions rise, India’s relationship with China heads south.” Although not widely recognized in the West, the nexus of Tibet and the unresolved border conflict between China and India ranks with the Taiwan Strait and Korean peninsula among Asia’s leading flashpoints.

Contrary to Chinese propaganda, Tibet was not traditionally a part of China. Over the centuries, relations between China and Tibet were characterized by varying degrees of association spanning the spectrum from sovereignty to suzerainty to independence. The People’s Liberation Army invaded Tibet in the middle of the last century precisely because Tibetans did not consent to Beijing’s rule.

For its part, prior to Indian independence, then-British India vigorously supported Tibetan autonomy and sponsored the Himalayan kingdoms of Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, and Ladakh to create an expansive geographic buffer between China and the subcontinent. John Garver’s excellent history of Sino-Indian rivalry contains useful maps depicting a rump China and an expansive Indian subcontinent separated by a vast, autonomous Tibet, demonstrating how far apart were India and China geographically until Chinese unification by the Communist Party several years after Indian independence gave them a common border.

That common border has since been a source of conflict. As is well known, India and China went to war over their territorial dispute in 1962, ending the era of what Indian Prime Minister Nehru called “Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai” (“Indians and Chinese are brothers”). What is less well known in the West is that China, while subsequently resolving 17 of its 18 outstanding land border disputes with neighboring countries, has kept the territorial conflict with India alive, at times appearing to inflame the issue as a source of leverage over New Delhi.

Over the past two years, Chinese officials have publicly asserted Chinese claims to the entire Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which some Chinese military advisors and strategists refer to as “Southern Tibet.” Chinese forces have periodically engaged in small-scale cross-border encroachments, destroying Indian military bunkers and patrol bases in Ladakh and Sikkim.

At the same time, China has been systematically constructing road and rail networks across the Tibetan plateau in ways that tilt the balance of forces along the contested frontier in China’s favor; India has responded with infrastructure projects of its own, including roads and air fields, to enable military reinforcement of its border regions, but has failed to keep pace with its northern neighbor. China has also positioned large numbers of military and security forces on the Tibetan plateau, mainly with an eye on suppressing popular unrest. But the possibility of using them to “teach India a lesson” (as in 1962) remains.

Indian pundits note that public reminders from Beijing of China’s decisive victory over India in the 1962 war have spiked over the past year, sending what Indians believe is a clear signal to New Delhi at a time of rising tensions. Combined with China’s reported deployment in Tibet of nuclear missiles targeting India, officials in New Delhi feel increasingly alarmed in the face of Chinese provocation.  In striking statements little noted in the West, both Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and respected former National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra recently warned China against any attempt to seize Indian-held territory along their contested border.

Surging border tensions may be related to worries in Beijing over the Dalai Lama’s succession. Some of the holiest sites in Tibetan Buddhism, including the sacred monastery at Tawang, are in Indian-held territory. The Dalai Lama, who has been in poor health, has said that he would not feel obligated to nominate a successor from, or be reborn in, Tibet proper, raising the possibility that the next Dalai Lama could be named outside China — in the Tibetan cultural belt that stretches across northern India into Bhutan and Nepal.

Some Indian strategists fear that China may act to preempt, or respond to, an announcement of the Dalai Lama’s chosen successor in India – particularly in Tawang — by deploying the People’s Liberation Army to occupy contested territory along the Sino-Indian border, as occurred in 1962, creating a risk of military conflict between the now nuclear-armed Asian giants.

Although China enjoys the dominant military position in the Tibetan plateau, India still has cards to play. It hosts the Dalai Lama’s government-in-exile in Dharamsala, enabling Tibet’s representatives to keep their cause alive in the court of world opinion. And unlike Britain — which last October withdrew its recognition of China’s “suzerainty” (in favor of “sovereignty”) over Tibet in a failed effort to placate Beijing, leading one scornful Singaporean commentator to note that China was “bringing Europe to its knees” — India continues to recognize only Chinese suzerainty over Tibet, rather than full and consensual sovereignty. This creates the possibility that New Delhi could play a “Tibet card” in its relations with Beijing in the same way that China accuses the United States of playing a “Taiwan card” to keep it off balance.

What do Sino-Indian border tensions linked to the Tibetan cause mean for the United States?

First, the U.S. has a compelling interest in preventing conflict between one of its largest trading partners and its newfound strategic partner.

Second, historic U.S. support for the cause of human rights in Tibet, in addition to Washington’s growing military ties with New Delhi, mean that the United States would find it difficult to be a neutral arbiter in such a conflict.

Third, India’s continuing political and moral support for the Tibetan government-in-exile demonstrates that it shares with America a set of ideals in foreign policy, creating the basis for greater values-based cooperation between Washington and New Delhi – a prospect that has not gone unnoticed in Beijing.

Fourth, given China’s development of military capabilities designed to threaten U.S. access to the Western Pacific and Southeast Asian waterways, Chinese pressure on U.S. friends including the Philippines and Vietnam to back down on claims to contested islets in the South China Sea, and Chinese harassment of the U.S. Navy in Asian waters, Washington has an important interest in making perfectly clear to Beijing that the use of force to resolve contested territorial claims or limit freedom of the seas is unacceptable — and could upend rather than facilitate China’s peaceful rise.


Do you feel there are border tensions? Because a resolution to the disputed borders has not been resolved, there will always be an underlying distrust between the two countries, but at this time I feel they have far more urgent priorities. Both are trying to avoid economic meltdowns. China is concerned about the internal Tibet situation and that will occupy them until the anniversary season is over. India has issues with Pakistan. A Tibetan border conflict could erupt into a war that might bring in other nations, further damage their economies, possibly encourage an uprising in the TAR, and draw world condemnation.

However, the author does bring up other issues that we could discuss as a group. How does hosting the TGIE affect relations with China? Are Washington’s relations any stronger with India than they are with China? What “cards”, as the author likes to term it, can either side play against the other? And most importantly, does either side really have a compelling reason to escalate the present situation?

Personally,  this is more of a fearmongering article to me without much justification, as if the writer is trying to push an anti-China agenda more than shedding some light on the subject.

There are currently 3 comments highlighted: 32441, 49099, 59946.

406 Responses to “Could China & India Go To War Over Tibet?”

  1. Raj Says:

    They could go to war over Tibet, but I doubt it would be exclusively because of it. There would have to be other factors, such as a dispute over territory that had been escalating. Something concerning Tibet could be the “straw” that broke the camel’s back, but it wouldn’t be enough by itself.

  2. TonyP4 Says:

    It is unlikely for the war between the two.

    * India could be stronger in navy (except the submarine), but land battle with China is predictable esp. with the religion and peace-loving nature of most Indians.

    * India knows trade is important for them.

    * India also knows the way the border drawn up by the Brit is at their advantage. The border zone is not fertile land (unless they find some oil/mineral underneath) but just a buffer zoom that is not really important with today’s missiles and jets.

    * India has Pakistan to deal with, so they cannot start two border wars at the same time – not financially feasible for a poor country.

    * From the recent contact with China, they’re pretty much want to be in good term with China. They did not allow two (from my memory) Hollywood movies about Tibet to be filmed in India.

    * The major problem on the conflict/dependency is the water supply. If China switched the direction of the water flow to China inland, India would be in big trouble. This is a BIG one!

    * India has a lot to learn from China in governance: birth control, infrastructure (crossing province boundary)… Better know who is your sugar daddy (the US and not the Russia).

    The only conflict could be caused by other incident that China or India wants to diverge attention by starting a mini border war.

  3. William Huang Says:

    It’s hard to know what’s really on top officials’ mind on the both sides. From my personal experiences and what I read, negative sentiment towards China in India is much stronger than another way around. But Indian government is no fool to start a war they don’t think they can win. With the current reality, I won’t say it’s impossible but highly unlikely.

    No country will fight for Tibet except China. Even you list all the countries in the world on the list for possible candidates, all democratic countries will be at bottom and India will be the lowest. If a country has a custom of protest on a slight infringement of civil liberty, you can image what they would react when asked to die for somebody else. A by-product of excessive individual rights is entitlement. It’s all about me, me, me, and screw everybody else. I don’t want to criticize India but before they can take care of their own fellow countrymen who are poor and needy, fighting for somebody else is too much to ask.

  4. Jervis Says:

    If India were to ever do something stupid like declaring war over Tibet they would get their behinds handed to them. Indians couldn’t even handle 10 pakistani terrorist, I doubt they could would be able to take on a well organized PLA. If I were Indian I’d be ashamed to talk about war with China.

    Tibet and Tibetans after all share much more culturally, racially with the Chinese than they do with the Indians, why would Indians want to go to war for Tibet? Indians have enough to worry from people of it’s own race.

  5. Raj Says:

    Indians couldn’t even handle 10 pakistani terrorist, I doubt they could would be able to take on a well organized PLA.

    Jervis, that sort of daft “logic” doesn’t help matters. China has had its own problems with terrorists and armed criminals, as have many other countries. Just because the crooks don’t get gunned down in the opening minutes of a conflict doesn’t mean that a nation’s armed forces couldn’t put up a decent fight.

    A war between China and India would cost both sides dearly. It’s a very bad idea for anyone to get cocky about their side’s chances.

  6. Steve Says:

    I think the author’s viewpoint is that China would go to war with India in order to add more territory to the TAR, not the other way around. He speaks of the Chinese view that the Indian province of Arunachal Pradesh should be a part of China known as “Southern Tibet”.

    Arunachal Pradesh is between Bhutan and Myanmar, just north of the Indian province of Assam. Sikkim is the Indian province between Nepal and Bhutan where the major tea plantations are located. Ladakh is in the Indian province of Kashmir, between China and Pakistan.

    @ William Huang #3: Where have you read that negative sentiment towards China in India is much stronger than another way around? I’m not doubting you, I just haven’t come across that view before.

  7. FOARP Says:

    @William Hung –

    “If a country has a custom of protest on a slight infringement of civil liberty, you can image what they would react when asked to die for somebody else. A by-product of excessive individual rights is entitlement. It’s all about me, me, me, and screw everybody else.”

    That’s odd, because I distinctly remember that my grandfather and millions of other patriotic Britons fought against the most evil dictatorships this world has ever seen – and won – and that the proximate cause of these wars was aggressive invasions of Belgium in the first instance, and Poland in the second – but I guess that they must have been “all about me, me, me”.

    All the same, I can’t see war between India and China as being any more likely now than it has been for the last decade or so.

  8. Mark Anthony Jones Says:

    Given that both China and India are nuclear powers, I find it hard to imagine either side wanting to risk all-out war over Tibet, or even over their disputed territory. The risks involved would far outweigh any potential benefit.

    The claim, by Twining, that China keeps its “territorial conflict with India alive” as “a source of leverage over New Delhi” is in my opinion one-sided, though there may indeed be some truth to this. It’s worth remembering that there are national chauvinists on both sides of the border, and so while another minor military skirmish is always possible, if think it unlikely. Relations between the two countries has steadily improved over the years, and as Twining himself points outs, China has diplomatically solved 17 of its 18 border disputes with its neighbours.

    It’s true that India and China did engage in military conflict over a dispute that erupted in 1962. China was initially blamed by the West as having initiated that conflict, though I understand that it is now generally accepted among historians that it was in fact India that attacked first. As Gregory Clark, a former Australian diplomat and vice president of Akita International University explains: “As China desk officer in Canberra’s foreign affairs bureaucracy at the time, I had to watch on impotently as the world, including Canberra, accused China of making an unprovoked attack on India when the evidence in front of me proved clearly that it was India that had first attacked China, across even the furthermost line of control demanded by India. It would be more than a decade before that evidence finally found the light of day.” (quoted from the The Japan Times, Wednesday, September 15, 2004. Also, for a more detailed explanation of why India was at fault, see Clark’s article titled “Remembering a War – The 1962 India-China Conflict” – available online at: http://www.gregoryclark.net/redif.html )

    It would be in the interests of many ordinary Tibetans though, if China and India were able to solve their last remaining border issue, and if they were also able to then negotiate any security issues that might arise from opening up their borders to trade.


    As Tsering Shakya explains, in an interview he gave to New Left Review (see Volume 52, 2008), “the [Tibetan] Autonomous Region…has the problem that there is very little border trade, from Tibet southwards to India and Southeast Asia. Historically, this was where Tibet’s trade was focused, since its goods found much more of a market in South Asia than China. The nearest port is Calcutta, which is two days away, but if you go across the rest of China it is eight to thirteen days. So, for example, wool produced on the Tibetan plateau cannot be exported profitably today since it cannot travel southwards—the borders are closed. The India–China trade relationship is at present essentially based on maritime rather than land routes. The reason for this is that, despite some improvement in relations, the border dispute between the two countries has not been settled. It is partly a security question, but also, neither India nor China are quite sure what will happen if that region is opened to border trade—whether the Indian market will penetrate more forcefully into Tibet or vice versa.”

  9. pug_ster Says:

    @8 MA Jones,

    As usual, interesting piece that you wrote up. I agree that the Sino-Indian relations is relatively stable over the last few years but the issue with Tibet is always a powder keg.

    One of the things that was not really discussed is what could’ve been the catalyst for the war. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the catalyst of WWI. The gulf of Tonkin incident caused the Vietnam war. Bush’s ‘proof’ of yellowcake in Niger caused the war in Iraq. Some of the causes of war are real, others are just fabricated. It might be possible China could’ve gone to war last year over the Lhasa incident if wasn’t for Chinese police showed restraint even if they know their life is on the line. It might be possible for some staged incident involving an assassination of a high public official in Tibet, China or India over a war. Given the Dalai Lama’s cause for non-voilence does not seem to be working, they might resort to violence, but they just need a little push. It very unlikely, but you never know.

  10. Chris Hearne Says:

    Tibet and Tibetans after all share much more culturally, racially with the Chinese than they do with the Indians…

    I don’t think this is a foregone conclusion.

    I find it hard to believe that India can use Tibet as any sort of “card” against China. China seems to be sticking to the “it’s none of your damn business” line whenever anyone at all says something about Tibet.

  11. James Says:


    You must have been reading a very nuanced version of WW2, since from what I was taught about WW2 in American classrooms, war with Nazi Germany didn’t start until after a lot of appeasement at the hands of foreign countries. It wasn’t until they realized that Hitler had no intention of stopping that they finally mobilized their forces.

    While I respect what the British did, they still did so with the knowledge that they would also be invaded if they failed to defeat the Nazis. It was a question of survival.

  12. William Huang Says:

    @ FOARP #7

    “That’s odd, because I distinctly remember that my grandfather and millions of other patriotic Britons fought against the most evil dictatorships this world has ever seen – and won – and that the proximate cause of these wars was aggressive invasions of Belgium in the first instance, and Poland in the second – but I guess that they must have been “all about me, me, me”.”

    I am almost certain and you can correct me if I am wrong that your grandfather’s generation has much less “entitlement” attitude as your generation (no offense intended). Likewise, they have much less protests than today’s generation for their rights and other touch issues. So there were a lot less “me, me, me” back then.

    As for the Belgium and Poland, I think you are referring to WWII but your facts are little off.

    It started because the German invasion of Poland (first, not Belgium). British never fought for Poland and Belgium. The German went through Belgium only because French army and British Expedition Force (BPF) never expected them. The objective was to destroy French Army and BEF on French soil (Mainstein plan). Belgium was just a victim who caught between the big powers trying to rule the world. Britain went to war to protect itself from German not to liberate anyone else. As a matter of fact, prior to the war, British Prime Minster, Neville Chamberlain scarified Czechoslovakia to please Hitler. So it will be a real stretch to say that British were (or will be) willing to die for other people’s cause.

    For as much respect as I have for the British people, I am sorry to say that WWII is a battle won but war lost for Great Britain. I don’t want to get into too much of WWII history but the decisive battle of WWII is the “Battle of Stalingrad”. If it wasn’t for Soviet Union and United States, Great Britain would have been ruled by German today.

  13. Charles Liu Says:

    First of all, while China stimulous plan does contain portions for defense, frankly India couldn’t afford a war with China – not after Satyam’s accounting irregularity dinged percentages of India’s GDP.

    And I just LOVE the elegant wording neocon SE Asia expert Dan Twining used to assert our neo-colonial rights over asian nation’s self-determination:

    “China’s development of military capabilities designed to threaten U.S. access to the Western Pacific and Southeast Asian waterways”

    Mr. Twining, it’s called “sovereignty”, “national defense”, something every nation is entitled to, not withstanding your demand for “access” on our behalf.

  14. Wukailong Says:

    @MAJ: The lack of border trade between China and India, or more specifically between local Tibetans and Indian businessmen, was mentioned in an article I read in 新闻周刊 last year. Though the issue was a bit propagandistic it was quite OK as a description of problems local people got into as a result of what happened in 1959.

  15. Wukailong Says:

    @Charles Liu: “China’s development of military capabilities designed to threaten U.S. access to the Western Pacific and Southeast Asian waterways”

    Have to agree with you on this one. The article makes it sound as if the US alone has privileged access to the Pacific.

  16. S.K. Cheung Says:

    The irony would be enormous if India went from hosting the TGIE to trying to engulf any part of Tibet into its own territory. Someone would need to start a Blog on India if that was the case. And likewise, China would have little justification for trying to expand into a “southern TIbet”. For starters, she wouldn’t have any of the historical justifications that are used for her control of current Tibet. And all the stuff about “China only minds her own business and doesn’t mess in other people’s” would go up in smoke.

    On the one hand, as MAJ says, why would either side want to pick a fight with another nuclear power. On the other, India seems willing to rattle sabres with Pakistan over Kashmir, so the nuclear angle by itself doesn’t seem like the sole deterrent. That being said, I think there’s a lot more “history” in her territorial dispute with Pakistan than with China, at least since 1962.

  17. Inst Says:

    Don’t overestimate the PLA and don’t underestimate the InA. The InA has managed skirmish victories against the PLA since 1962, and prior to June 4th, the PLA was expecting to be forced to make an unannounced push through Pakistan in order to destroy InA troop concentrations. InAF pilots are arguably better trained than their PLAAF counterparts, to the point of being able to defeat F-15s in Su-30s (arguably this was rigged by the USAF to push support for the F-22 and F-35 programs, but the guys that defeated the F-15s had to be plausible). The InAF trains hard enough that their MiG-21s disintegrate in mid-air, killing the pilot.

    Besides, PLA supply lines are tenuous. Beyond the Tibet-Qinghai railway, the PLA has to use mountain roads to move troops into the combat zone, and logistics becomes difficult when you are not guaranteed air superiority. The PLA also has to move troops into the Chengdu MR, if I recall correctly, from the area facing Taiwan. This will take quite some time.

  18. huaren Says:

    I think the likelihood of India and China going to war over Tibet is also very low.

    In the last decade, China’s policy towards India and Pakistan is more towards long term peace. China is no longer as one-sided anymore in her support for Pakistan.

    India knows China can increase its support for Pakistan and give India extreme pain. India can give TGIE all the support it can, but probably causes China less pain. When China plays nice, there is no reason for India not to respond in kind.

    I forgot which year, but for the border areas for which China and India do not have overlapping claims – they have agreed to mark those.

    The Indian government blocked TGIE protesters when they tried to march towards the Indian/Chinese border.

    India and China are basically on the same side when it comes to human rights and trade/labor issues vs. the U.S. and EU.

    Lets not forget that the British created the India-Pakistan-Kashmir mess.

    China and India are creating a model for themselves on how to develop economically – this is a huge common-ground – and one that enables them to see eye-on-eye on the world stage.

  19. colin Says:

    #1 and #4

    “Indians couldn’t even handle 10 pakistani terrorist, I doubt they could would be able to take on a well organized PLA.”

    Jervis is absolutely right. Let’s call a spade a spade. India couldn’t handle 10 terrorist. The official goverment said as much. India would get it’s ass handed to it in a war with China. That’s FACT. Just like the US would hand China it’s ass if these 2 got into it, so you don’t think I’m baised for China.

    “Jervis, that sort of daft “logic” doesn’t help matters.”

    Raj, you’re the full of bull, as I’ve said before.

  20. colin Says:

    #8 Good post. Seriously, does anyone really thing India and China will go at it?

    #11 Right on.

    If anything, China and India will develop deeper relations on an economic level to supplant western dominance. The Bush admin played a good game playing india against china, but it can’t last forever, especially so with US in its current malaise.

  21. colin Says:

    To add to my point in 20, the Bush admin only played india against china as a check against both countries, more so against china. The strategy is to slow China down, giving it more headaches. Another point of leverage in the great diplomatic game between nations. Actually inciting a war between china and india is counter-productive, causing chaos that would jeopardize America’s de facto national interest: a peaceful world in which it could trade.

  22. Wukailong Says:

    @Inst: Interesting comment, but do you have any sources for those claims?

    @Colin: “Seriously, does anyone really thing India and China will go at it?”

    No, I don’t think so. I was surprised by the points made in the article of this posting. Of the current potential flashpoints in Asia, I don’t see anything involving China. I’m pretty certain there will be no war over Taiwan or the Diaoyutai Islands in the coming 20 years. The only thing I’m not certain about is what North Korea will do…

  23. vmoore55 Says:

    Well like I’ve said before China should nuke Tibet, flatten and destroyed that hell hole. It’s the boil in China’s ass. A magnet for foreign devils and evil doers. And many other bad things this acticle says.

    If war is in the cards, from what I can see is that it will end in 3 months and China will take most of north India for herself and India will break up into 5 new nations.

    Twining is wrong about India’s might in a few ways, like there are many sects in India that will fight for themselves, making it hard for India to be united in a war. India’s capital is in the north, too close to the Chinese borders. And the InA is trained by the Brits, nothing to worry about.

    We all know that the UK, EU and US will take sides with India and that they will stay on the side lines and just wait it out. But they will be wrong, India without outside help will lose badly in the first month. From what I know, China can not fight a war on it’s own soil, it will invade from all sides. India has it’s back to the montains and facing an ocean with enemy nations on it’s flanks. A piece of cake.

    India, remember the Brits.

  24. DJ Says:


    I don’t intend to debate most of the points made in your comment #17 since a lot of them are subjective opinions. I am, however, incredulous reading this line of yours:

    The InAF trains hard enough that their MiG-21s disintegrate in mid-air, killing the pilot.

    I am a minor military buff, and know enough about this matter to say with fairly strong certainty that it is a damn indictment of InAF’s inability to properly master the maintenance of its planes. For God’s sake, it’s a half century old airframe design. There is nothing particularly mysterious about how to check the soundness of the frame and its tolerance of load in the air. The fact InAF suffered an amazing rate of crashes of its Mig-21 earned the plane the nickname of “flying coffin” and is not something to brag about.

  25. BMY Says:

    I was wandering why people still keep on name calling while comments from the same person just been deleted few days ago.

    Some must have played too much computer game and to nuke someone on the screen must have given too much fun.

    II just hope this website won’t get ruined by few extremists.

  26. twining Says:

    I laughed when I read this sentence

    “For its part, prior to Indian independence, then-British India vigorously supported Tibetan autonomy and sponsored the Himalayan kingdoms of Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, and Ladakh to create an expansive geographic buffer between China and the subcontinent.”

  27. William Huang Says:

    @ Steve #6
    “Where have you read that negative sentiment towards China in India is much stronger than another way around? I’m not doubting you, I just haven’t come across that view before.”

    I made that statement based on my own experiences not on any serious studies or surveys and it was pure incidental. My experiences consisted of following:

    Right after March 2008 Tibet riot, I was very interested to know the general view outside of China about this event. I searched on the internet with key words, “Tibet”, “Dalai Lama” and sometimes combined with word “China”. I ran into various news and blogs (half year later, I ended up at FM). Unknowingly, I ran into two blogs and debated with some readers until much later I realized that the blogs were for Indian readers. You should see the profanity and hatreds towards China and subject was not even about India but Tibet/China.

    Some of more serious journalist articles by Indian authors blamed current government being too soft on China. My overall impression is that they felt that Nehru was tricked (by Mao and Zhou Enlai) and 1962 conflict was a setup in which case China owes India a closure. However, I did get cross to two authors who spoke highly about what China but both are well known for having close relationship with Chinese government.

    In contrast with FM blog, considering Chinese side with such resentment towards TGIE and fact that it is taking refuge in India, I haven’t seen anyone blamed Tibet issue on India. I could be wrong (as a new comer to FM). At personal level, I don’t have anything against India and Indian people.

    Come to think of it, this is may not be just India. Take US and UK as example, both countries are highly respected by many in China but I don’t think the same respect is reciprocated. Some people may say they don’t resent Chinese people but only the government. I am not sure about that and I am not referring to FM.

  28. Steve Says:

    @ huaren #18: Nice post. I’d like to take what you said and expand upon it for the purposes of our discussion.

    I agree with what you said about peace allowing both countries to pursue their best interests, but beyond that there are geopolitical considerations that they both must take into consideration. Both countries have a just fear of being surrounded by an aggressive power.

    Let’s take India first. They look at China and see them allied with Myanmar to the east and Pakistan to the west. China has been trying to obtain a naval base in the Maldives, which would establish a ring around the subcontinent. To counteract this, India has become closer to Japan, Indonesia and the United States. India has always seen the Indian Ocean as within its “sphere of influence”. China would say she is just protecting her oil supply from the Middle East. They see China building roads leading to the Indian border with no other purpose than to serve the military in case of conflict.

    Now let’s look at China. They observe India and see the close relationship it has with Nepal and the vast population on its northern border, much closer to Tibet than the major Chinese population centers. They see another low cost manufacturer that could cut into their export markets. They see land inside India that China feels is a natural part of China’s Tibet. They see a naval fleet more powerful than their own. They see a country that can muster up nearly the same military personnel numbers as their own. They see a potential threat on their southern flank, a potential threat on their northern flank in Russia, a potential threat on their western flank with a jihadist inspired Muslim uprising and a threat on their eastern coast from Japan. They also see a distant threat in the United States. Their goal is to minimize threats.

    “India and China are basically on the same side when it comes to human rights and trade/labor issues vs. the U.S. and EU.”

    Huaren, I’m not sure how you reached this conclusion. Doesn’t India have far greater human rights than China? I’m not familiar with India’s trade/labor issues so I’ll take your word for it.

    “Lets not forget that the British created the India-Pakistan-Kashmir mess.”

    Actually, the Moghul Empire created most of the India-Pakistan-Kashmir mess. That empire was Muslim so there was an opposite effect of today’s dominance in India by Hindus. And this brings up a very pertinent point. India isn’t a people, it’s a collection of peoples. It doesn’t have the same collective sense of nation that China does. People look different, speak different, eat different and act different. The English expanded on what the Moghuls had built to create a country (really more of an economic empire with a centralized colonial government) which only had vague historical antecedents and no sense of national identity.

    I was at a Spring Festival party recently where there were two couples from India who knew the host because they all worked at Sony. One couple was Punjabi (far northwest) and one was from Kerala (far southwest). They could not have been more different. The Punjabi couple was light skinned with dark features, stockier build and spoke Punjabi, Hindi and English. The couple from Kerala was very dark skinned with jet black hair, spoke Malayalam, Hindi and English. Even when they all lived in India, if they met they would have spoken in English rather than Hindi, which they resented. The only thing they had in common was that they were all born in India.

    The point I’m trying to make is that India, as a collection of former kingdoms that have tremendous regional pride, has a system of government that devolves power to the states. The central government is quite weak. That is probably the main reason that it can be so difficult to do business in India; you have to deal with layers and layers of bureaucracy. China has a much stronger central authority and though you must deal with more than one layer of bureaucracy, the process is much faster, easier and considerably less expensive than in India. Both are layered with corruption.

    Historically, the tendency of Chinese governments is to start off with strong central authority but gradually have the power devolve to the provinces, with a weakening of central authority until the regime collapsed and then begin the process of renewal all over again. Even today we can see a certain amount of devolving power in China that the central authority is attempting to control, sometimes without much success.

    How does the makeup of each nation, both culturally and politically, affect the relationship between the two?

  29. Steve Says:

    @ William Huang #27:

    Hi William~

    Thanks for the personal response. All we can ever go by is our own experiences and a variety of sources in order to form our opinions.

    Know what you mean about blogs. That’s why most of us are here at FM; the amount of vitrol spewing is considerably less than most places thanks to admin. Even here, we’ve caught quite a few negative comments about India, their culture and progress. I guess there is still some residual effect from 1962 that’s difficult for me as an American to understand.

    Nehru might have been tricked by Zhou; Zhou was a pretty clever guy. Richard Nixon felt he was one of the ten most impressive individuals he ever met.

    Funny story: Many years ago and soon after I started dating my wife, we were at a party (I was the only non-Chinese there) where some were talking about how smart Zhou was, when someone mentioned the Zhou Enlai chopsticks story. Apparently he was at a dinner and a woman gave him some chopsticks and asked if he could form a certain shape with them, which he did and impressed everyone there.

    So I asked what the shape was. I was smugly told what shape to make (apparently not many can figure it out) but since I am a destructive little devil, I saw by breaking one or two of them (don’t remember the shape anymore) it should work. Well…. that one act immediately ingratiated me into the local Chinese community. Years later I’d meet someone who was there and they’d mention the chopstick thing. Even my wife was impressed. Who knows? Maybe that’s why she married me!! So I owe all my happiness to Zhou. 😉

    I agree, in my time here no one has jumped on India for allowing the TGIE to reside on their soil. They’ve managed to keep to a “middle way” in their relations with the Tibetan expats and Chinese feelings.

    Based on what I’ve heard, Americans like Chinese people. Every American I’ve ever met who has been to China on holiday or for business has said wonderful things about the people. But I think the style of government is such an anathema to the American way of thinking that its hard for Americans to think anyone would be happy living that way.

    To maintain stability, authoritarian governments feel public opinion must be controlled; to maintain freedom, democratic governments feel public opinion must be freely expressed. Therein lies the great contradiction that is responsible for about 70% of the debate on this site. 😛

  30. William Huang Says:

    @ Steve #29

    Thanks for the reply and sharing your wonderful experience. I am sure your wife is a lucky gal.

    To follow up on your last paragraph, I do want to say that overwhelming majority of Chinese do want freedom of speech and democracy in its own right. Who doesn’t? I am not sure this is really the issue on FM and I never heard pro-Chinese side including myself ever claim that freedom of speech and democracy is bad or bad for China. I think majority of argument is more of whether China is a bottle “half full” or “half empty”.

    However, I must say that as a Chinese, I am very impressed with people like you, Wukailong, Ted, and Mark A. Jones. You guys are not only very intelligent and knowledgeable but also tolerant, open-minded and fair. I have certainly learned a lot.

  31. huaren Says:

    @Steve, #28

    What you said about geopolitics between the two is true. I would expect them to engage in those activities. I’d expect every country on this planet to do that. Once the two countries get friendlier and their relations normalizes, I expect them to scale back. My point is that the trend is towards long term peace and stability.

    Regarding whether India or China has more human rights. That would be a very unproductive debate. I’d expect people from U.S./E.U. to say India. I’d expect people from developing countries to say China. The reason India, China, and other countries vote together on human rights issues within U.N. is because of their developing nation status. Developed countries usually vote together on human rights issues.

    Thx for sharing the history on that region. The British was the last to colonize that region and left lumping it into the pieces that exist today. Sure, Cold War further pitted the pieces against each other. My point here is that both India, Pakistan, and China were victims of British colonization. This is another piece of their common ground – in addition to population size, state of their development as nations, etc..

  32. Sharon Wilson Says:

    I don’t think either of these two countries can afford to engage in a war at this moment. There are a lot of issues on top of their priority list.

  33. Nimrod Says:

    If, and when, the Tibet issue is ever nullified through whatever process, the refugees in India are going to be a big pain for India and possibly China. That is something India is surely considering as well.

  34. Vivien Says:

    The idea that China and India will go to war is dumb, and is what only the racists on both side of the border would wish for.

    And takin’ about racism, how silly is anchor to make claims on MAJs site that no trait of racism can be ever be found among Chinese people? Racism exists everywhere guys (and girls)!!! You all know that…….

  35. Inst Says:

    DJ, if the planes are known to be unairworthy, why keep on flying them? The rate of MiG-21 crashes at least suggests there’s a significant amount of training going on. And there’s still the fact that they somehow beat the USAF at Red Flag, although subsequent engagements haven’t been so favorable. Open source data for the PLAAF indicates, if I recall correctly, a mean of 120 hours per year per pilot. There’s some indication that more elite units can get 180, but that’s still less than the ROCAF and far less than the USAF.

    Please don’t accuse me of bragging, I’m neither an Indian citizen nor an NRI. My point of view is that people have to watch out for overconfidence, it’s what gets people nuked. Part of the foundation for Japanese militarism before World War 2 was their high degree of success in beating the neighbors; capturing Korea and Taiwan, defeating the Russians, using the Sino-Japanese war to demand massive amounts of capital from China, successfully taking over Manchuria… The end result is that they declared war against the United States, a war they definitely could not have won considering the disparity in industrial capacity. So they manage to get their cities burnt by strategic bombing and two nukes dropped on them. Hooray for overconfidence.

    Now, regarding the subsequent skirmishes, give me a second to check that my memory of the Chola incident in 1967 is correct. There also should have been something in the 1980s. The part where the PLA feels obliged to go through Pakistan in order to achieve advantage is from a Canadian peacekeeper officer, who heard it from a PLA counterpart.

  36. | Balu | Says:

    India would fight a war with China over Tibet? No way. I got lot of Tibetan friends.. even they don’t expect India to fight on their behalf. Of course, they do dream of going back to Tibet some day.
    India and China can go to war if….
    China continues to provide military support to Pakistan (long-range missiles, nuclear fuel among others)
    China continues to claim right over Arunachal Pradesh
    If China attacks India, they are the ones who set to lose. India is one of the biggest dumping grounds for Chinese products. Chinese products come in to India via Nepal.. hence they don’t end up paying any import duty (trade betw India and Nepal are duty-free)

    Meanwhile @Jervis
    Same can be said abt US too.. they couldn’t handle five terrorists (9/11)
    Wars are different from terrorists attacks so lets not compare the too shall we? You can’t fire a cruise missile against ten terrorists holed up in 5 star hotel but you can do that against an enemy bunker! Please avoid such pointless comparisons!

  37. shel Says:

    China and India will not go to war for now. However in future when the tide change in favor of china, and Daramsala continue to exist, and when India border states demanding independent because of deterioting economic and political situation, groups might demand chinese government to return favor by sponsoring dissidents from India. That will be a possibility. To stop this from happening, India has no choice but to continue painting china as a backward country to mislead its dissident, hoping the two sides will not get together.

  38. Inst Says:

    If I recall, Sino-Indian trade was at 50 bn, or about 5 percent of Indian GDP and 1.25 percent of Chinese GDP. The Indians are being really recalcitrant with regards to Chinese imports; they want to protect their fledgling industries. That’s okay, but they’re also really paranoid about Chinese investment, and for that matter, international investment of any kind. And they wonder why they’re so short on FDI.

    I recall there being in the news talk that the PLA is making preparations for Indian government attempts to wag the dog during the recession with a Tibetan campaign. I agree with most posters here that it’s not a significant possibility, but you never know.

  39. Steve Says:

    @ Inst #38: I used to manage the Asian business for a company in San Diego and the one place we didn’t even try to sell was in India. Their import duties, both national and local, more than doubled the price of the product, making it completely uncompetitive against the local competition. Because none of the international manufacturers had access to their market, the quality of their own product was very low. Unfortunately, they protect not only their fledgling industries but even their established ones, not just against Chinese products but all countries. This also severely restricts their ability to sell their own products overseas since there needs to be reciprocity between nations.

    A few people have discussed the possibility of India attacking China as extremely remote. I just wanted to point out that Dan Twining never mentions that; he only talks about China attacking India in order to gain control of Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim and parts of Kashmir. That would make it an offensive war for China and a defensive war for India. All three places are at extremely high altitude and difficult to wage war. The big losers would be the soldiers who would have to fight and die in such an unforgiving environment.

  40. | Balu | Says:

    You nailed it! 🙂

  41. vam Says:

    i’d like to make a few disparate comments.
    nobody has discussed in detail how china resolved the 17 of its border disputes. it seems to me like you need 4 points of reference in thinking your way round this issue: a contemporary history of how china has dealt with its other border disputes, the same for india, a good handle on sino-indian relations, and a knowledge of the key players on either side – the current personalities in play.

    that’s the history that we’re subject to… but we’re also bound to the future. going forward, we need a rising global co-operativeness, on an unprecedented level, between nations and other massive interest groups, however you want to denominate them… long term because of the environment, but more immediately cos of the global economy. and that ‘mood,’ it’s nice to imagine that in years to come, that would add another dimension to things between these two countries. we are all living together on this one postage stamp, and it is tipping (i am a strong pessimist on the future of the global ecosystem), and it looks like most of us are going to slide right off. we need to hold on to each other and try to right things, as best we can.

    lastly, i don’t like at all how chinese culturally are oriented so much more toward the US than to india. i have learned alot about the states since i moved to china. i don’t like being more knowledgeable about neighboring countries like japan and india than the bulk of my chinese friends. happily, though, on that note i do believe that china culturally is going through a period of enthusiastic discovery. there’s a huge ‘discover china’ push as china locates itself on the global cultural map, and there’s an accompanying passion amongst chinese to learn about the world… and the quality and depth of that learning is palpably improving… and i think that the place for war is diminished as empathy and understanding increase.

  42. Inst Says:

    I think the Indian economic growth is still pretty impressive, considering what they’re not doing, and it’s not correct to compare India’s current growth to China in the ’00s. Deng achieved dominance over the whateverists in ’78. My knowledge of Indian economic reforms is shaky, but Singh dismantled the license Raj in ’91. So current Indian economic growth should be compared to Chinese economic growth in the ’90s, using this rough comparison, and it seems quite respectable.

    By the way, the Indians managed to beat the Chinese on Q408. The Chinese grew 6.8 percent year on year, which considering the previous quarter comes out to an estimate of 1 percent quarterly. The Indians did something like 5.2 percent quarterly.

  43. little Alex Says:

    I have nothing valuable to contribute, but I did find something that’s tangentially related

  44. JXie Says:

    An all-out WW2-like war in the nuclear age is highly unlikely. But if there is one, it’s not the numbers of Su30-MKK or J-10 each has entering the war, which will drop like flies once the shooting starts, it’s the industrial/military production that will win the war. FWIW, China’s manufacturing value-added as of 2008 is about 10 times the size of its Indian counterpart, and GDP 4 times the size.

    “Chola Incident” was a one day border shootout that you can’t even find record in Chinese. Since the LoC was not changed after the event, you think the Indian report would make it not “shining”?

    India’s real growth numbers are year-on-year as well, Inst. China’s 4Q08 & 3Q 08 GDP were 9.26 & 7.33 trillion yuan respectively. Obviously there was some huge growth from Q3 to Q4, but the operative word is “seasonal adjustment”. However, there are many ways to do this “seasonal adjustment”. You can choose an arbitrary base year, or average (weighed or non-weighed) some arbitrary number of recent years. Either way, most economists seem to think on a seasonally adjusted annualized quarter-to-quarter basis, China’s GDP in 4Q08 grew 0% to 4%.

    Some more numbers: China’s 4Q07 GDP was 8.29 trillion yuan. Nominal y-t-y growth of 4Q08 was 11.8%. Implicit GDP deflator in 4Q08 was 4.7%. CPI numbers: 10/08, 4%; 11/08, 2.4%; 12/08, 1.2%. On a non-weighed average basis, CPI of 4Q08 was 2.5% (GDP deflator was 2.2% higher). CNY:USD had appreciated 6.9% in 2008.

    Compared to India’s numbers: India’s 4Q08 & 4Q07 GDP were 13.0 & 11.4 trillion rupees. Nominal y-t-y growth of 4Q08 was 14.0%. Implicit GDP deflator was 8.4%. CPI numbers (urban, typically lower than national): 10/08, 10.4%; 11/08, 10.8%;12/08: 9.8%. On a non-weighed average base, CPI of 4Q08 was 10.3% (GDP deflator was 1.9% lower). INR:USD had depreciated 23.4% in 2008.

    If you compare the detailed numbers in the past as well, you can’t help but think China is trying pretty hard to make the GDP real growth number look worse, and India is the opposite.

    India runs a very large fiscal deficit each year. Goldman Sachs estimated that it would be over 10% of GDP in the coming fiscal year. If you consider that India’s tax revenue to GDP ratio is very low (something like 16% including the local taxes). That’s like for every rupee Indian governments (central and local) take in, they will spend 1.63 rupee. Not quite another Zimbabwe, but nonetheless just another banana republic. Please, for the sake of sanity, stop comparing China and India.

    If I keep going, I can write a long essay why India trails China so badly, but honestly what for?

  45. Inst Says:

    JXie, my point is not to belittle Indian achievements or treat their country as an afterthought. The terms I used was respectable and comparable, not equal or superior. In the long-run they have better demographics; while the amount of land available to India is smaller than it is to China, they have the same amount of arable land and Indian apparently enjoys a better climate. Their population will age slower than the Chinese population, but it’s true that due to population growth the rise in per capita incomes will be lower. The example that comes to mind, imo, is Japanese imperialism in China in the early 20th century. They had the free run against a fractured and frequently incompetent nation, but 70 years later they’re the ones with indecisive government and it may look to outside observers that they are in a terminal decline. The Chinese, on the other hand, are growing, learning, and expanding their political influence. The Chinese economy will reach the #2 position in only 1 or 2 more years, and Japan will eventually be relegated to an afterthought in its region.

    Regarding Indian GDP as year-on-year as opposed to quarterly growth, do you have source for that? I’ve been desperately looking for that since I discovered that when converted to quarterly, China’s GDP growth in Q4 was so mediocre.

  46. Inst Says:

    Regarding InA readiness in the region in the 80s, my source is Lt Col. Yu. If there is a war over Tibet, it may resemble what happened in Bangladesh when the InA supported insurgents against the Pakistani government. The PLA may triumph due to better equipment and fighting will, but it won’t be bloodless and it’ll be a PR disaster. It’ll also cause domestic problems later on as military victory leads to militarism which leads to overstretch which leads to defeat.

  47. JXie Says:

    Inst, search the keyword SAAR. If you read this site long enough, once I stated that within the next decade or so China would overtake the #1 spot in nominal GDP due to a host of factors including the consistently appreciating yuan, and the under-measured and under-developed Chinese service economy. BTW, though the latest numbers are still not available, as of now China in all likelihood has the most manufacturing value-added in the world already.

    From my vantage point, politically India is like many Latin American countries where democracy is a long-term negative to increase of living standard. It can’t reduce its entitlement programs, and take on the tough tasks like China did in such as SOE reform & infrastructure build-out. Rupee will continue losing value if India can’t cut down its fiscal deficit. On the other hand, India has higher saving and improving education compared to Latin America, so its growth prospect will be better.

    If you follow long enough the dispute between India and China, you may notice that China’s unofficial position is splitting the dispute roughly down the middle and finalizing the border based on LoC, i.e. AP goes to India, and Aksai Chin goes to China. Is it reasonably enough? Or rather all disputed lands must go to Mother India? The problem, as I see it, is that no Indian politician can survive the popular backlash if he or she is perceived as giving up an inch of Indian land, regardless how long that inch of Indian land hasn’t been under India’s control.

    Had had exchanges with LCol Weyman Yu since late 90s (but not in recent years). Personally I think he drew too much from his trips to China in the 90s when he was a captain back then. Back in the 90s China was still in a mode of that military spending is secondary in overall economic development. Heck, at one point, the Chinese military spending wasn’t much higher than Canada’s.

  48. Wei Says:

    I think after five or ten years, everything will just be normal and everyone is going to be each other’s friend, that most people over state things.

  49. lemony Says:

    The West provokes this so rather toxic rivalry between India and China (seems to manifest itself more from the former for some reason) in order to limit the growth of BOTH economies! Seriously, if the West does not want to share natural resources with China with a negative population growth rate why would it even consider doing so with India whose population will soon surpass China’s?

    Recall that the West defeated the USSR not by going to war but by winning an ARMS RACE that the Soviets could not afford. India and China – TAKE NOTE!

    Another point I’d like to make – Why would either country be fighting over AP and Aksai Chin and their respective populations? Don’t both countries already have more than their share of people with which to contend? If I were India, I’d work at convincing China to take them, gratis! LOL!

  50. huaren Says:


    I think you nailed it. I would simply say there are vested interests in seeing China and India fight each other. For example, TGIE! Or even some human rights activist scums.

    But, U.S. government would not encourage a fight, because that would mean India and China increasing their military build-up more rapidly. My take is that at government level, they all tend towards status quo and long term peace.

  51. Steve Says:

    @ lemony & huaren: Lemony, you said that the “west” provokes the toxic rivalry between India and China and Huaren, you agree. OK, I’ll bite, but you have to provide far more detail! In what way does the “west” provoke? Which western countries? All of them or some of them or just one? How does the “west” limit the growth of both countries?

    Lemony, you wrote that the west does not want to share natural resources with China. Please explain in detail. I used to work in the oil & gas industry when I was younger, in the international section of our company, so I’m very familiar with how the world trades resources. That’s why I’d like you to get into greater detail.

    China and India aren’t fighting over AP and Aksai Chin. India likes the borders where they are now and China does not, so China would be the aggressor in any kind of confrontation. One reason for the AP dispute is that China would like the Burma Road corridor to stay within the China/Myanmar boundaries where it presently travels through a part of India.

    The other reason is that the current de facto boundary lies along the Himalayan ridge line which gives neither side an advantage in a military conflict. In the event of a conflict, neither side has much advantage since it is extremely difficult to move troops over those mountains. But if China can move the boundary to the new line, they would be off the mountains and very close to India’s major population centers. They could institute a legal troop buildup near the border, they could build missile silos, etc, so each side has a geopolitical reason for wanting the line in a certain place.

    The disputed areas have very small populations, since they are mostly mountainous. That has no bearing on the argument.

  52. SG Says:

    I would reiterate that Chinese leaders by nature are rational, prudent and wise; therefore unlikely to wage war with any country.

  53. FOARP Says:

    @Steve – I’d never heard those explanations for the continued border dispute Sino-Indian border dispute, but they make a lot of sense to me.

  54. Nimrod Says:

    Steve wrote:

    China and India aren’t fighting over AP and Aksai Chin. India likes the borders where they are now and China does not, so China would be the aggressor in any kind of confrontation. One reason for the AP dispute is that China would like the Burma Road corridor to stay within the China/Myanmar boundaries where it presently travels through a part of India.

    Steve, I have never heard anything about the Burma Road ever coming up in relation to this border dispute, although I have heard India always mentioning the road in AC. Truth of the matter is, the border is what it is, and nobody is going to be the aggressor on the grounds of whether they like the border or not, which was your point. Both sides are instead using disputes as chips for any future bargaining. India’s motivation is to overturn the lack of self esteem from the prior war and so for domestic reasons gets provocative from time to time. China’s motivation pretty much has to do with this Dharamsala government in exile and especially Tawang where the DL succession issue may come up; by hosting and funding DL, India knows what it’s doing, too. Nobody is the fool here.

  55. Steve Says:

    @ Nimrod: As I stated in my ending critique, I did not agree with the author either and felt the chance of war between the two countries was very remote. However, I believe India has more concerns on its northern border than just future bargaining. Nepal has always been within India’s sphere of influence but in recent decades, the Maoist revolt and subsequent political settlement has moved Nepal closer to China. I believe this worries India far more than any border dispute.

    As far as the Burma Road situation, I DID read about it somewhere but can’t remember the source so sorry, I don’t have a reference for that one. It makes sense to me because China has been financing and constructing many infrastructural upgrades inside Myanmar, and using the Burma Road corridor is an easy way to get men and materials there. In the other direction, Myanmar is supplying raw materials to China that are more easily trucked over the Burma Road. Having to pass through a third country creates a potential geopolitical weakness.

    The Dharamsala situation is one I hadn’t thought about much in the past but recently, I read an article in Time Online about Dharamsala itself and how the Tibetan population has stayed completely separate from the general Indian population. I’m not talking about something comparable to Westminster, CA being called “Little Saigon”, but completely separate from the country of residence. That is not a viable long term situation. What can India do? They can’t like it, they can’t do much about it, I’d think they’d want the Tibetan problem in China solved as much as the Tibetans and Chinese would like to see it solved. Who wants a foreign population permanently embedded inside your borders?

    Nimrod, what do you see as the political advantages for Indian hosting the TGIE population? When you mention “chips for any future bargaining”, what future issues do you see as needing to be bargained? Why do you believe India suffers a lack of self esteem from the previous war? That was a long time ago and I’m not sure if Indian culture emphasizes past greviences quite as much as China does. If they did, they’d certainly hate the British far more than they do, if they even hate them at all. Are we trying to ascribe Chinese cultural motivations to an alien culture that thinks differently?

  56. Nimrod Says:

    I have written hastily. India’s motivation is of course more than self esteem (I don’t buy too much of the cultural relativism talk, I think people are similar in that respect). It is also for strategic reasons. As long as India believes China is a geopolitical rival, she cannot afford to give up on the strategic depth provided by the Himalayan strip that runs through Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, and AP. As far as the Tibet issue is concerned, India would much rather Tibet turn toward India (for trade and other stuff) than for it to turn toward inland China, as a matter of obvious fact. Hosting a Tibetan exile population who is grateful and shows India in a good light, and who is thorn in the side of China damaging to its international image, and a destabilizing force, is very useful. What’s not to like? Letting them have their little fiefdom is small potatoes compared to the benefits.

  57. Steve Says:

    @ Nimrod #56: Admin sent me the article that I had read about the Tibetan situation in Dharamsala and how it affects India. I linked to it in post #55 and think it’s a pretty good article.

    What’s not to like? After reading the situation there, I’d say plenty. Check it out; I’m curious what you think after you finish the article. I’d also like you to expand on what you think the benefits are to India having the Tibetan exiles living there. It might have made sense in 1950 but today? I just can’t figure out how it helps India, but I only have a cursory understanding of India/China relations so I’d appreciate any enlightenment you can provide.

  58. shan2406 Says:

    China and India have not a fight for thousand years
    Why we should have now?

    Who want us fighter? It’s America
    Be carefully America media news report they always try to make mischief.

  59. Deek Says:

    @54 Steve:

    You are picking up Indo-Nepal relations from the tabloids. These 2 countries have “spiritual” connection. It is for no reason that Nepalese citizens can join the Indian Army as officers. I wonder what other 2 countries (that share the same border) have that kindof treaty/understanding. I have several Nepali friends…and people have “happy” family connections between 2 countries. There are a lot of Nepali people living in India. There is no visa requirements. Its absolutely open. And one more important thing: People from Nepal are not discriminated against in India. OO..ya…I just forgot…Nepal is the only Hindu country in the world (India is secular with Hindu majority). I do not see how and when can China influence Nepal. Ofcourse as a sovereign country Nepal’s politicians will play some cards. But anything more than seems not possible…not atleast in the next 50-100 years.

  60. Steve Says:

    @ Deek: I don’t read the tabloids, sorry. My reference was to the relatively successful (as in the fact that they’ve picked up political power) and long running Maoist rebellion and that rebellion’s ties to China. I don’t disagree with both country’s long standing relationship with each other; that’s pretty obvious. I know it is incredibly easy to cross from India to Nepal. But I don’t see how you can ignore the Maoists there, of whom you make no mention in your post. In that respect, China is already influencing Nepal. They are called “Maoists”, aren’t they?

    If you want to disagree with me, that’s fine. But next time, try to address my points and not get into juvenile name-calling. The “tabloids” comment was pretty ridiculous. I’m quite familiar with the past close history between the two countries.

  61. raventhorn4000 Says:

    One should also realize that many Nepalese work in India as domestic servants and low pay laborers, and there is significant tension.

    Months ago, there were reports of Nepalese domestic servants being wrongfully accused by their employers of committing crimes of kidnapping, theft, even murder.

    Most if not all the charges were later found to be baseless, and many Nepalese workers in India perceive ethnic discrimination and bias.

    There is cultural similarities, but I think India often downplay the ethnic tension between itself and even some of its “friendly” neighbors.

    Nepal’s switch to Communist Party (in an election) is a significant wakeup call for India, but India is still trying to downplay the significance of that.

    Nepal’s close relationship with the Indian Naxalites is also an indication that all is not well on the Eastern front of India.

  62. raventhorn4000 Says:

    I think this recent post indicates further trouble between India and Nepal.


    Nepal-India Border Dispute: Nepalese Reactions Online

    Monday, June 15th, 2009 @ 21:22 UTC
    by Bhumika Ghimire

    Couple of weeks back, reports of alleged land encroachment by India border security forces hit the Nepalese media. On the historic perspective on Nepal-India border, Nepaldemocracy has an in-depth report.

    According to Republica:

    “Some 2000 Nepalis from villages on Nepal-India border who have been displaced due to alleged harassment by Indian border security forces are running out of the meager food stuff they brought with them. [..]

    The number of displaced due to harassment by India´s border security force — Sashastra Surakshya Bal (SSB) — is increasing. Even on Tuesday, some 250 came to Satbariya. Many are still on the highway not knowing where to go.”

    Nepal’s government has promised to look into the issue but the public anger is palpable. Around the country several protest rallies have been organized. Maoists and student organizations are taking the lead. According to Nepalnews, student organizations have decided to send delegation to border areas to asses the situation.

    Online, reactions to the dispute ranges from frustration to call to regulate open Indo-Nepal border and organize grassroots citizen effort to publicize the issue and force peaceful and equitable solution.

  63. Steve Says:

    That same Global Voices article also says, “While majority of these efforts by Nepalese are an honest effort, there are some groups at Facebook who are dangerously promoting hate and xenophobia against India. At Mysansar too, some posters sent by readers for the global day of action are racist and biased, administrators there have not taken down the offensive images.” Both sides ought to be given if they are in the same article.

    But what does any of this have to do with the relationship between China, India and Tibet? I’d guess the odds for war between China and India are around 0.1% if not lower.

  64. raventhorn4000 Says:


    I didn’t want to over post the entire thing.

    I think the border dispute/harassment, and the racial tensions are symptoms of the same problem.

    The main illustrative point is, India’s friendly relations with its neighbors are sometimes quite deceptive.

    I would say chance of war between India and China is quite low, perhaps lower than your estimation.

    The crucial evidence I can point to is the Indian Security Forces for the Chinese Olympic Torch Relays.

    India fenced up a long stretch of road with 10 feet tall “chicken wire fences”, reinforced with metal poles and bars, to prevent protesters from climbing. They called it the “Cage”.

    India sent out 1000’s of police and military personnel, armed with automatic rifles, long batons.

    India seems to have gone to greater effort to “please China”, than some other nations in the region. And China, appropriately thanked India for that.

    I understand that some Indian politicians like to talk big. So do some PLA generals about US.

    But the PLA generals know that China has enough of its own problems without having to confront US.

    Similarly, Indian politicians know that India has enough of its own problems without having to confront China.

  65. Bharat Says:

    1. India went out of its way to please China by saying that Tibet is an integral part of China, but in return what India gets?? China now claims whole of a populated Indian state which borders Tibet. Chinese call it southern Tibet and India calls it “Arunachal Pradesh”.

    2. Chinese one thing got to understand is, since India declared that Tibet is part of China does not mean that we are going to compromise on unfinished business of the past. Southern Tibet or Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh is a heavily populated area and China did give assurances in the past that heavily populated areas will not be claimed !!

    3. When it comes to Military Power, Indian Navy and Air force are too strong for China but I’ve to agree that PLA army has more number of active troops than India. But it will be compensated by network centric warfare practiced by Indian Military.

    4. India and China also have almost the same number of nuclear bombs. (figures published in main stream media and non-proliferation websites grossly underestimates the number of nuclear warheads both countries have)

    5. In this scenario, some chinese trolls, online, talk big about running over Indian defences, is just another wet dream. I am sure top chinese communist leadership knows what they are up against !!

    6. It is funny to see some Chinese online trolls think they can take over another nuclear power’s heavily populated area !!! Nice try !! I don’t see any difference between brain washed Islamic jehadis and Chinese trolls bullshitting around Internet. These chinese clowns even edit and sabotage Indian wikipedia sites.
    Hard to face the truth !! is it not Chinese trolls??

  66. Jason Says:


    India pleases China that Tibet is China’s?

    Haha. No you dunderhead. India say this because they don’t want to be a hypocrite when India is controlling Kashmir.

  67. Shane9219 Says:


    Sound like you are clearly the one trolling this forum. Some India elitists like you like to brag about this nuke thing. What you don’t really understand is that India is merely a kid in this nuke “candy store”. China has a far more advanced program.

    Also, you can go to tell your politicians about this — India will suffer the same fate as Nazi Germany the moment India politicians dare to flip nuke switch.

  68. Allen Says:

    From a recent ATimes article:

    India’s most senior military commander, navy chief of staff Admiral Sureesh Mehta, admitted that his country was now completely overmatched by China’s armed forces and issued a stark warning.

    “In military terms, both conventionally and unconventionally, we can neither have the capability nor the intention to match China force-for-force,” the Hindustan Times quoted the admiral as saying. He added, “China is likely to be more assertive on its claims, especially in the immediate neighborhood.”

    But Mehta’s comments pale in comparison to those made by former head of the Indian Air Force, Fali Homi Major, who before his retirement two months ago called China a greater threat to India than Pakistan.

    The perceived China threat is one big reason India has chosen to cozy up to the US and thus been rewarded with a complex, painfully negotiated deal guaranteeing full civil nuclear cooperation between the two nations.

    I am obviously biased in my support for China. But if we all take a step back, there is so much more to be gained if China and India cooperates and become strategic partners. That won’t happen soon. And it’s sad / ironic to see that China and India are in conflict as a result of the vestiges of Western colonialism.

  69. sangos Says:

    +1 Allen…thats the ideal situation: India and China in a harmonious relationship ( At least for me coming out of the disputed border territory! :).

    What worries me now is USA’s “China containment policy”. Its actually propping up the Indian defences (massive war games coming up October ) obviously targetting China. So the ‘Bharats’ loudmouthing here is not BS as it might seem. If America backs Indian nuclear capabilities, its a level playing field with the Chinese. Or even a reversal of the Indian Navy chief’s comments, with the tables having turned.

    Till the time US and China are ill at ease, its going to lot of uncomfortable squirming in Asia.

  70. Shane9219 Says:

    It’s just ironic to see India elitists and politicians doing chest-popping on one hand, while shaking feet in their boots on the other.

    In 1962, India put aside its self-styled “leader” of non-aligned movement, and ran to US and GB and cried aloud for help … the later made a wide public display of supplies before making any delivery … just image how shameful Nehru felt himself about this.

    India’s further appeasement to US today and those symbolic military exercises will not deliver India either, given the fact China and US are not engaging in any nuclear arm race, let alone a cold-war style confrontation. So it’s really a pipe dream for India to think US will come to help this time.

    BTW: what you called “massive war games” planned in October only involve a few hundred personnel from US, and US probably has far more people in Thailand 🙂

  71. sangos Says:

    Thanks Shane I stand corrected :)…Indian media can be all bang and fire for nothing I guess :(. Which tells me we are NOT going to have nuclear fireworks anytime between India and China, as China’s obviously got the aces!

    Agreed on the 1962 thing, was not born then…but I heard my dad saying it was an Indian mis-adventure and a Chinese adventure, if you will. No two opinions on that!

    Obviously most of you folks here in this forum are much better informed. Here are my concerns(might read like a laundry list of dirt I picked up, so bear with me). China’s obviously the new kid of the block on steroids (kinda like a rebellious teenager) with its little scuffle with Australia’s Rio Tinto and the Uighur movie incident, chasing the US navy out of the seas, ‘neo-colonizing’ Africa, marshalling the Indian Ocean, consolidating its ‘string of pearls’ bases, care a rat’s ass about its support to evil regimes – Myanmar’s junta for one, ruthless as usual with its ‘erring’ minorities and actually being increasingly candid about it, big brothering India(This one seems like its favorite fun thing to do. Cause Indians are so excitable 🙂 at the gentlest prodding.) and what not.

    Dont tell me the US is playing ostrich to all this – its just too lame a thing to believe!

  72. Shane9219 Says:

    @sangos #71

    Good try to continue selling western garbage of “China threat” theory. I have found Indian elitists and politicians are quick to pick up those garbage, out-dated or not, as long as it serves the purpose of defaming China as well as a straw to save their drowning self-confidence.

    Meanwhile, continue your pipe dream … 🙂

    As long as India elitists and politicians are preoccupied by this self-inferior complexity, India will never become a mature nation.

  73. pug_ster Says:

    I think the part of the problem is that in Chinese Media they don’t talk much about India and China/India relations in general. However articles like this above from these Indian ‘experts’, exploits the fear-mongering ‘free-press’ within India which talks about the “China threat’ theory. Yes, you will get the occasional fenqings which boasts about how great China is but mostly it is the other way around.

    Edit: you can see it when you search what kind of story pops up when you search Times of India and Xinhuanet.

    Just go to Times of India’s website and search for the word ‘China’ and go to Xinhuanet’s website and search for the word India and see what kind of results you get.

  74. sangos Says:

    @ Shane 9219 #72

    Well nothing personal here 🙂 (trying to understand your sarcasm)…if what I said qualifies as ‘garbage’ I am all ears to all the better informed here(seriously). I dont like garbage as well 🙂 and no pipe dreams dude lol. And thats the whole point of posting and exchanging views here.

    But what you said sounds interesting about India. Could you expand on what makes India an ‘immature’ and ‘inferior complexed’ nation. I mean they are not a class act like China, but I thought they were doing pretty good, but I could be wrong. ( Btw that could be a pretty uncomfortable neighbor to have as well for China :()

    @ Pug_ster

    Very valid points, to add to which a recent obscure Chinese blog caused a huge furore in India. As the press/net in China is very tightly controlled the obvious conclusion was that write-up reflected the views of the Chinese govt. You can actually gauge the extent of paranoia with even an uncomfortable Indian govt. coughing up a reaction to it.

    Edit. News just in http://www.hindustantimes.com/News/kolkata/India-China-armies-clash-in-Sikkim/Article1-447812.aspx

    Interestingly, the Indian Army is in denial of any incident. The PLA is as usual mum. So what do you make of it, just another Indian-Expert-cookedup-free-press-fear-mongering? Maybe I will wait for BBC/CNN 🙂

  75. Steve Says:

    @ Shane #72: I know you have good points to make but this particular post was just name calling. You made a bunch of accusations without any substantiation. I believe if you substantiate your points, the discussion would be enhanced.

    Why do you feel India is “elitist”? Who exactly is elitist; sangos, the Indian leadership or all Indians? In what way does India try to sell “western garbage” and what specifically do you mean by this? How does it defame China? Can you explain why you believe Indian elitists (and who is covered by that term) and politicians are pre-occupied with a self inferiority complex?

  76. Shane9219 Says:

    @Steve #75

    Those questions were answers on several similar threads. Shall we say let’s not repeat them again and again.

  77. Steve Says:

    @ Shane #76: Your previous comments has been posted on several similar threads. Shall we say let’s not repeat them again and again? 😉

  78. Sumukh Says:

    Firstly, an Indian government official has predicted that China may come to war against India at about 2012. This gives a clear indication that the Indian Armed Forces will not sit with their arms tied behind their back.

    I shouldn’t be revealing this, but I am. I work for the Defense Sector(India). I know how the Indian Armed Forces are going to react…

    But dont forget that India has better fighter aircrafts than the Chinese…although the Chinese have a better army…I mean more men with less sophisticated artillery.

  79. pug_ster Says:

    @78 Sumukh,

    That Indian government official who predict that China may come to war at about 2012 must be another Dick Cheney war profiteer.

  80. sangos Says:

    @ Sumukh -post # 78

    no offence sir…but please stick to plain hard facts for everyone’s benefit. Even a non-descript blog like this http://www.abytheliberal.com/internationalism/india-vs-china-military-conventional-nuclear states the reality very clearly.

    IMHO it would be more helpful for a Defense person to make a reality check and scramble to take steps to achieve dominance. In this regard I admire the Indian Naval Chief’s courage who had the balls to state what he did. Maybe the Indian Govt. should wake up and take heed….my 2 cents

  81. buru Says:

    Let me make a generalization(not necessarily correct):

    I see the Chinese Govt( and intelligentsia) as akin to brood of cold-blooded reptile predators–stoic,calculating,focussed,ruthless and deadly.They lie quiet & motionless till they lash out with lightning speed..
    The Indian Govt(and intelligentsia) are like a bunch of monkeys–highly excitable,unfocussed, ,boisterous ,scatters easily,and craps everywhere..

    so you choose your pick:)

    I think there will be lots of sabrerattlings but no war–but the arms industry sure must be glad.

  82. sangos Says:

    To add to which it is rather interesting to see how China completely looses its cool and go bananas at the very name of the Dalai Lama. Now definitely the venerable monk is not Lucifer or Satan incarnate(unless china knows better :), the only reason I can think of is that the days of “mighty mideaval monolithic Roman empires” are over. In todays pluralistic world every race, tribe and clan however small have equal opportunities on this planet, if not then thats where the future’s headed and
    X-t(h)ern Tibet is no exception. Being a huge group like Hindu/Han does not matter.

    PM Buru – Dangoria aapuni kotha tu bor bhal ke kole. Baki khobor bhal ne?

  83. Buru Says:

    Bhaiti sangos, xudurbhai Indian aru Chinese bandhor bure amar manuh aru desh-ok kela politics kheli kheli khotom kori dile.Khubai dim neki kuasun?

    amar khobor tu hole bhalei:)

  84. sangos Says:

    Translating the quick post above from Buru (not to appear rude to the rest of the forum here): ‘Am totally frustrated with Indian versus Chinese politics all along, which have messed up my land and my people(he’s a local from there)’.

    IMO if India and China go to war over Tibet, its a no-win situation.

  85. sangos Says:

    Things are stirring up again on this front http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSDEL169125

    N time for us to put on our thinking caps 🙂

  86. Steve Says:

    @ sangos: Here are some interesting photos from Tawang in today’s NY Times.

  87. pug_ster Says:

    According to the reuters article:

    In response, India has begun modernising its border roads and moved a squadron of strike aircraft close to the China border. Arunachal Governor J.J. Singh said in June up to 30,000 new troops would be deployed in the area.

    Sounds like India wants to make a big stink out of this.

  88. sangos Says:

    @Steve – nice album (surprised it made it to the NY Times). I have been to those mountains myself not long ago and definitely not the easiest of battlefields on this planet. Its bang high up in the Himalayas at 10,000 ft average. And boy the monsoons for more than half the year pour like a gigantic overturned bucket from the heavens making it a treacherous terrain with the wildest rivers gushing down. The roads up those mountains can just landslide out of sight with one downpour!

    Winning a ground war here would be 99% logistics and 1% actual fighting. Even with all the high tech military hardware, the Chinese have a clear advantage sitting on the more even, higher and drier Tibet plateau on the other side of the McMohan line. And reportedly they have been busy building roads and installations to get all the edge they can over the more precariously perched Indians.

    Honestly it does’nt even make logistical sense for the Indians to fight the Chinese high on these mountains. And that is why the indians have their airpower beefed up in the lower Brahmaputra valley, from where an invading Chinese army in Arunachal Pradesh mountains would be sitting ducks for the Indians. So its a push pull game really, should matters escalate. Btw most of the Indian airfields here are of WW2 origins – being used by the USAAF and American Gen. Joseph Stilwell fighting the Japanese – unlikely Yank legends in an obscure corner!

  89. Steve Says:

    @ pug_ster: From what I’ve read, China has already increased troop strength on their side of the border and modernized transportation routes, so India’s response is to be expected. I don’t see it as ratcheting up the response as much as it being a long neglected improvement in area logistics and facilities. I think there will be “border incidents’ but don’t foresee a war. The ones who profit the most from India’s buildup are the local people, who will have better roads and infrastructure, which should mean increased economic opportunity. I think Sangos has this pegged pretty accurately.

    sangos, I read about Stilwell’s Burma campaign years ago and remember the air bases the Allies used in India. I’d assume those airfields have been greatly improved in recent years. Air power would probably be the decisive factor in a border battle so I’d guess they have invested a lot of their resources in that side of the military.

  90. Sangos Says:

    Yes. The Indian Air Force is up in strenght all along the Brahmaputra river and they have the Arunachal Himalayas running parallel to the North visually in their sights. The Chinese are building up the airfields of Nyingchi, Bayi and possibly others along the Tsangpo valley inside their borders. They have good bridges over the Tsangpo river with a network of roads all alongside the McMahon line and the Lhasa-Nyingchi railway is up next. Pretty easy job to deploy the PLA all along the McMahon line and provide air power. What might worry them is keeping the army supplied in Zhangnan once they cross over say even in Tawang.

    Stilwell, Frank Merril, Phil Cochran and the Brits Wingate and Slim are all part of WW folklore in NE India. Even the road from India to Burma runs along the old Stilwell road.

    @pug_ster to add to your post most of these new Indian troops will be local tribes of Tani and Mishmi (Lhoba in China) ethnicity. These guys look straight out of a Kurusawa Samurai flick, keep their hair long and carry huge broad swords even today! Thats might be one badass army the Chinese will have to deal with.

  91. sangos Says:

    Gives a good fairly balanced overview of the situation from the Indian perspective ( so obviously may not be be savoury to a Chinese, bear with us!)


    Can someone in this forum provide a similar Chinese viewpoint. I know information is very uptight, but we could do with a some expert analysis.

  92. Steve Says:

    @ sangos: I think the article you referenced was a pretty fair assessment of the current situation from the Indian POV. Thanks for providing it; I don’t get to read many opinions from that side of things. After reading comments from both sides of this issue, my opinion is this:

    1) India isn’t going to break up into smaller states. If anything, India will continue to progress as a country, economy and regional power.
    2) Tibet and Xinjiang are a part of China and will continue to be a part of China. Neither India nor China will change its borders or political situation in the near future and probably beyond that as well.
    3) This border dispute gives both militaries a chance to practice logistical preparation in case of a future war. Neither country has fought in a major conflict in decades and under those conditions, armed forces get “rusty” and logistical coordination tends to be messy. The “cat and mouse” shadow conflict helps both sides stay sharp.
    4) The probable solution is the stabilization of existing de facto borders which will happen when it is politically feasible and desirable for both sides to do so. In 1962 it was not perceived to be in India’s interest, and these days it is not perceived to be in China’s interest.
    5) It’ll be interesting to see what happens after the Dalai Lama passes. China’s leaders have always been more concerned with internal perceptions and opinions than external ones. The DL is their focal point in all Tibetan related issues and India has given him sanctuary. Once he’s gone, the refugees won’t enjoy the political capital they currently have both internationally and domestically. They may create the opening needed to finally settle the border dispute.

    As with you, I’d also like to get a Chinese viewpoint, preferably from someone living in China.

  93. shane9219 Says:

    @Steve #92

    China’s position on border dispute with India has been clear and consistent:

    1. Keep peace along the border region for the common interests of people on both sides
    2. India should keep itself away from innuendos at disputed areas
    3. Tibet and Xinjiang regions are the integral parts of China, that is a given both in their history and modern time
    4. India should stop playing 14th DL card
    5. Both sides conduct border settlement negotiation with an earnest spirit

  94. Steve Says:

    @ Shane9219: Could you please flesh out your #2 and 4 comments? What specific innuendos has India made? How is India playing the 14th DL card? I’m not sure if I understand those issues well enough from the Chinese side. Thanks!

  95. sangos Says:

    @Shane – thanks for the Chinese position, we will be digging you a little bit more 🙂 your 4th point is most interesting, could you expand on it please.

    @Steve – Very valid points. Especially with # 5 you have touched the core of the India-China sorepoint. When I was in Tawang, I had an ‘Aha’ moment, why the Chinese want South Tibet especially Tawang so bad.(Anybody here feel free to debunk this theory) The way China goes all hot and heavy over the Dalai Lama makes it plain as daylight that this monk is special and he kicksass authentically in Tibet (Pictures defaced or otherwise in Lhasa). Now here we have Tawang with its monastery steeped in Tibetan culture ( most of the novice monks are local Monpa(China – Memba) boys). How about the 15th Dalai Lama being born in Tawang? Boy, China would never want that, so the whole big game over Tawang. The ‘upgraded’ claim over entire Arunachal Pradesh (Btw minus the 2 districts of Changlang and Tirap bordering Burma and nothing ‘Tibetan’ about them) is shall we say just a pressure tactic on India? Its hard to believe that had that little town of Tawang been annexed to China, we would not be frying our brains in these forums 🙂

    Now obviously its anybody’s guess that the stakes are high for China considering its engaging India over the entire Himalayas. It definitely is more than just sparring sessions. Unless the Chinese and DL reconcile with each other, the Tibet issue will be an ‘international’ issue. And then we have Xinjiang – Tibet v.2!

    Agreed on the “India fragmentation” theory – India’s an evolving democracy (elephant like if you will :)), and have been able to correct course. Historical indicators – Punjabis, Mizos, Nagas(on the verge of a solution) to cite a few.

  96. shane9219 Says:

    What India has done at disputed areas and with 14th DL are well-known. I will leave that out in a short port.

    China and India has large border dispute. However, China, both the people and government, regards India with strong cultural inter-connection and as important neighbor. Same as China, India is also a victim of western colonialism. However, such strong historical and cultural context seems play little importance to India side right now. This came quite a surprise to people in China, when China strives for economical development and a revival of her cultural heritage.

    Fundamentally, war or peace is an India’s own choice. It can come forward resolving this historical border issue (the fact is China and India have never had an agreed border in their entire history) and become good neighbor, or it could get excited (like right now) on pity things, enlarge tension and mistrust and …

    In case of a war, it will not like the one fought between Iran and Iraqi. That is not Chinese style. It would be decisive …

  97. sangos Says:

    @Shane – Lets leave the fighting to the militaries 🙂 (Hope the Indian army takes heed of your implicit threat btw)

    To sort of chime in to what you said, this is what India has done:

    A. Arunachal Pradesh/Zhangnan

    1. Setup a civilian administration in ‘Arunachal Pradesh’ headed by a state goverment. Thats the least anybody can do to govern.

    2. I have seen the govermental setup there, its rudimentary and almost non-existant. Honestly I know the Chinese would have done a better job (seen Yunnan), but come on man have some heart!

    3. India has settled Hajong and Chakma refugees, I repeat refugees – they are not deliberate enmasse plants to overwhelm locals like whats happened maybe in Tibet :(?

    4. Of course you have the Indian Army, “chastized” by 1962 -these guys are very determined to defend their country. And the kicker is most of their men are localized unlike 1962. I wonder how many Tibetan recruits are in the PLA? (Oh I don’t mean Tatmadaw style ‘hiring’ – join-me-or-I-will-blow-your brains -off) I know the PLAs smart and no head scratcher that a man is a different animal when protecting his hearth and home.

    B. And the 14th DL – thats a tough one :). The DL is the DL with or without India. Actually China’s lucky that the DL’s asylumed in India and NOT the USA, might have been so much easier for Mr Prez to swing by Mr Lama’s desk – nuff said

  98. Steve Says:

    @ Shane: I think you might have misunderstood my question on #4. What I was wondering is how the Indian government is “playing the 14th DL card” specifically concerning this border issue. Maybe this is “well known” in China but I certainly don’t know about it. BTW, where in China do you live?

    Why is war or peace India’s own choice? How can India resolve the border issue without China agreeing to the solution? As in the old Chinese expression, doesn’t it take two coins to make noise?

  99. sangos Says:

    @Steve – Sorry to hijack the thread from your post above, but really good questions that got me curious and here’s what my thoughts are(of course open for review and validation by authentic forum members)

    1. India playing the 14th DL card – by allowing “foreign officials to meet him firmly opposed by China” like the recent US administration;
    – allowing DL to visit Tawang causing lot of seat squirming in Beijing; something is mysteriously alluring about that ‘must have’ old mountain monastery and China’s shy telling
    – hosting the DL and his goverment in exile (I feel China’s pain – thats plainly irritating India !@#$%^);
    – in general allowing the DL to function in a unrestricted fashion – like he goes to Taiwan, prays and goes back to India (that sucks!).

    Now on a serious note even if the DL does not directly indulge in political activities in India, the large Tibetan community of His Holiness’s following regulary protest against China in India. Now India is not a lock and key dungeon regime politically(with a ‘few’ exceptions like handling Tibetan protests during the Olympic torch relay in New delhi and grateful pats on the back from the Chinese – human nature to ape your neighbor!) like China and from China’s POV the DL and Tibetans in India are a huge pain in the a**.

    Btw the DL and Arunachal Pradesh ties up with the fact that the DL recognizes the territory as India’s. So that pre-empts Chinese’s claims that its historically Tibet’s. So that is India ‘playing’ the DL to ‘legitimize’ its claim over Arunachal Pradesh.

    2. India’s unilateral choices of war and peace – simple good old jungle rule logic: India hangs on to Arunachal(Tawang) – its War; India hands over Arunachal(Tawang) to China – its Peace. China is apparently good with both as per Shane’s post – that might have a grain of truth in it!

  100. Allen Says:

    @Shane9219 #96,

    My take is that China should / will bide its time a little longer. The border dispute in the current atmosphere cannot be settled to China’s advantage. As you said, if we are going to fight another war – we should plan going into it with a decisive result. China should wait a decade or so – and see if it gets a better set of cards then.

  101. sangos Says:

    We are all waiting for Shane as well….:) to respond

    IMHO China’s got its cards stacked with a strong hand for taking over Tawang/Zhangnan ASAP:

    1. Logistical superiority along the McMohan line. Hell they got roads where Indians would have to trot for at least 50 miles over steep mountainsides. Reportedly Indians are scrambling to catch up, which might prove to be a fatal ‘Trojan Horse’.

    2. Quick mobilization and deployment

    3. Air cover from bases in the Tsangpo valley and Tibet, though the actual operational effectiveness is questionable. US intelligence reports rate them pretty low from the top of my head.

    4. Missile launchers installed in Tibet; not sure but they got some in Yunnan, which got the Brahmaputra valley in range.

    5. Here’s the kicker, operational/logistical support to Northeast Indian insurgent groups – ULFA Assam, NSCN IM Manipur, PLA (no offshoot of the Chinese Army) Manipur. Thats a huge ankle biter for the Indian Army from the rear.

    6. Any other secret surprise weapon….Chinese style 🙂

    And of course Shane your call…

  102. Otto Kerner Says:

    It’s ironic if true that India would have more to worry about from Chinese support to dissidents in India than vice versa. I wonder if that’s the case, though. In a short clash, probably so; but in a protracted war, perhaps not …

  103. buru Says:

    shane #96
    In case of a war, it will not like the one fought between Iran and Iraqi. That is not Chinese style. It would be decisive …

    While I think PRC will likely maul India, I think too much arrogance is reflected in your posts.
    Will you list the ‘decisive’ wars that Chinese fought?

    1.1979 : lost gas( and 50,000 men) after a short incursion in Vietnam. The Vietnamese were so comfortable with this ‘decisive’ war that they didnt bother withdrawing their main elite army from Cambodia! Predictably PRC declared ‘victory’ and ran back.

    2.1969 : Mao ran to the ‘ Burgeoise’ American gwei-lo’s for help when the USSR ramped up the confrontation, after being provoked by PRC. Highly ‘decisive’ war–as it brought PRC in US orbit!

    3.1962: Accepted it routed IA.

    4.1950-53: A stalemate at best .Highly ‘decisive’ war–in that human-wave tactics were proven inferior to better weapons and training.

    5.1930s-45 : Stalemate with Imperial Japan–on home ground.

    6.1890s : Boxer wars–no contest knockout by Gwei Lo barbarians.

    7.1840s-60s : Opium wars: bloodied to submission by Gwei Lo barbarians.

    ..the list goes on.

    This is not to mean the Chinese are incapable militarily, but to puncture ur illusion that they are something extraordinary.

  104. sangos Says:

    @ Otto Kerner # 102 – Thats a fair point, the only insurgent group that might cause serious trouble to the Indian Army is the ULFA in the Brahmaputra valley. These guys have the operational strike capability to disrupt logistics to the Arunachal front and the PLA got something cooking towards that end. ULFA chief Paresh Barua is reported to be in China(Yunnan) recently and some sort of training is going on in that area possibly in bordering Kachin controlled upper Burma. The Manipur groups though geographically more removed to the south can divert the resources of the Indian Army. These groups have been reportedly already trained and with logistic support from China can cause serious problems for the Indian Army.

    AFAIK there are no insurgent groups in China which have covert Indian patronage as of date.

    Disclaimer 🙂 : Btw take all these reported ‘facts’ of Chinese support to Indian insurgents with a pinch of salt. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8258715.stm

  105. Shane9219 Says:

    @Sangos & Buru

    Let’s take the lighter side on this discussion. There is an old saying in China called “heavenly secretes can only be revealed at due time” (天機不可漏露).

    Throughout history, war and peace are not just the choice of country leaders, but by their people. It’s simply incorrect to say Bush the 43rd launched Iraqi War, it was in fact asked by a large portion of American public after 9-11 incident. So did the start of WII by German and Japan. So if India wants a war, it will eventually get one.

  106. sangos Says:

    @ Shane – all game brother :)…good stuff with that old saying: Yep secrets are in heaven and the heaven is in China 🙂
    Btw I admire you Chinese, the way you scribbled your language on the post. Shows your immense pride in your identity. Good stuff that makes China teh great nation it is!

    Don’t take the Indian media too seriously (my post # 104 – if thats what you meant); am sure a war with China is not even the last thing in the Indian’s hearts – its too damn a strain on the country without even going to the consequences.

    But tell me honestly, will China actually stone India over Tawang. I know they want it before the DL pulls a rabbit out of his hat. Does India not agreeing to hand over Tawang to China eventually mean war….oh forget heavenly secrets 🙂

  107. Steve Says:

    Heavenly secrets can only be revealed in due time but if state secrets are ever revealed, you’re going to jail! 😀

  108. Allen Says:

    @Otto Kerner #102,

    Good point. I wonder if the notion of India in the long term is more politically stable than the notion of China. Last time we were in India, I observe people seem more attuned to their local politics than national ones. The north has always been considered backward and poor. There were lots of fractional politics. India as a polity is a recent invention. China has been around for some time. Time will tell… as Shane9219 said, “heavenly secretes can only be revealed at due time” (天機不可漏露).

  109. Steve Says:

    @ Allen: I’ve wondered the same as you so I’ve been asking Indians I meet what they think about it. The answers I keep getting is that the notion of India seems to be quite strong. I guess since it’s been a couple hundred years as a nation (though not an independent nation), that’s long enough to form a national identity.

    However, the answer might be completely different in certain provinces whose people I’ve never met or asked this question. Places like Kashmir and portions of NE India might be split on this notion, just as it seems places like Tibet and Xinjiang are also split on the notion of a united China. I still don’t think any of these places will split from the mother country in my lifetime. And based on history, I think the chances of an Indian independence movement working with China is remote in case of war. War on one’s nation has a tendency of uniting people who were formerly divided, and they might find their bases of support melt away as ordinary people feel a sense of nationalism and patriotism.

  110. sangos Says:

    @ Steve & Allen – thats a loaded question and Steve made some valid points. To add to it (and Buru will back me here…from NE India), India and China are countries with multiple ethnic groups with a comparable Hindu/Han dominant group respectively. India allows democratic expression and so all the conflicting internal politics. The country does not ride militarily rough-shod over its people and so cases of groups taking up arms. Take the Maoist rebellion in central India – its being handled by the police not the military (Chinese would be amused :)). Oh yeah, NE India particularly Manipur, is run by the Indian Army with special powers but they also have an elected goverment in place! What I am getting at is that is India does have a process of democratic dialogue (can be frustratingly slow most times) to address the grievances of its various groups.

    Would be good to know how China handles similar situations. Mean all we hear is the PLA bulldozing Tibet and Xinjiang, but is that the real story? Also how about the ethnic groups of Yunnan?

  111. Otto Kerner Says:

    Allen #108,

    I don’t think the political stability of China-as-a-whole or of India-as-a-whole is relevant to my point. I think that both Tibet and northeastern India are unstable enough that they could be used for tactical advantage in the event of trans-Himalayan war. There is currently no active insurgency in Tibet but I imagine one could be developed with Indian support; whereas the northeast Indian insurgency is already shovel-ready. That’s why it would take longer for the potential advantages for India to come into play. Since Tibet is much larger geographically, i.e., it constitutes more of a barrier between the core part of the country and battlefield, I’m speculating that an insurrection there could potentially be more significant. That said, the seven states of northeastern India actually have a much larger total population than the number of Tibetans in China; I’m not sure what proportion of the 38 million or so people in northeastern India live in areas that are vulnerable or sympathetic to anti-government activities, though.

    sangos #110,

    There’s certainly nothing like an elected government or democratic dialogue going on in the sensitive minority areas in China. I don’t think “bulldozed by the PLA” is usually the right answer, either. The focus seems to be on efficient and thorough smashing of anti-government elements, rather than negotiation or random violence.

  112. pug_ster Says:


    Even Indian Media admits that they are declaring war on China.

  113. sangos Says:

    @ pug_ster – 🙂 the trouble with India is “too much unfettered democracy”. And the Indian media is absolutely irresponsible with their reporting on China. Btw its not the “Indian media” but the Indian Army which is responsible for its defence. All these transgressions along the border have been happening all these years and the actual locals and Armies at the border are cool with it. Its simply because the border (LAC) does not have firm markers yet. So now the PLA walks a few miles into India and suddenly the Indian media is screaming like a bunch of frightened monkeys! Seems like plain business tactics to get more eyeballs with sensationalism.

    @ Otto – Tibet has a history of a shortlived Khampa insurgency after the PLA took over control. It was aided by the CIA in the 60s from India.

    Some sobering news http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/11/AR2009091100830.html
    And now India has cleared the DL’s trip to Tawang in November in spite of Chinese objections. Where is this episode going….?

  114. pug_ster Says:


    I really do mean that the Indian Media is at war with China because of the information that they put out. During WWI, WWII, and even in the recent Iraq and afghanistan war, the Media was an integral part of a war effort because it boosts morale and support for the war. The Western media somehow implied that Iraq has WMD’s which ultimately convinced many people that the Iraq war was justified. Let’s hope that the Indian Media’s pent up reporting on the ‘China threat’ won’t translate to another border skirmish between China and India or worse.

  115. sangos Says:

    @ pug_ster – IMHO very very unlikely…mean the Indian media can go bananas over “China threat”, but that changes nothing on the ground.

    That said what worries me is whether the PLA sitting across the McMohan at Bum La in Shannan prefecture(read leaders in Beijing) lose their cool, when the DL is in Tawang. Are we sitting on a potential time bomb? If yes that can seriously trigger a war…

  116. pug_ster Says:


    That said what worries me is whether the PLA sitting across the McMohan at Bum La in Shannan prefecture(read leaders in Beijing) lose their cool, when the DL is in Tawang. Are we sitting on a potential time bomb? If yes that can seriously trigger a war…

    That’s exactly what the Indian Media wants you to think. What if someone looses their cool, what happens when someone fires a shot across the Indian/China border. That’s irrational fear. Fear is what Bush says about “Don’t wait for the mushroom cloud” Iraq speech.

    China does what China does about the Dalai Lama to keep him in check. If China does nothing then it would send a message that it is okay for the Dalai Lama to politicize everything about China.

  117. sangos Says:

    @pug_ster – well actually the Indian Media never broadcasted on this angle AFAIK. Hope they won’t pick it up from our convo :). Honestly dude its my personal opinion – but cool if the DL in Tawang/’Arunachal Pradesh’ is no biggie for China, then alls quiet. But then China DID object to the DL’s visit eachtime to Tawang and this time around. Matter of fact India DID stop him in 2003 at China’s behest. So that makes me wonder by a long shot, if China will swing into action and attempt a 1962 revisit (Obviously the reasons for 1962 and now don’t compare otherwise. 1962 was retaliation for India’s aggressive forward policy of pushing the colonial McMohan line deeper into Tibet and unilaterally claiming it as the border. The PLA took over the whole of Zhangnan and withdrew; am sure they did not do it for fun and they are not sitting today along the LAC for fun too). Mean the DL was in Tawang before and China stayed put. But now China has the logistics in place on their side of the LAC if Indian intelligence is to be believed.

    The facts on the ground is that there has been a scramble for logistical upgradation on both sides of the LAC if not outright militarization. So while India and China does have an agreement to maintain peace and tranquility, the capabilties are there for rapid escalation. Why so if diplomacy is the only option for border settlement? Will the two countries agree to a demilitarized LAC zone till the border is settled? or is it each side grab as much land as you can before we hit the negotiating table when we agree on the LAC as the border? Why is it that the Han want Tawang Monastery? Can’t be mere history/religion or the Hindu might have wanted Mount Kailash Mansarovar.

  118. sangos Says:

    Finally some semblence of sanity and balance on China in the volatile Indian Media with a nice photo opp of the countries’ bosses(should interest our Chinese friends here)

  119. buru Says:

    “So if India wants a war, it will eventually get one

    So the Chinese public were rooting for a war with Vietnam, India, USSR,USA/UN..according to your logic/generalization, because these wars were Chinese-initiated. I used to think these were launched by a bunch of tinpot ‘peoples’ dictators. I am serious:)

  120. buru Says:

    Steve#109 and Allen:

    While I feel both India and China are countries born of a form of internal neo-colonialism, and while India is ridden by myriads of rebellions, the chances of PRC imploding and releasing independent-states a la USSR is higher than that of India exploding..simply because minority peoples representation is much higher at both central and local levels in India than China. Minorities are allowed a measure of self-control not seen in China.So Indian Govt is like a sponge..weak but flexible.China is like a crystal..strong but brittle.

    This I speak of as a member of the minority in India..and we are often the butt of discrimination here, real or imagined.

  121. Otto Kerner Says:

    @sangos #113,

    Quite right, with a couple caveats. Since the armed Khampa resistance lasted from 1956 until 1971, so it was not quite what I would describe as short-lived. Granted, for most of the 60s, it was on life support from the CIA. Also, I don’t think the aid ever flowed through India. In fact, it went through Pakistan, specifically through East Pakistan, which is now Bangladesh. When Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan in 1971, it became an ally of India’s and the CIA was no longer able to use it as a base for supplying Tibetan guerillas, so the aid ended.

  122. buru Says:

    Otto #111
    I’m not sure what proportion of the 38 million or so people in northeastern India live in areas that are vulnerable or sympathetic to anti-government activities, though.

    As a northeasterner I think I have a very good guess from my extensive experience and extensive friends circle here:

    1.Nagaland: definitely majority will vote for separation if a neutral plebiscite is held.
    2.Mizoram : definite majority ‘” —do—–
    3.Manipur : Definite majority of Meitis and Nagas will vote separation, but Kukis may be 50:50 or 60:40 in Indias favor
    4.Meghalaya: Khasis prob 60:40 for separation, Garos and Jaintias prob against separation by 60:40
    5.Assam : a very big hotchpotch of ethnic peoples makes a statement difficult. Sangos can give a view.My estimation is the Assamese/Ahom in North Assam will vote 50:50 for separation, Muslims 60:40 for separation(to join Banglad?); But overall Assam will vote to stay in India by narrow margin.
    6.Tripura & Arunachal: definite majority vote to stay in India.

    I am pretty sure I am near the mark in 1,2,3 and 6.
    But those figures are for a genuine peaceful plebiscite.It wont directly translate to anti-India action in a war. During the 1962 Indo-China war, the proud Nagas(and Pakistanis:)) stopped their operations because they did not wanted to attack India when she was engaged, and appear sissy.I am sure Nagas and Pakistanis regret this magnanimity:)

  123. sangos Says:

    @ Otto – agreed on the time span 🙂 stand corrected. Btw AFAIK the CIA was based out of Kalimpong area off the Tibet border somewhere near Nathula Pass. Here’s the whole historical shebang(Sorry i don’t remember the exact link) http://www.rediff.com/news/indochin.htm.

    @ Buru +1 on his breakup analyses (Chinese take close note thats intelligence from the horse’s mouth :)). Af far as Assamese is concerned thats a loaded question. The idea of staying with India is always in flux. But definitely the Assamese feel discriminated in their hearts starting with Nehru’s words “My heart goes out to the people of Assam…..(1962)…boy that hurt bad!

    IMHO its not tough to predict how people behave in face of an external crisis. Like how Steve said somewhere Indians will probabaly unite against Chinese. case in point is the Kargil War, the best decorated fighters in the Indian Army were Assamese and the Nagas were deadly! Something Pakistan might remember and China may factor into their strategy.

  124. buru Says:

    Sangos 123,

    writing in these ‘Chinese’ blogs makes us very much aware of the type of freedom of expression of ideas in India.This is both our strength(mostly) and weakness. Note how we freely discuss our strengths and weaknesses, whereas the posters on other side stick with vaguest of generalities:)

    I feel pity for them in a way. It will take them decades to de-condition, even in the event of ushering-in of democracy.

  125. sangos Says:

    🙂 India and China are two strangest of neighbors IMO…India is ‘too much freedom’ and China is ‘too much control’. I think instead of going for each other’s throats, both need to shake hands genuinely and learn from the other…but unfortunately that ain’t realpolitik and it plain sucks! 🙂 and here’s why as usual http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSPEK367216

  126. Shane9219 Says:

    @buru #124

    Take back your Indian-colonial-style-“democracy” non sense. Like mentioned before, most people in China are only interested to look at India in a rear mirror nowadays. There are essentially no point to spend too much time to engage a chest-beating game with Indian folks. Saying this is by no mean to hurt your pride.

    China has become a complete reborn new civilization state, while India got stuck in their colonial and provincial culture. The belligerent India elitist media and military sounded like an exact copy of old UK colonist mindset and self-inflated pride.

  127. Steve Says:

    @ Shane: It’s not what you say but how you say it. Your comment was collapsed because of the condescending remarks.

  128. shane9219 Says:

    @Steve #127

    What presented in post #126 was a matter of fact.

  129. pug_ster Says:

    @Steve 127,

    I think that some people make passive snarky statements about China and it seems to be tolerated yet the opposite is not. So what I think what you did to Shane is unfair.

  130. sangos Says:

    @Shane – I don’t quite get it about the Chinese view of Indians. The Chinese officials the other day in India were saying ‘Indians and Chinese are brothers’. So as per your fact he was lying or is it your personal opinion?
    India IMO have gotten rid of the last of the so-called ‘colonial hangovers’ its been over 60 years of independence, with a new generation in place.

  131. pug_ster Says:


    It is said by one or several Chinese officals which does not represent the which does not represent the views of the majority of the people of China. They probably say it just the same reason why some Indian Officials would not agree with wild speculation that China wants to go to war, is just to show respect and not make this situation any worse. What Shane said is about the ‘Elitist Indian Media’ which has been stirring up these nonsensical rumors about China and not about the Indian people themselves. Unfortunately, most people are influenced by the media, and since Chinese Media didn’t mention much conflict between China and India, most Chinese don’t think it is a problem, which is very much different in India.

  132. shane9219 Says:

    @sangos #130

    >> “India IMO have gotten rid of the last of the so-called ‘colonial hangovers’ its been over 60 years of independence, with a new generation in place”

    LoL. It is quite opposite. As India walking down its own development path, an over-inflated confidence among older and younger generations have brought back their memory of colonial style entitlement and pride that they learned from UK rulers, such as “India Ocean is Indian’s” blah blah …

  133. sangos Says:

    Ok dudes I get it; you got me all mixed up with ‘colonial ….’ whatever that means :). Both China and India are emerging powers and there will be some jostling and running into each other like the Indian Ocean etc…so you guys will have to live it and iron out matters in the future.

    Btw Pug_ster what you said is news for me…does people’s opinion, even in majority(now thats democracy ugh!) really matter in China? I thought its the goverment’s opinion which matters and I think they have shown lot of respect and fortitude vis-a-vis India, except of course matters of direct dispute like the border.

    And even the Indian PM has stated the Indian Media has falsely reported China and given the factual position.

  134. buru Says:

    “India Ocean is Indian’s” blah blah

    Really? pl give me a link( I am just curious, not challenging you).

    But I can give links which shows a country whose navy shed others blood to evict the original settlers a thousands of mile from its nearest coast, as far apart as Spratlys, Paracel , Ussuri and Senkaku.

  135. shane9219 Says:

    @buru #134

    That’s a good one, but quite laughable. You apparently need go to learn more Chinese history.

    >> “Spratlys, Paracel ..”

    Those have been part of China’s territory clearly stated in Chinese historical document. They were clearly demarcated since the founding days of political nation state called China.

    Did anyone tell you that during China’s Ming dynasty (in earlier 15th century), Chinese explorer, Admiral Zheng He (郑和) led 7 expeditions to India ocean? As large and powerful as his armada, his fleet only conducted trade mission. There are even some Chinese descendants still living in several Indian coastal cities today — a living evidence of China’s historical ocean-going “silk road“.

    >> “Ussuri and Senkaku …”

    That makes even more interesting for you to mention China’s northern territory. Did you know how much land China lost to Russian during Qing dynasty? That will make South Tibet/Zhannan looks like a small park !

  136. shane9219 Says:

    Galle Trilingual Inscription in Sri Lanka

    “The Galle Trilingual Inscription was a stone tablet inscription in three languages, Chinese, Tamil and Persian, that was erected in 1411 in Galle, Sri Lanka to commemorate the second visit to Sri Lanka by the Chinese admiral Zheng He by offerings made by him and others to the Buddhist Temple on the Mountain of Sri Lanka. It was discovered in Galle in 1911 and is now preserved in the Colombo National Museum.”


  137. buru Says:


    your post# 135 exposes you for all to see– looks like I am not the only one who has [quote] “an over-inflated confidence among older and younger generations have brought back their memory of colonial style entitlement and pride that they learned from xyz rulers

    Your line of argument is:
    1. because PRC labelled someones territory as ‘undisputably’ belongs to China –it belongs to China and you can justify shedding blood to dislodge others.

    2.Because an Uzbek Muslim once went to the seas and wrote about sighting some islands the Paracels and Spratlys can be seized by force. alternatively

    3.If a land was once conquered by any of the kingdoms that later made up PRC, PRC has a claim to it.

    If your logic is to be taken to its conclusion, Sri Lanka(and Malaya/Indon/Thailand/Burma/some Arab states/East Africa) will be annexed back to China anytime, right? Also pl read a little more on the Ceylon affair of Zheng He–it gives lie to your claim that he engaged only in trade.
    Your claim “There are even some Chinese descendants still living in several Indian coastal cities today — a living evidence of China’s historical ocean-going “silk road“. is only partially correct–most expatriate Chinese in India and SEA are the result of the tremendous political instability and persecution complicated by poverty in their motherland.

  138. sangos Says:

    Wow good stuff Buru and Shane both – just keep it focussed on the issue (and nothing personal 🙂 – think Steve will back me here), cause there is so much to learn in this whole Indo-China thing. I always felt that the whole India – China relationship is kinda rooted in history even though the actual issues are of a more current time frame. So for these two giants to truly grow in their relationship and get their due place in the world IMO the whole shebang has to be considered.

    Let me throw a couple of bits into the spanner. The major Chinese community in India is in Kolkatta city. They are historically immigrants from Guangdong who came by sea.

    Other historical points – Chinese craftsmen were prized for their skills in construction in India especially Bengal and Assam. Oh btw the New Delhi airport is being constructed by Chinese engineers as we speak.

    Here’s the kicker, the Chinese Army (Kuomintang) was actually helping the Indian Army (include Shane/Pug_sters ‘colonial adjectives’ :)) defending India in WW2 against the Japanese under Gen. Stilwell.

  139. Otto Kerner Says:

    Buru #122,

    Thanks for giving your impressions. They have the ring of truth to them. Of course, being willing to vote for secession is not quite the same as being willing to join a guerrilla movement, but about the latter question we never really know until push comes to shove (we don’t know with regard to Tibetans, either). I did want to ask whether the groups you describe constitute the predominant group in each state in question. In particular, I notice that Assam is by far the most populous state in northeastern India. Are Assamese + Muslims the large majority of that population, or are there a lot of settlers from other parts of India who could be expected to be more loyal to the Centre?

    Another topic which has not been addressed in much detail so far in this thread is what Pakistan’s response would be if (god forbid) there were a serious war between India and China. It’s hard to imagine them just sitting on the sidelines and hoping the bad guy loses. I would expect, at the very least, that they would ramp up insurgent activity in Kashmir as much as possible.

  140. buru Says:

    Otto #139

    answer a:
    1. You are right. In fact even in the 3 states where I indicated they would surely vote secession,I can qualify by saying the majority are AGAINST the militants( not so much against ideologically, but because it brings with it violence, abuse by military, extortion, backwardness–in other words they are tired of the side-effects of militancy)

    2.Assam : The Assamese( usu ascribed to the Aryan-origin Hindus and Ahom/Muttock Hindus) plus Muslims( almost all of Bengali/Bangladeshi stock) constitute absolute majority. There are indeed plenty of staunch pro-Indian Hindu settlers from Bihar/UP/Rajasthan/Jharkhand/Orissa/Bengal etc, esp in the major cities.
    3.Manipur : Meiteis and Nagas, who are mostly pro-secession, constitute absolute majority there.

    4.I already said overall Tripura and Arunachal(‘ south Tibet’ ) are staunch pro-India, and Mizoram and Nagaland majority would vote secession.

    Answer b: My commonsense (and Pakistani defence forums ) indicate that this time the PRC and Pak will coordinate their assault if it comes to that.

    The final qualifier: The violence in the region is actually reducing in scale and intensity.

  141. sangos Says:

    @ Otto yep Assamese are the largest group followed by Muslim settlers from Bangladesh. Yes there are big goups of ‘mainland’ Indian settlers, who definitely loyal to India.

    PM Buru: Dangoria apuni thik thik koi dise. Ihotor petor kotha ulabo keile nu ai kela mokkel burok aamar dexor mati bilag thopiai holeyu ihotok lage. Baki khobor bhaal sake!

  142. Steve Says:

    @ Shane #128: The condescending remarks were: “nonsense”, “chest beating game”, “belligerent Indian elitist media” and “self-inflated pride” all tossed together in two short paragraphs with no justification for anything you said. If you think the comments unworthy of your time, just don’t read the thread.

    Though I might not always agree with you, I enjoy many of your remarks because they bring a lot to the discussion. The collapsed comment brought nothing to the discussion. I don’t understand why you feel you have to malign others to make your point, when the point can be made without doing so. We’re trying to promote civil discussion.

    I didn’t delete your remarks, I collapsed them so everyone could see them if they chose to do so. I delete for profanity, racist comments and strong ad hominum attacks.

    @ pug_ster: At one time or another, I think I’ve censored virtually every frequent contributor to this blog, including myself. If you see what you feel are “passive, snarky statements about China”, just let me know and I’ll look at them. I’m not sure what you mean about “passive” but “snarky” would cross the line. If someone wants to criticize the Chinese or India governments, I have no problem with that but I have a big problem when they offer condescending remarks towards the Chinese or Indian people themselves, or towards individual bloggers.

    In the past, I would usually defer to the post writer and was more strict with my own posts. This one happens to be one of mine but in general, the entire blog is going to be less tolerant of the kind of remarks you’re referring to. If someone said you were a crazed madman because of something you said, they’d get collapsed. So that means no more “R4K/SKC” type back and forth insults.

    BTW, your comment #131 was fine because you went after the media and not the Indian people themselves.

  143. Steve Says:

    @ Shane #135: Good point about the land lost to Russia during the Qing dynasty, a fact that is often forgotten. I’m not sure what point you were trying to make about the Galle Trilingual Inscription.

    @ buru #137: Are you referring to Zheng He’s taking the ruler of Sri Lanka to China as a prisoner because he refused to recognize the Ming emperor? Or are you referring to when Zheng He intervened in a war between the Tamils in the north with the Sinhalese Buddhists in the south? (sound familiar?) BTW, he took the side of the Buddhists in the central and southern areas.

  144. Shane9219 Says:

    Finally, an Indian senior official steps out of shadow, making a sound attempt to redirect the current drafting “Indian ship”.

    Still, outside observers have to wonder who is really setting the long term policy and implementing a consistent agenda for Indian’s foreign relations, its super-rich neo-industrialists/IT gangsters, its belligerent media, its angry politicians, its shrewd military, its second-rated think tanks full of ex-military and governmental personnel, or any combination of above?

    “India, China must resolve border issues to ensure peace: Krishna

    For peace to prevail along the Sino-Indian border, all boundary issues need to be resolved in right earnest, External Affairs Minister SM Krishna said in an exclusive interview on Friday. na said in an exclusive interview on Friday. ”


    I have to say that I am also pretty surprised to read a comment there (see below), reflecting Chinese side POV.

    “Be realistic and reasonable
    By: Jc

    Around 1960’s when China suffered its worst natural and man-made disasters, India launched the opportunistic military offense against China and tried to settle the border dispute, but was swiftly crushed by much-more-poorly-equiped-but-brave Chinese army. And right after the war, then-Chinese govt did alot of face-saving things for India as a good neighborhood guesture to mend the war-scar, being so gracious ever in human history towards the defeated,India,. However, nowadays some Indian people are sort of opportunistically bellicose again with their swelling egos and indulgeous imaginations and hot aspirations towards the old border dispute, and try to humiliate or hurt China one way or another. Just remember,my Indian friends: It Is Never A Good Idea For A Southern Country like India To Have A War or Feud with A Big Northern Country like China, Historically, Period. Know the realty. As China shows its greatest restrain, hope our neighbor, India, understand the issue correctly”

  145. Shane9219 Says:

    @Steve #143

    >> “Zheng He’s taking the ruler of Sri Lanka to China as a prisoner because he refused to recognize the Ming emperor?”

    You got that history wrong. The Sri Lanka king was taken to China because he was hostile to Chinese traders and had an armed conflict. Admiral Zheng He’s fleet then sailed to India. On their return trip, they beat the king’s army and took him to China’s Ming capital. Chinese emperor immediately released him and treated him very well …

    “Such tactful even-handedness suggests that the Chinese were dealing with a cosmoplitan trading community. However, the aura of orderly diplomacy dissipated rapidly. The island comprised three warring states, and it was the chief Alakeswara who met Zheng He. Refusing to allow erection of the tablet, which he presumably considered a declaration of sovereignty, he beat the Chinese in a brief skirmish and drove them back to their ships. They sailed on to India, but returned to avenge the insult. What happened next is controversial, and the accounts are confused, but the Chinese abducted ‘the king’ (Alakeswara in the Chinese account, the legitimate king of Kotte according to the Sinhalese account). The captives were taken to the Ming capital at Nanjing, but released by the emperor and returned to Sri Lanka. There are stories of the Chinese taking the Sacred Tooth of the Buddha. Author Louise Levathes, trying to make sense of the conflicting accounts, guesses that the captive was the King of Kotte, who took the relic with him to China in order to prevent it from falling into the hands of the usurper Alakeswara, but in any event the Tooth too was soon back in Sri Lanka. The Yongle emperor claimed sovereignty over Sri Lanka and demanded regular tribute, and the Sinhalese went along with this for over forty years before refuting the obligation in 1459.”


    The Galle Trilingual Inscription in Sri Lanka is an important historical artifact, which revealed Chinese sailors and fleet conducted their fair mostly in respect to locals. It is a quite opposite to see how European explorers, sailors and traders did when they ventured to Asian coasts.


  146. Shane9219 Says:

    @Steve #142

    After sometime, it appears you are kind of a trigger-happy guy, not someone who practices Taichi regularly 🙂

    Being at a public forum, I subject my opinion to this site’s mediation. Guilty or not is totally to the eyes of beholders. However, the main theme of this forum as “For China” makes this site quite valuable and unique among a sea of China bashers and haters, whom I feel no shame to spank whenever necessary, let alone put them under the cross-hair of words.

  147. sangos Says:

    @ Shane – Am reading between your lines to glean all the info I can :); now your view of Indians is totally yours and you are fully entitled it. (And I don’t care whether you are practising Taichi/ Qigong 🙂 just kidding dude; am a huge fan btw).

    Btw its interesting to note that you as a Chinese feel India is belligerent towards China. I mean thats the sense I get from your posts. It is a fact that India and China have a border dispute but they have managed to keep their cool on it so far. So what are the other core solid reasons that makes you feel this way? mean other than ‘IT gangsters’ and what not..

  148. buru Says:

    I was just refuting Shanes statement [quote]As large and powerful as his armada, his fleet only conducted trade mission.

    He did a good job of refuting himself above:) An Armada of 30,000 men going to every major port from Asia through East Africa, and whose opening demand is that the people there declare the overlordship of the ‘ heavenly empeor’ (ie Yongle) as also taking scores of the envoys back to china cannot be qualified with Shanes statement quoted above. If Zheng He ‘only’ conducted trade mission, I suggest the British opium traders also ‘only’ conducted trade in China:)

  149. Shane9219 Says:

    @buru #148

    Why some people here are so picky about Admiral Zheng He’s personal conflict with a local Sri Lanka chief ? It happened at ancient time and did an ancient way, even Sri Lanka people read this part of history with amazement !

    >> “I suggest the British opium traders also ‘only’ conducted trade in China:)”

    Go for it if you want to revision history. You may also say UK colonists came to India ‘just’ to trade too …

  150. buru Says:

    #149….excellent. You just proved my point!!

  151. Shane9219 Says:

    @buru #150

    Let me say this to you with no shame: you are not even qualified to be a student of Chinese history, let alone try to prove anything using history.

    You have to wonder carefully by yourself why 🙂

  152. Wukailong Says:

    Incredible. Stupidity reaches new heights.

  153. shane9219 Says:

    >> Population Structure at South Tibet / Arunachal Pradesh

    South Tibet are now swarmed by a population of outside immigrants. These outside immigrants were rewarded with government grant and land when they first settled there.

    India’s local government there now try to form an army from these internal mmigrants, who are apparently royal to India government. Western media had not pay any critical attention to such migration …

    “Most of the people native to and/or living in Arunachal Pradesh are of Tibeto-Burman origin. A large and increasing number of migrants have reached Arunachal Pradesh from many other parts of India, although no reliable population count of the migrant population has been conducted, and percentage estimates of total population accordingly vary widely.”


    According to this publish book “Population, Poverty and Environment in North-East India” (page 117), a 1971 Census showed over 31% population coming from internal migration. While in 1981, the number jumped to 35%. This number is much higher now in 2009 …


  154. buru Says:


    Once my counterpart starts calling me names instead of refuting with citations/facts, I KNOW that he has nothing left to counter me with.So I will finish our old argument here.


    I dunno what u are trying to say with this post, for I am a NATIVE of Arunachal(‘ south tibet’ )..I have already raised these nonsensical Indian Governments actions in Fools Mountain. While the Indian Govt did settle immigrants, and we want them out, we have the OPTION of voicing our views through democratic means. Do Tibetans, Uighurs or Mongols have these options?
    The Indian Govt did settle immigrants, but to its ‘credit’ it did not selectively send Aryan Hindus to settle down–can you refute that only Hans have been settled in Tibet?
    The Indian Govt is NOT trying to form an army of these immigrants, but an army of the natives of Arunachal–and they stampede each other to join, every time the army holds a job-recruitment( though out of poverty and not patriotism).

    For your information–the Han Chinese NEVER ever set foot in our land throughout history( same with Delhi), so please dont be so glum about the possession of ‘south tibet’.

  155. Sangos Says:

    + 1 Buru….Always independent ethnic groups of people past,present and future, have great pride in their land and identity and very rightly so.

    Its very disturbing to know how smaller ethnic groups can be crushed between larger groups because of their greed and hunger for power and resources. I was in Nagaland the other day and can you believe it, India and Burma have their borders cutting the Naga chief’s century old longhouse in half. How would it feel if some jokers came along and decided which country you and your home belongs to….worst if they split it amongst themselves 🙂

    PM Buru: Dangoria aapunar kotha xuni ai yat baki likhi thoka mokkel bilakor matha beya hoi goise. Khonghote sob xosa kotha bilak ulai porise….bhaal hoise. Xosake iihot harami bostu de!

  156. buru Says:

    Sangos 155,

    I have resigned myself to have AP ruled by India (or China )for there is no escape. It may even be a good thing.But I get irritated when Indians/Chinese make statements like ‘ AP was always an integral part of India’ or ‘ South Tibet/Tibet was always part of the motherland’ …people who make these statements know that they are lying.

  157. buru Says:

    PM Sangos,

    mokkel sinese burok amar mati he lage. hihotor nisina business-minded manuh bidexot kotou nepay. amar oxomor marwari bure iihot mokkel sinese buror agote eku-e nohoi dexun!

  158. shane9219 Says:

    @buru / Sangos

    As a friendly reminder, your guys are welcome to stick around on this public forum, provided you make posts in English, or Chinese if you can write 🙂

  159. Otto Kerner Says:

    @buru #154,

    Well, there are a lot of Hui people (which is to say Han-speaking Muslims) in Tibet, so it’s not just Han people per se. I don’t think it’s really the case that the government refuses to let anyone else move to Tibet. It’s more that there are few Chinese people who want to move to Tibet and approximately none of the other minorities want to. Actually, I think it’s a misconception that the government has done much to actively resettle non-Tibetan peoples in Tibet (or in Inner Mongolia, which was already dominated by Hans 100 years ago). To the extent that Han and Hui people are in Tibet, it’s for business opportunities. Inside the TAR, there is basically no Han or Hui settlement outside of the urban areas (and not much in urban areas other than Lhasa) because the land is bad for farming. There may be a few places in the borderlands of eastern Tibet where the rural demographics have changed more dramatically; but, even there, not very many Chinese people are interested in moving to Qinghai or backwoods Sichuan to become farmers; and the places where agriculture is profitable have tended to be multicultural transitional zones for hundreds of years (such as the Dalai Lama’s hometown of Taktser, which is quite near both the Chinese city of Xining and Kumbum Jhampaling, one of the great monasteries of the Tibetan world).

    That said, there are places in Tibet with large migrant populations, and the locals are in no position to complain, either through democracy or other forms of public dialogue, as you said quite rightly.

  160. Sangos Says:

    PM Steve – stupid question but is there some way to PM posters here in the forum
    PM Shane – 很抱歉谢恩布鲁..问他为什么不喜欢印度
    PM Buru – moi ai kela tuk tar nijor bhaxa te koisu…keneke nuxudhibo…passot kom ketiaba 🙂

  161. Steve Says:

    @ Shane: I’ve asked you several times in different threads not to engage in condescending and insulting remarks. Putting a smiley face after it doesn’t make it better.

    If you continue to engage in such childish behavior, your comments will be moved to the moderation queue before posting. I’m not a babysitter and have no desire to constantly moderate your comments.

    This blog prefers all comments to be in English but allows comments in Chinese for the Chinese posts. Since this topic is about both India and China, I’ll extend the same courtesy to our Indian bloggers.

    @ buru & sangos: Unless you have a reason for commenting in your own language, we’d prefer the comments stick with English as a courtesy to all our readers.

  162. shane9219 Says:


    You are entitled to your opinion, just like everyone else here. But certainly you got extra authority, just try to abuse it 🙂

    My childish comment? I don’t think so …

  163. buru Says:

    Otto # 159:

    I am aware that Hui are present in Tibet..my emphasis was on word ‘settled’.I have read accounts of travellers way before the KMT and CCP were born–of Huis in Tibet, who were a necessity there as butchers since the Tibetan were avid meateaters but could not kill( a form of hypocrisy; in fact this hypocrisy is seen even today in the Buddhist district of Tawang in my state!).They were looked down upon.
    But the Hans were ‘settled’–even if not trucked in the Govt gave them a wink and nod to do so. Your statement on Han settlers being only in Cities and borderlands is prob right…I have read they prefer settling in lower elevation areas such as Nyingchi or Zayul rather than in the high arid plateaus with their harsh climate.

  164. sangos Says:

    Nice one http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1924884,00.html. Especially about Zheng He (was a eunuch!)…with apologies to the forum for earlier lingo faux pas!

  165. TonyP4 Says:

    Can India afford to go to war when China just re-directs the water to flow north? Same as cutting down the water supply to Hong Kong before the take-over.

  166. sangos Says:

    @ Tony (above) Considering only the water angle, the answer is a Yes IMO. And here’s why, the only Indian river with a large basin in China is the Brahmaputra (Tsangbo in China). And this river does not flow through mainland India. Btw the impact of diverting the Tsangbo north is to be accessed, so not really sure if it is or not going to hit the Indians hard.

  167. shane9219 Says:

    @sangos & tonyp4

    Let’s not to diverge into a hypothetical scenario which would not happen anyway, that’s not helpful.

    For many years, India and China try hard to measure themselves against the West, while either ignored or unwilling to build a modern and solid inter-connection between two large neighbors. Now that, India finds it is forced to measure up against China when the world’s attention is on China, and felt quite anxiously about it.

    An example was shown among India’s popular opinions that many in India thought India should be a ‘superpower” too, when some in the West want to replace an outdated “China threat” theory with a new theory of “China’s responsibility as an emerging superpower”, and later the so-called “G2” notion, so on so forth. From Chinese perspective, those notions and theories are rejected from their onset, the same as any old ones … China is still a large developing country, period !

    The way out of the historical dilemma between China and India is what your Minister Krishna said to resolve border issues with earnest and FAIRNESS, meanwhile, continue to enhance mutual understanding and a solid 21th-century neighboring relation. For that, India has a urgent and challenging need to educate its own mass and shape up a proper consensus.

  168. sangos Says:

    Just thought this deals squarely with the header of this blog and gives some different angles of the Indian POV. Might help us to expand on some more facets from the Chinese POV.

    @ Shane – FYI the Tsangbo diversion is under China’s consideration if not actively AFAIK, so obviously its not hypotheticals like for instance Tibetans feel they are part of China.

  169. shane9219 Says:

    @sango #168

    China has a large population with huge water demand. For many years, China has been working on a nation-wide system to better utilize existing water resources. The potential water diversion project from Shichuang/Tibet region was long under consideration as part of a larger plan. it does not specifically target towards India, as China already implemented some parts of the plan. Secondly, a diversion did not mean to shut down a water resource 100%, as we commonly know that majority portion of river water is not utilized before it goes to sea.

    In case a water resource is shared with India, it is nature for India to raise concern, but being an alarmist on this is definitely a bad choice. India can feel free to raise its concern at some level of representation and work out something between the two.

  170. Chops Says:

    Large-scale war is unlikely since both countries are responsible members of the UN and WTO.


    Furthermore, “the Indian business elite admire China’s success and bemoan India’s plodding democratic process; the endless debate about economic reforms; the three-steps-back-one-step-forward, drunken-man’s-walk that is the Indian growth pattern. Business prefers predictability.

    China is the model of elite-run, top down, foreign direct investment-driven, manufacturing and exports-led, supply-side growth. It chose economic equity over social and political equity.”

  171. Steve Says:

    Excellent article, Chops. I think the two authors did a good job laying out the particular strengths and weaknesses of each of their political and economic systems.

  172. sangos Says:

    Indian entrepreneurship and Chinese governance would have made a ‘dream team’ in Asian conditions 🙂

  173. shane9219 Says:

    @Chops #170

    The link is a good read. As earlier as 2007, Adam Segal seemed to know China far better than his Indian counterpart. That article is also a good demonstration of the perception gap of Indian’s elites on the world and India itself.

    The hard truth is India’s elite circle can serve India’s future much better by looking hard on the present problems in India’s society as well as the world, less bragging about its potentials (such as a younger and probably more populous than China years down the road), or its aged system (such as India-style democracy).

    China went through several important cultural and political movements since late 19th century, with noted ones such as New Cultural Movement in earlier 20th century etc, just to shake off its malaises. This process of self critique, reform and renewal does not end today.

    BTW: I noted the polite tone of Segal’s Indian counterpart on her comment on China, however, the fact is that the tone of China bashing, even hatred, is quite popular when Indian elites talking among themselves.

  174. sangos Says:

    @ Shane – Am still trying to understand why a Chinese like maybe yourself feel that the ‘Indian Elites hate China’. You and I know very well that the Indians took a hell of a beating from the Chinese in 1962. Also what are your concerns in labelling Indians this way? Do you as a Chinese seriously believe India is going to match up to China in near future? They are nowhere even near. 除非你是在开玩笑



  175. shane9219 Says:

    @sangos #174

    >> “Am still trying to understand why a Chinese like maybe yourself feel that the ‘Indian Elites hate China’”

    This is not a false perception by Chinese, but in fact, a reality in India. So the question is why not to search an answer from India side.

    No need to go backward to search any achieval, the current hysteria by Indian media and its military on phony border tension, heated remarks from vaious India elite think tanks on a “pending Chinese attach in 2012” or “choking off Chinese sea route at Malacca Strait” blah, blah are a good indication of undercurrent inside India.

    >> “Indians took a hell of a beating from the Chinese in 1962”

    Sure, 1962 war caused India to lose face in big time. No side wanted to be in that position, that is a given. China understood this and in fact quite sensitive about it by not inflating it beyond history and causes. That is the gracious side by China as a country and people.

    India as a country and people needs to less blame China for its defeat, but put much blame on Nehru’s reckless and colonial-style frontier-forwarding policy at the time. Some in India do blame Nehru, but in a different way, that he did not build up a stronger army 🙂

    Nehru, today, probably still commands a similar level of respect inside India as Gandhi does. Such god-making does not serve India well actually. You may take a look the status of Chairman Mao today in China.

    What happened is history. No one can change it. In order for India to have a solid relation with China, India has to move pass this history, just as important as India’s desire to become a mature country in the world. How it handles its relation with China is both a big hurdle and opportunity !

    Take a look at the example between China and Russian, China lost quite a lot terrortory to Russian through unequal treaties, Russian even waged a war with Japanese on Chinese soil. China and Russia mostly at peace since the founding of PRC, and border side was resolved through dialog and negotiation (in the end, Russian returned a small patch to China as a good gesture).

  176. sengiskahn Says:


  177. shane9219 Says:

    @sengiskahn, #176

    Let’s do it tomorrow ! 🙂

  178. Otto Kerner Says:

    The 17th Karmapa touches on the India-China controversy in a new interview. He seems favorable to his hosts, the Indians:

    “… if I were to make some observations and guesses from my own vantage point, it seems to me that the Chinese government is acting somewhat deliberately in attempts to slightly irritate the government of India. Because of this the neighbourly relationship has suffered a little bit. India has always been a relatively peaceful country, a country that has always had a reasonably good record of valuing peace, India does not seem interested in pursuing any type of conflict, however, India is on the rise in the world and perhaps the Chinese government feels some type of impulse to blunt this rise somehow. Perhaps that is what is causing some of the things we see today.”

  179. Allen Says:

    @Otto Kerner #178,

    What did you expect?

  180. sangos Says:

    Here’s why the Indians are jittery of China IMO:

    1. China demands the whole of ‘Arunachal Pradesh’ vociferously and India is not vocal about its ‘claims’ over Aksai Chin, maybe it does not even care any more. Actually the Indians are so scared of China that they did not even develop ‘Arunachal’ infrastructure and also the NE India in general. That is why the local people there are so pissed off with India. This stupid a** attitude has created more problems for India from insurgencies who see democracy as some Indian joke.

    2. China has got superior military infrastructure in Tibet along the entire McMahon line and logistics.

    3. China challenges Indian hold in the Indian Ocean.

    4. China has got more friends in Asia than India.

    5. China is numero uno in Asia.


  181. Otto Kerner Says:

    Allen, I would have expected him probably not to comment on it at all. If he was going to comment, I guess this is about what I’d expect. I would have thought a little more nuanced, perhaps.

  182. Rhan Says:

    Dey, of course India are jittery because they are in the wrong. The Indian always thought they are the most advance country in Asia, and believe that the West is a backing them up as long as the have the freedom to choose their government though not their wife or husband. My point is, China is not that free to challenge the so-called Asia democracy giant, China has no end internal problem to solve, so don’t act like a West appointed police, we had enough of you in HK.

  183. sangos Says:

    The Indians believe the West will back them up against China in the event of military confrontation

    Indians feel that the West/Russia is interested in using them as a counter to check China. So they strategize military relationships with both power centers.

    The other strategy is that SE Asia will ally with India against perceived ‘Chinese expansionism’ in the event of conflict between Indian and China.


  184. Steve Says:

    @ sangos #183: I believe that would be a miscalculation on India’s part. Military cooperation with the United States is in its initial stages and they are certainly not a close ally at this time. My guess is that they are buying more US military hardware because it is superior to the competition and they now have access to it. From what I’ve read, there is still a lot of resistance in India to further US/India military cooperation based on India’s former alliance with the USSR, though opinions seem to be slowly changing over time. Note the resistance in India to the recent nuclear cooperation deal.

    The US and China are not enemies, though they are wary of each other. They are cooperating across a wide range of issues and have deep economic ties. If there is a conflict between India and China, the aggressor would be condemned but I doubt other nations would become involved in the conflict.

  185. sangos Says:

    @ Steve (above) – I bet the Indians are miscalculating about the West as you rightly said. It sure beats me about their bravado against China when their military chiefs keep saying publicly how they are like 1/10, 1/5…1/3 in terms of capabilities vis-a-vis China. And India’s doggedness to hold on to Tawang instead of graciously handing it over to the Chinese, speaks of confidence springing out of the ‘Internationalized’ Tibet issue. IMO the Indians are also overestimating the international(read western) sympathy for the Dalai Lama’s cause. And its only a matter of time before China runs out of patience over Tawang. And that may be looming large not too far off?


  186. sids Says:


    Base on the link i posted. Indian government definately don’t want to go to war with China over Tibet unless its the last resort.

  187. sangos Says:

    @ Sids – There is no question of India going to war over Tibet unless you meant South Tibet. If China invades Arunachal Pradesh, India will put up its best fight IMO in spite of all the odds against it as we analyzed in this blog on the various factors of such a scenario. And just to reiterate both countries are nuclear-armed so its a deadly flash-point situation for the world, which nobody in their right mind wants.

  188. sids Says:

    Ops my previous link was broken


    Sangos- If you look back at China dispute of its border with their neighbour after WWII, most of them is settle with diplomacy rather than war. I doubt China will be the instigator to start a war to reclaim some land that is still in dispute and im pretty sure that India have enough to worry atm to start a war with some country that is as strong as them.

  189. sangos Says:

    @Sids – thanks for the link.

    With China rapidly militarizing Tibet, especially with all the logistical build up along the LAC or Mcmahon line if you will, its hard to peg China’s intentions as entirely peaceful. We have deliberated on this point at lenght above as well as what the underlying motives are. The issues are complex beyond simply recovering some disputed territory.

    The Indians especially the media have responded with hysterical overtones of war, which we found was simply reactionary/scare mongering rather than a genuine call for battle of any sort.

    Bottom line: War has been averted for over 40 years and there are strong reasons in spite of all the developments, for war to be still deterred. The India-China relationship is an uneasy one and there are issues which have the potential of careening matters out of control.

  190. Allen Says:

    Here is excerpt form a piece from People’s Daily titled Indian media stinks up public opinions:

    The dispute over boundary issues between China and India is expected to be settled, or to take a substantial step forward approaching the final solution, only on the condition that both of them are ready to shake off the traditional conceptions and deep-seated misunderstandings. Meanwhile, both reach out to each other in a joint effort to cultivate a good-will atmosphere for public opinions.

    But it seems that things are going just to the opposite. Even when it is still a moot point whether there will be another border war between the two Asian rivals, the war of words has long set in and to this date shows no signs of ceasing. Hyped up by Indian media on border disputes with the cliché ‘China Threat Theory’, public opinions within India were quickly churned up into a roaring sea against China and the Chinese people.

    On the other hand, the Chinese side, while retorting sarcastically in its state run media, has been actually exercising restraint in an effort to salvage the situation from further trending down. However, the bitter exchanges have so far spilled into the open following a handful of irresponsible India media institutions fabricated stories to incite anti-China sentiments among the Indian public by quoting some unbeknownst sources or unidentifiable interviewees.

  191. Steve Says:

    I want to point out that the piece Allen linked to is not a news article, it is an editorial and labeled as such. It might be poorly written but I have no problem with what it says since editorials are supposed to editorialize, e.g., as Jack McCafferty did on CNN… uh, nevermind. 😛

  192. pug_ster Says:

    I don’t think that editorial from People’s Daily is helping the situation with India/China situation. While China and India doesn’t want to go to war with each other, I think that there are outside forces that would like India and China fighting each other. Heck some outside forces could produce another Gulk of Tonkin Incident that could be a catalyst for a confrontation between the 2 countries. I sincerely hope that wouldn’t happen but you never know.

  193. sangos Says:

    @pug_ster – Good point mate! There are two sore issues IMO that India and China need to fix ASAP.
    From China POV – the Dalai Lama; From India POV – Arunachal Pradesh.

    If these two issues are taken care of; India and China would have absolutely NO reason to fight if not actually go ahead and co-operate as emerging powers. At least each country would be free from any of these ‘war trigger’ hassles and go ahead full steam on their own ways of progress.

    Btw Li Hongmei is beginning to sound like the overdriven Indian media counterpart in China 🙂

  194. lchen Says:


    You got some fair-minded comments in English, also quite graphical on your attack on China in not-so-good Chinese. So which side of fence do you belong? 😉

    Such conflicting thought is also reflected on India’s media publication. So until India’s main stream elite circle can formulate a future-looking and consistent view on this border issue, India’s border tension with China will remain so, and could be scaled up into full-blown conflicts if not managed probably by both sides.

  195. pug_ster Says:

    @sangos 193

    In terms of a gulf of Tonkin like incident, I’m thinking of more in the the lines if somehow a missile from Chinese airspace bombed somewhere in India and the missile is not fired by the Chinese rather than someone else. Dalai Lama and Arunachal Pradesh are not exactly catalysts to start a war.

  196. sangos Says:

    @Ichen – Wow first of all I apologize for my bad Chinese(am not a native speaker) and if it at all sounded like I am attacking China: I had NO intentions of doing so and I withdraw any comments here.

    The Indian media has been put in place by none other than the Indian Prime Minister and the law is after two journos who cooked up sensational stories. So Chinese don’t pay heed because the Indians have stopped doig so.

    As far as fences , lets say am sitting on it 😉

    @Pug_ster – wow mate I never thought of that angle. Just be more candid about it we are all ears :). Btw that somebody has got to be a major power. Who?

  197. sangos Says:

    Never thought of China too in this light http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20090927/884/twl-chinese-see-india-as-enemy-but-army.html

    And I always thought the passions were one-sided 😉 across the Himalayas, as most Chinese buddies posting here would have me believe. What say you now ? 🙂 and WHY???

  198. pug_ster Says:

    @sangos 196

    If you have watched 007 Tomorrow Never Dies, some 3rd party evil person tried to provoke a war with the British and the Chinese. That’s what I am talking about.

  199. Steve Says:

    @ pug_ster: #198: The only way that could ever occur would be if a renegade general ordered it and everyone under his command obeyed him, overriding every safeguard put in place to prevent that from happening. If that were to occur, the general would probably be shot later that day. Since this has never happened (except in thrillers and movies), I don’t think you have much to worry about. 😛

  200. Sangos Says:

    Hey guys am still curious about my question post #197: still can’t believe it! why on earth would the Chinese be hot and bothered about Indians??? I mean India does not hold a candle to China in just about any field of human activity. Maybe just a fast losing edge in the ‘IT Gangsters’ department (to borrow Shane’s words) 😉

  201. Allen Says:

    @Sangos #200, I think it’s a mistake to characterize that Chinese are not “not and bothered about Indians” as you put it. For many Chinese, the sentiments raised by the border disputes with India are very real.

    As for whether China is really that far ahead of China (based on the tone of your comment, I suppose that’s what you really want to discuss), no doubt some of it (to the extent they are real) is normal “chest thumping” by Chinese nationalists. If that makes you feel more satisfied, so be that.

    But the more important issue is that regardless of whether China is so much ahead of India of not, the reality is that China as it currently is is not strong enough to unilaterally mandate how the disputes are resolved with straining its international relationships and hurting its effort at modernization. In twenty years, it’s anyone’s guess. But for now, no. Maybe Indian nationalists feel the same way, I don’t know.

    But for now, I think there is a window of opportunity for a negotiated peace where neither side feels force is the answer.

  202. Rhan Says:

    “why on earth would the Chinese be hot and bothered about Indians???”

    China and Chinese always hold great respect toward India in most field, not to mention India immense influence on China culture and core belief systems. However, most Chinese also know how India loves the role of so-called greatest democracy on this planet-Earth and boost this ego whenever opportunity arises. If Obama and Brown praise India of it democracy function in Asia to prevent dictatorship, then most Indian will hallucinate being big brother and start acting like one. And only a war would wake them up on how to behave as a brother. Does this help to answer the curiosity?

  203. pug_ster Says:

    @Steve 199

    Actually I think you are wrong about that. Intelligence agencies CIA, FSB, MI6, mossad etc’s job is to basically exploit and use people in other countries. These intelligence agencies could very well exploit some rogue general into doing their bidding. People do stupid things for all the stupid reasons. Look at the people like Robert Hansen who worked for the FBI who provided intelligence for the KGB. Heck some Indian or Chinese general can be bribed to start the war with the other side by some intelligence agency if they are smart enough.

  204. Steve Says:

    @ pug_ster #203: But all of those countries would have an interest in China and India NOT going to war, so why would they want to start one?

  205. sangos Says:

    @pug_ster – thats an interesting point. Honestly whoever that Indian/Chinese renegade wannabe is,has got to have a pair of nuclear-sized b**ls to pull off something like it, because the consequences will be catastrophic. So what are the chances of that happening?

    @ Rhan – well IMHO Indian democracy is a far cry from what US democracy is; it almost seems like a joke in comparison. I dont see how India showcases as an ideal state vis-a-vis China. Chinese governance is far better IMO, if not ideal. Historically India and China are both ancient parallel civilizations with the exchange both ways. Maybe India stands out because of Buddhism (the Buddha himself is a Nepali btw) and maybe Damo of Shaolin fame?

    @ Allen – thanks. Agreed its the border at the bottom of it all.

  206. buru Says:


    ..pl do not go overboard in your praise for dictatorships till you have lived there(same with criticism?) : )
    with the fall of the ex-communist blocs we know that the picture of contentment and happiness projected(often sucessfully)by them were mostly a farce–it was carefully cultivated and the rough patches were never shown.Democracies often look worse than they really are..because they are free to discuss(&broadcast) every last bit of their weaknesses to the whole world threadbare.(this is a general statement and not specific to any country)
    as an example, Sangos would have been declared a criminal, traced out and jailed if we were in a certain state(since we both are discussing issues which may be taken as anti-national : )

  207. pug_ster Says:


    Wouldn’t discussing of splitting up India to 20+ pieces into their respective races taken as anti-national?

  208. sangos Says:

    @ pug_ster – Nope. Its called right to freedom of speech in a democracy.

    @ Buru – agreed. I was only considering the positives of an authoritarian state like China 🙂

  209. pug_ster Says:

    @sangos 208

    Of course, any Indian politician would excerise this freedom of speech of spiltting up India would be considered as an career ending move.

    In China, anybody talking about splitting up Xinjiang won’t exactly mr popular either. And no it is not illegal, as long as you don’t form ‘separatist activies’ like East Turkistan group.

  210. sangos Says:

    @ pug_ster(above) – thats a good point. Here’s the deal- any Indian politician CAN talk extreme like ex. secession from India. But then once they come onboard the goverment, they have to abide by the Indian constitution and uphold the law. So obviously they CAN’T talk secessionist now :). Case in point would be the Mizo National Front and Mr Lal Denga. AFAIK in Tamil Nadu, there are politicians who openly talk separation.(Btw not talking about the militant Maoists)

    Btw good to know there is quite a bit SO much leverage in China. Why does one get the notion that any talk of secession in China is blasphemous and punished with the chopping block? Tibet!?

    And Happy Anniversary to the Chinese Nation!http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/asia_pacific/2009/where_will_china_be_in_60_years/default.stm

  211. buru Says:

    pugster #207&209
    Of course, any Indian politician would excerise this freedom of speech of spiltting up India would be considered as an career ending move.

    I think sangos has given an apt reply. Some Tamil Nadu politicians(eg Annadurai) reached their peak of popularity when they were espousing a separate nation!( as an interesting aside, it was the 1962 war with China that roused their patriotism and drop their call for separate nation).Even today fringe political groups do ask for independence.
    In India, esp for regional parties, your popularity is gained directly through your own capabilities.The centre cannot ‘end’ your career even if they wish to.

    In China, anybody talking about splitting up Xinjiang won’t exactly mr popular either. And no it is not illegal, as long as you don’t form ’separatist activies’ like East Turkistan group.

    well I will take that with a spadeful of salt.

  212. sangos Says:

    An interesting article on China from the Indian POV, post the impressive anniversary celebrations

    Think it gives a new twist to our wranglings 🙂 here on Tibet!

  213. TonyP4 Says:

    Indians and Chinese should make fun at each other but not make wars. Click the following and have a good laugh:


  214. sangos Says:

    Hey nice 🙂 what about something from the Chinese POV on indians too.

    Btw talking wars – India seems to be moving planes and men to the border in a low key manner of course. And also rushing to build roads and railways – good tidings for the border folks anyway!

  215. Rhan Says:

    The place I work now have 60% Indian because the environment is tough, and it seem only the Indian can tolerate such surrounding. One of my subordinates is a nice and beautiful young Indian lady. Murugan is a very good friend of mine during secondary school. The Indian is very proud of their culture and heritage. The only thing I don’t like is their attitude of not keeping their words and promise but overall, it is always fun to have them around especially party times.

    It would be very sad if there is a war between Chinese and Indian,again. Both had been suffering the very worst in the past few century under the west. Hope wisdom does lead them through.

  216. TonyP4 Says:


    You just recycle the same joke by changing the accents, reversing names… like change the Chinatown mall to an Indian mall.

  217. jklim Says:

    >> Indian air force vs PLAAF

    Indian hothead like to brag about “superior” IAF. You may look at details here to find answer yourself.



    The two forces are fairly even matched after the IAF (India air force) brought Sukhoi Su-30MKI which is suppose to be better than the Chinese Sukhoi Su-30MKK. However the latest report from China is that the indigenous built J-11 surpasses the Sukhoi Su-30MKK and maybe (not sure) the Sukhoi Su-30MKI. So we have to look at the numbers: (numbers below are debatable)

    (Forth-fifth Gen fighters)

    PLAAF (391)

    Su-27 (76)- In addition to license producing J-11s, China has purchased a number of fully-built Su-27s from Russia. By 2008, most of these aircraft has been upgraded to J-11A standard in terms of radar, avionics, and weapons.

    Su-30MKK (100)- In terms of air-to-air capability, the Su-30 are probably the weakest of the Flankers flying Chinese colors. The Su-30 was primarily ordered for its advanced ground attack capabilities. The far more advanced Su-30MKK2, with both enhanced A2A as well as anti-shipping capabilities, is in service with the Chinese navy.

    J-11 (95)- The first J-11s were license-produced copies of Russian Su-27SKs/UBKs that were imported from Russia. The first Chinese improvement to the basic J-11 was the J-11A, which featured an improved Russian radar, a Chinese Helmet-mounted-sight system, and some digitized, LCD displays. A new indigenous variant, classified the J-11B appeared in 2006. This variant featured an improved Chinese-designed radar, full air-to-ground and anti-shipping capability, improved missile-warning systems, much improved avionics, solid-state electronics, and a full-glass cockpit. A mixture of J-11A and J-11B avionic/radar upgrades have been since applied to nearly all J-11s and Su-27s in Chinese service. Other significant improvements to the Su-27 involves a more reliable Chinese-designed engine with a modest performance improvement over the Russian AL-31, use of composites which make up 70% of the weight of the aircraft, and minor redesigns that cumulate in a weight reduction of about 10% and radar-signature reduction of 88%.

    J-10 (120)- The J-10 is China’s only indigenous 4th-generation fighter. It is a much smaller fighter than the Flanker, and thus has less range, payload, and a less-powerful radar. However, it enjoys much greater maneuverability and reduced radar-cross section (of less than 1m squared, vs 3m squared of J-11B and 25m squared of baseline Flankers). The J-10 is also easier and cheaper to produce. Currently, the Chinese are working on a AESA radar for the J-10.

    IAF (212)

    Su-30MKI (110)- The Su-30MKI is one of the most advanced Flanker variants in current operation. It features a passive phased array radar, advanced FLIR and electro-optical capability, thrust-vectoring, and impressive low-speed maneuverability, thanks to the addition of canards. Hands-down, the Su-30MKI is superior to all Flankers short of the J-11B in PLAAF service. It is difficult to compare the MKI to the J-11B however, due to their relative advantages in different areas. The Su-30MKI is about 20% heavier, and features an engine with slightly less powerful dry(non-afterburning) thrust, thus giving it a slightly lower thrust-to-weight ratio. Furthermore, the Su-30MKI also has about 8 times the radar-cross section of the J-11B. In terms of radar, the Su-30MKI has a clear advantage, and the MKI still retains a slight advantage in avionics despite major improvements to China’s indigenous avionics industry. The MKI is also more maneuverable at subsonic speeds, though the J-11B has a superior climb-rate and better acceleration.

    Mig-29 (62)- The Mig-29 is a very capable fighter, and is a smaller complement to the Su-30MKI much like the J-10 is to the J-11. India has accumulated a variety of Mig-29 variants with a even larger variety of radars/avionics over the years, but they are all slated for upgrades and standardization in 2008. Both the Mig-29 and J-10 are claimed to be superior to the F-16 in terms of performance and maneuverability. It is possible for the Mig-29s to receive PESA radar, either with the currently ongoing upgrades or with a future upgrades package.

    Mirage-2000 (51)- The Mirage is a multi-role French fighter that excels at both the A2A and A2G roles. However, the Mirages are incompatible with the Russian missiles that the IAF uses. Currently, India is undergoing negotiations with France to upgrade the Mirages with more modern weapons. The Mirage is an older and somewhat less capable design when compared to the Flanker, Fulcrum, and J-10. “

  218. justkeeper Says:

    I don’t understand, what’s worth arguing here? There’s a extremely clear-cut answer to this question:If Indians were to cross the Himalaya Barrier, they’ll be absolutely defeated on the Chinese territory, and for Chinese, vice-versa. So a war over Tibet is militarily impossible, problem solved.

  219. sangos Says:

    @ justkeeper post above – Not quite so IMHO. Currently China has military dominance over India on Tibet/Border. That said, India is scrambling to accomplish credible enhancements in its military capabilities to match the Chinese. So the whole situation is a very dynamic one!

  220. jklim Says:


    Well, any good military expert would tell you that Indian’s Su-30MKI could not survive after 1 or 2 initial sorties. What is good for a bunch of Su-30MKI could not either take off from runway or not able to get refueled in the middle of air.

    If Indian military personnel are smart, they should prepare to fly their Su-30MKI to Pakistan, just like Iraqi did, instead of parking them near India-China border. 🙂

  221. sangos Says:

    @jklim (post above) – the Sukhois are the best planes Indians have. And aircraft are the best way to secure the Indian side of the border. Its treacherous mountains and valleys unlike the even Tibetan plateau on the Chinese side. For ex. if the Chinese want to sustain another 1962 style campaign, they would also need maximum logistical air support. I am also very interested in the forms of “hi-tech local warfare” that the smart PLA has developed. In a war zone like the Himalayas, hi-tech warfare is the key as opposed to testosterone driven ancient battle techniques.

    Far as Pakistan border where most of the terrain is plain desert and the mountaneous north is all locked up, its more traditional forms of military deployment. IMO because the Sukhois have low range, it makes sense to park them on the Chindia border, which the Indians are doing.

    For those interested here’s the brains behind PLA’s modernization. Would be interesting to see how these strategies roll out in Tibet in a hypothetical war scenario with India …http://www.terrorism.com/documents/TRC-Analysis/unrestricted.pdf

    Not surprisingly the Indians though very tech savvy people do not have a comparable military application of technology.

  222. jklim Says:

    #221 — you did not read what Iraqi did when US invaded Iraq. They sent their “best” aircrafts to Iran for protection. Certainly, Iran said to them “thank you for your generous gift” 🙂

  223. justkeeper Says:

    @sangos: Did you note that “vice-versa” in my comment? What I was saying is it’s impossible for both countries’ logistics to support their troops across the Himalaya Mountain, so an invasion across the mountain would be self-destruction for both PLA and Indian army. And that’s why the PLA withdrew after their successful surprised attack in 1962-they could not defend the territory they occupied during the war, to compare the equipments of the two troops when you’re talking about whether a war over Tibet is likely is just–irrelevant.

  224. sangos Says:

    @ justkeeper (post above) – Yes I did and I do not agree with it in pure military terms. China CAN cross over the Himalayas into India as we speak, rout the Indians AND hold on to occupied territory like say Arunachal Pradesh unlike 1962. The Chinese have that kind of logistical preparedness, if we are to believe the reports of PLA build-up in Tibet along the Chindia LAC. What is even more interesting is the kind of multi-pronged hi-tech warfare the PLA would probably employ in such a hypothetical war. In comparison, the Indians do have hi-tech Sukhoi fighter jets positioned all along the LAC is a more standalone type strike force along with a traditional army on the ground.

  225. pug_ster Says:


    The wars of today are much different than what’s of 1962. There will be less troops involved instead will involve air, artillery, satellite support rather than just sending troops to the other side. Here’s a recent article of newsweek’s article of India’s obsession toward China’s so called aggression.


    Yes there is alot of troop movement toward in China’s side, but mostly to police Lhasa from those Tibetan separatists. If China does want to fight a war with India, they would need planes, long range weapons, and other things that would require logistical support. Yet China doesn’t have military airbases near India and doesn’t have long range weapons pointed at India. Most of China’s long ranger missiles and military airbases are in the eastern side and their threat is Taiwan, the US, and Japan, and not India.

  226. sangos Says:

    @ pug_ster – Nice article with the real deal. And the Indians will not stop soon with their ‘national obsession’…enjoy 🙂

  227. jklim Says:

    The pending war between India and China over border dispute is almost inevitable, unless Indian government is willing to make a genuine concession on their border demarcation.

    It’s a day dream for Indian elites to draw US into this dispute. US defense industry may be more than willing to sell some advanced hardware to Indian, but its military are chest-deep in both Iraq and Afghanistan, plus a shaking economy lasting in next decade.

    China deployed its Secondary Artillery Force (strategic missile force) years ago in both Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) and surrounding area. The last report by US defense weekly mentioned China air force (PLAAF) now has over 600 fourth generation fighters.

    Qinghai-Tibet Railway is a strategic asset with strong air and ground defense. It will be almost impossible for India air force (IAF) to go so deep into China’s territory to disrupt it. Beside the railway, China has been beefing up air and road transportation network in recent years.

    India now needs a few more cool-heads to think this through: why it keeps provoking a giant neighbor with belligerent tone.


    “China has ordered an estimated 76 Su-30MKK Flanker-Gs and can produce an additional 250 under license, including at least 100 “knock-down kits.” It has also received at least 24 Su-30MK2 naval strike fighters. If China modernizes its 171 Su-27SK/UBs to the Su-27SKM standard and assembles another 105 Su-27SKMs under license, it will have roughly 626 multirole fighters available for air superiority missions. This would place China in the same league as the U.S., which has 522 F-15A/B/C/Ds, 217 F-15Es and a planned fleet of 187 F-22s.”


  228. buru Says:

    jklim sounds like a frustrated Pakistani desperately hoping for a war between India-China 🙂

    In an air-war India will have a slight advantage because of geographical & political factors : Its airbases are near sea level, with good connectivity and resources nearby .Its bombers will lift-off with full load, reach Tibet in a few minutes with escort, and easily identify and strike at the wide-open plateau with its dumps,troop concentrations,installations & bridges which cannot be camouflaged beyond a point.Also Indian pilots shot down in Tibet has a good chance of being saved by separatists.
    OTOH PLAAF will have to lift off with a reduced load, and being undulating & densely forested, the Indian side has better hidden targets.It may have more fighters but they cannot be brought to bear on IAF at the same time cos’ the Tibetan plateau cannot host them all.

  229. pug_ster Says:

    Buru, maybe India have the so called ‘advantage’ because they are ready to go to war with china, not the other way around.

  230. jklim Says:

    #228 — that is kind of typical unsophisticated day-dreaming by ‘smoking’ Indians 🙂

    China has one of the most sophisticated ground defense system in the world (you have seen yourself in the recent parade). Remember even recon flights over China by US and Taiwan.were dangerous back in 50s’ and 60s’.

    Indian’s airbase installations and planes are sitting ducks once a war is broken out. Like good experts would like to tell you, those planes can’t survive 1 or 2 sorties. The only way IAF can counter is to bring in planes from India’s other remote bases, then those bases will be subject to destruction, that’s because India sits on a piece of land lacking strategic depth. Indian’s recent deployment at these bases only served one purpose — a provocation towards China and pushing China towards taking actions earlier.

    Your counting on “Tibet separatists” to save downed Indian personnel? LoL. Take a tour in Tibet for yourself and see how many you can count 🙂

  231. Steve Says:

    C’mon people, discuss without the name calling. None of you are “elites”, no one is “smoking” and none of us are military experts.

    In reality, no one knows what would happen if a war broke out between the two sides. Both are well armed but neither has fought a war in decades. What happened in 1962 is irrelevant to today’s world. Coordination and logistics tend not to work so well in actual conflicts as they do in war games. China has a bigger military; India has shorter supply lines. Nothing good can come out of a conflict between the two sides. It won’t be a walkover for either country. If you choose to speculate, admit you are speculating rather than act like you know what will actually happen because none of us, including the military leaders of both countries, can say they know for sure.

  232. buru Says:

    #230 jklim,

    alright, you kindly stick to your ‘good experts’ to tell you, then 🙂
    separatists dont have to carry a gun,or a banner proclaiming one–one single call by DL in the event of hostilities to assist India will go a long way in saving downed pilots.

    #229: I have no idea what you are trying to say.I just have a hunch it is rhetoric?

  233. jklim Says:

    “Analysing reasons behind 1962 war with China necessary: Natwar

    Former External Affairs Minister K Natwar Singh on Tuesday regretted that India has not yet comprehensively analysed the reasons behind the 1962 war with China, saying such an exercise was “really necessary.”

    Speaking at a discussion on his recent book ‘My China Years — 1956-88, he touched upon various phases of Sino-India relationship in the last 60 years and felt things would have been different had Rajiv Gandhi won the 1989 elections.

    “Why 1962 happened. No serious analysis of it took place on our side,” Singh said indirectly criticising Government’s secretive policy in revealing details of the war.

    About the war with China, he said “Mao-tse Tung decided to teach India a lesson after they felt that we were encroaching on their land.”

    India missed an opportunity to resolve the issues with China in 1960 as the country “did not understand the power game”, the former minister said, without elaborating on his observation.

    On the border dispute, he said Tawang did not figure in the map of India in 1953.”


  234. jshen Says:

    “Hegemonic mentality is harmful to India

    India is a big country, no one can deny that. But the Indians always seem to fear that other people overlooked this point. In recent years, India’s nationalist sentiments grow with its economic strength correspondingly…

    Tracing the source, India’s hegemonic mentality is truly a “colonial legacy.” During British India period, its boundaries were broad, including the present India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Nepal and other countries and regions. After the British withdrawal from the subcontinent, India take for granted that it can inherit this legacy. As a result, a victim of a past hegemony began to start their hegemony dreams. Constrained by such thinking, during Sino-Indian border talks, India insists not to respond to the Chinese side’s concessions. It also holds a strong bully mentality towards Pakistan and other neighboring countries .

    Many Indians remember their founding Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru said: “India can not play a second-class role in the world, either being a large country of attention, or disappeared.”

    India’s pursuit of “big power dream” is nothing wrong, but Indians’ big power dream overall is far too impatient and impetuous, and also from time to time mixed with hegemonic thinking. Such attitude only caused repeated ridicules embarrassment to India in the world. Hegemony thinking is harmful to India itself as well as others.

    Throughout of India’s history, India was often ruled by outsiders, Such lack of “self-governance” experience dictates a need by India to learn how to be an independent power during India’s emergence. India also needs put more thinking to solve its extremely complex internal ethnic and religious integration. Don’t just keep get terrorist attacks that lead to social disharmony. As its economy developed, put more thinking to solve national poverty among a large number of its population.

    Regrettably, after India’s independence, its foreign policy has adhered to the so-called “seeking ally with world powers and attacking neighbors” doctrine. It had several wars and outstanding grudges with two big neighbors China and Pakistan. If India wants to be a world power, this strategy is in no doubt short-sighted and immature. India’s own development will suffer if it keeps making hostile neighbors. Because of such reason, India has “not been able to play a constructive role in the world, considering its size and population.”

    Today, we face a completely new world. In order for India to become a “great power of attention”, India has to start from its surroundings, and shouldn’t allow itself to show even a little reckless and arrogant. Improving relations with China, Pakistan and other neighboring countries is a required step for India’s road to a world power. At present, China actively promotes a negotiated peaceful settlement of the Sino-Indian border dispute, India should respond positively and use this as an opportunity to improve its relations with the surrounding countries. We look forward to India in this regard to show the world it can think deeper and look further.”


  235. sangos Says:

    Hey guys looks like this whole Tibet Chindia tussle is kicking alive with surprises. Here’s one http://www.chinapost.com.tw/asia/india/2009/10/14/228567/China-slams.htm
    Whaddaya folks think?

  236. pug_ster Says:

    @Sangos 235

    This article is from a Taiwan website and it is a rehashed version of reuters article. So no surprises there.

  237. sangos Says:

    @ pug_ster post # 236 – So what you are saying is that this is false news. Btw heres the actual Reuters article, but rather its India warning China…confused!@#$

  238. jshen Says:


    A comparison of South Tibet/Arunachal Pradesh region with Taiwan by this NEWSWEEK author is fundamentally flawed. South Tibet was currently occupied by India due to past colonial history. In that regard, it is more appropriated to compare it with the past situation of HongKong.

  239. jshen Says:


    “Mohan Guruswamy, chairman of the Centre for Policy Alternatives and a leading analyst of Sino-India relations, said he believed Beijing was motivated by regional rivalry and fear that India’s growth will overtake China’s by 2035. “China is rattled by the emergence of India as a global economic player and a regional military power. So it is trying to raise the ante by saying ‘we can cause problems for you'” ”

    Sounds like this Indian gentleman is having “a joy walk on the clouds”. Someone needs to send him this recent commentary from Xinhua News.

  240. sangos Says:

    @ jshen post 239 – “…walk in the clouds” Lol, must credit you Chinese for adding all the color to the discussion (much like Wuxia movies -just love those). You will have to understand that Indians are argumentative by nature 🙂 as opposed to the actionable Chinese. No wonder India has picked up Pok out of the blue now to argue with China as a counter to the Arunachal Pradesh gauntlet.

    In all fairness these type of rhetoric emanates from the Chinese side as well. So maybe we can just dismiss these type of ‘analyst expert talk’ with nothing ‘analytical or expert’ about them. IMO you guys in this forum have made much ‘more expert’ relevant points to this whole complex Chindia business (minus all the colorful language to our admin Steve’s annoyance!). I have got more insight here than reading all the ‘trash’ elsewhere. And I thank you guys for it!

  241. jshen Says:

    #240 — some interesting but vague comment. It’s well known that Chinese don’t like to be too argumentative, but decisiveness and thoughtfulness, show strength when it is necessary.

    BTW: I heard “Steve” is just a retired part-time worker on this site, not this site’s admin 🙂

  242. buru Says:


    took much chestbeating also seem to be a Chinese disease, if Fools Mountain is any indication 🙂

  243. buru Says:

    #238 jshen:
    how can HongKong be compared to South Tibet??? The Han/Qing never physically set foot on this area in recorded history, not to talk about ruling it.It was not even paying the remotest allegiance or tribute to the Han.Prove me wrong.

  244. buru Says:

    # 238 jshen: “South Tibet was currently occupied by India due to past colonial history”

    TRUE. and….’North’ Tibet is currently occupied by China due to past colonial history 🙂

    fight between pot & kettle :))

  245. jovian Says:


    What can we say about a discussion like this one?!

    Do you guys need so many articles to proof your points? How about this, lets approach this question of Chinese vs Indian in a scientific manner, and see if it is possible to come out with a close approximation of an answer to the question of a possible war between China and India.

    Now, my theory is that there will be no war since it is not possible for both side to win and the reason being that the place is too difficult fight a war on. SO! In order to simulate the scenario, I’ll need volunteers; you are all included since everyone here is so passionate on this topic! Great isn’t it!

    Let’s start with the simulated location. Since the potential war zone is cold, we’ll need an ice machine; spread a thick layer of ice on one of yours backyard to simulate the terrain, making sure it is sloped! Next, since we all live in peaceful countries, I propose for weapons, we should simulate using just sticks and stones; can’t really get missles can we?

    NOW, (pretent) Indian on the lower slope and (pretend) Chinese on the higher slope and go for it; ie, you guys can start beating each other silly any time! By the end of the day, please post result here for discussions. I can safely predict that you guys will have given up before the beginning of the experiment, and that will conclusively prove that there will not be a war! THUS, if we can carry out the above mentioned simulation, we can proof CONCLUSIVELY that there will be NO war between China and India!

    Ps. War is never fun, if you guys have such strong opinion about war, you should participate in one instead of just talking. I bet the people dying up on a cold inhospitable mountain will never feel silly; they are certainly not standing on a slopped layer of ice in someone’s backyard, and beating each other silly.


  246. sangos Says:

    @ jovian – # 245 – LMAO mate! Thanks for lightening matters up here. I would agree that fighting a war on the Himalayas is no fun matter. (I have been to those mountains and know first hand what its like spending a few nights there; without fighting too :))

    That said, it is no secret that both India and China are escalating the whole border issue both on ground and on media. The whole situation is baffling, because China actually have(or had) the USA in its target zone and Taiwan and maybe Japan. But now its sights seem to be on India for some reason. It might be the Xinjiang and Tibet issues at the core of it…maybe not too sure. India also has swung from Pakistan to engaging China. Its almost looks like a staged show, this whole heating up of the Chindia border issue and sudden escalaltion.

  247. jklim Says:


    Why Indians still don’t get it. You may do an experiment yourself by throwing a rock from 5000 ft, before asking others to help you figure out 🙂

    People of high ground always have a strategic edge over Indians on the lower ground. Normal army artillery can strike further than expensive missiles. Now time is not like 1940s or 1960s. A high-tech army like PLA can fight in all weather condition. It is Indians who could not afford to fight, yet keep beating chest.

    Any clear-eyed people can see this: war or no war is India’s choice, diplomatic talk first, time is limited and China is ready.

  248. jklim Says:

    BTW: “China is ready” is not real, Indians should be serious about this

    Check out for yourselves many recent high-level activities by China’s army and political leadership and recent field army war games with live fire.

    China has signed a missile launch notification with Russia, placement preparation work for injured army personnel placement, a redundant line of Qinghai-Tibet railway is almost ready …

  249. jklim Says:

    BTW: “China is ready” is not real clear to Indians, Indians should be serious about this

  250. sangos Says:

    @ jklim post 249 – Hey dude why is China suddenly so ready, as per you? What happened?

  251. jklim Says:


    It’s because Indians like to do what they like to do the best: obsession about their inherited “colonial glory”, bullying weak neighbors, play dogs to world ‘super’ powers 🙂

    Chinese are all serious about their territory claim, yet trying to be reasonable to create a win-win situation.

  252. sangos Says:

    @ jklim post 251 – Am trying to understand your post below, just correct me:

    “Chinese are all serious about their territory claim…..”

    Yeah we know China is the new military superpower in Asia definitely: so now it is all ready to repeat 1962 in South Tibet. Of course this time there will be no withdrawal once the territory is occupied right?

    “obsession about their inherited “colonial glory”….South Tibet was annexed by the British to its Indian empire and then taken over by the Indians after independence

    “bullying weak neighbors”….India plays bully to Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma(maybe)

    “play dogs to world ’super’ powers “….challenging China.

    Are there any more reasons?

  253. jklim Says:


    “challenging China” ? Not many people outside India would think China see India’s rise as a threat. That is why relation between the two nations are still being developed even there are tough thorny historic issues, such as 14th DL exile government in India and territorial dispute.

  254. sangos Says:

    It is unfortunate that two ancient civilizations should have contentious issues, when they are poised to rise to the top of the world. All the hard work of generations of Indians and Chinese can go up in smoke at the flick of an eye in a war. We are talking about 2 nuclear armed nations and this is grim.

    As far as I can understand this is what each party needs to do so that they can walk away from the border in peace.

    1) Hand over Arunachal Pradesh to China or at least Tawang, whichever is acceptable.
    2) Deport the DL and all Tibetans out of India

    1) Stop all activities in Pakistan occupied kashmir
    2) any thing else?….

  255. jklim Says:

    It’s wrong-headed thinking by “youthful” Indians to pop up its nuclear threat. India’s nuclear arsenal and long range missile capability still decades behind China.

  256. jklim Says:

    US ambassador to India recently told India press that border dispute between India and China is “a bilateral issue”, and he expects it to be resolved through peaceful negotiation.

    That comes as an embarrassment to some India’s military people, who declared recently that next war between India and China will be a “world war”. LoL.

    India would destruct itself before it could strike another nation.

  257. sangos Says:

    @jklim – IMHO it would be foolish to underestimate the nuclear capabilities of both India and China. In the event of a war the nuclear threat looms heavily in the horizon. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/KA16Ad01.html

    As you mention “world war”, thats an ominous statement. One can understand how other superpowers may be sucked into any future conflict between India and China.

    So it would be in the best interest of both India, China and the world for both of these countries to keep their belligerence in check and avoid a war at any cost.

  258. jklim Says:


    If that is the true choice of India’s political and military leadership, the future of India is so doomed.

    Indians should look at what kind of nuke capability it current has in hand. Indian’s hotheaded ‘school children’ need to take a good lesson on this subject, before a shameful chest beating.


    “However, there is some controversy about these claims. Based on seismic data, U.S. government sources and independent experts estimated the yield of the so-called thermonuclear test in the range of 12-25 kilotons, as opposed to the 43-60 kiloton yield claimed by India. This lower yield raised skepticism about India’s claims to have detonated a thermonuclear device.

    Observers initially suggested that the test could have been a boosted fission device, rather than a true multi-stage thermonuclear device. By late 1998 analysts at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory had concluded that the India had attempted to detonate a thermonuclear device, but that the second stage of the two-stage bomb failed to ignite as planned.”

    Even a 20 KT war head is NOT that a big threat, let alone missile could not reach its target given its bad accuracy and many other factors.

    In summary, India does not possess a guaranteed mutual deterrence capability.

  259. jklim Says:

    BTW: under normal condition of a war between India and China, India’s long range missiles could not even get launched or leaving Earth’s atmosphere, let alone hit any target. India would ‘score’ against its own ‘goal’ or swallow its own bullets 🙂

  260. Otto Kerner Says:

    “Even a 20 KT war head is NOT that a big threat”

    This is very dangerous thinking. Any nuclear weapon is a big threat to a lot of people. The ones that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very small by current standards, but still caused devastation.

  261. jklim Says:


    That notion was made purely from a technical perspective. ’cause Indians, in their seemingly desperation, like to escalate their nuke rhetoric to civilization-level destruction. That is really too-far fetch given India’s current capability in any expert’s eye. US bombed two Japanese cities with two separate fission devices with yield about 10-20 KT range. It took two sorties of aerial bombing in city centers to wipe out two small cities, resulting hundreds and thousands casualty at the time, but people can look at Japan today.

    China had tested >3 MT thermonuclear devices in 60s, and neutron devices in 80s. Indians should take a note at their capabilities before even mentioning the word of “nuke”, which has been too often appear among average Indian and some of its politicians and military people. These people are walking on a dangerous path. China, with a strong nuke capability, would take every of their threat seriously, would result in a very firm action. Such threat could provoke even stronger reaction from US and Russia. I suggest these people read the document from ICJ on the legality of nuke threat: that only “a threatened retaliatory strike was consistent with military necessity and proportionality, it would not necessarily be illegal”


    In reality, any strong radioactive material is dangerous to human population, even dirty bombs.

  262. sangos Says:

    + 1 – #260

    # 261 – IMHO its futile to even talk about nuclear wars. Both India and China have deadly arsenals that can wipe out civilization.

  263. jklim Says:


  264. sangos Says:


  265. Otto Kerner Says:

    @jklim #261,

    Sorry, I didn’t understand your answer very clearly. You’re admitting that you were wrong when you said, “Even a 20 KT war head is NOT that a big threat”?

  266. buru Says:

    otto #265: Is that your sublime sarcasm 🙂 🙂

    ..theres no point trying to wake up those pretending to sleep 🙂

  267. Steve Says:

    @ jklim & sangos: No need to use profanity and sangos, lot’s of *** doesn’t make it right.

  268. sangos Says:

    @ Steve – Apologies to the forum for any offence caused.

  269. Steve Says:

    @ sangos: No problem; I believe yours was more of a reaction to what jklim wrote. I don’t mind if reasonable people disagree, I just want to keep the discussion civil and get away from the name calling and blatant speculation that’s been occurring lately. I doubt either the Chinese or Indian governments are as eager to start a war as some of our bloggers, and also doubt that such a war would bring the desired result for either country. Wars are messy things that don’t always go according to plan.

    Whenever I delete or collapse, I always include an explanation why I did so. That way no one wonders who did it or why it happened.

  270. jklim Says:

    The thing some Indians don’t understand is that China’s nuke capability is enough to wipe out entire India several times over, while India could only threat some small cities.

    Indian now has tuned down its previously heated rhetoric and displayed a strong desire to seek a negotiated solution at PM level. There is also a scheduled China-India-Russia three-way meeting. That is a good sign. Let’s see if Russian is capable of brokering something.

    Still, Indians need to understand they could not ignore China’s territorial claim while pretending to ‘possesses’ it as ‘a truth’.

  271. buru Says:

    jklim #270

    the thing some Indians don’t understand is that China’s nuke capability is enough to wipe out entire India several times over, while India could only threat some small cities.

    ..I am sure Indians who hold the trigger know that very well.But whats your point in repeating that point ad verbatim??

    Did possession of enough nukes by USA to wipe out China (vs zero Chinese nukes), or posession of enough nukes by USSR to vaporise China(vs a few dozen Chinese nukes) prevent China from fighting them on in your conflicts of 1950s and 1960s??!

    Still, Indians need to understand they could not ignore China’s territorial claim while pretending to ‘possesses’ it as ‘a truth’.
    ..I suggest, at the very least China give up Xinjiang to Uighurs before lecturing others(my personal feeling is that Xinjiang has a much higher justification for independence than Tibet; but unfortunately Westerners are enamored of Buddhism/Tibet/DL & converse holds true for Muslims)..

  272. sangos Says:

    Two more issues reported in the Indian press.

    1. China “unofficially” recognizes Kashmir as a separate country.
    2. China is “unofficially” damming the Tsangpo/Brahmaputra river.

    Are these again media cooked up theories/stories?

  273. Steve Says:

    @ jshen #241: Sorry, I’m not retired (wish I were), we’re all part time workers on this site and yes, I’m not the admin but one of the editors. Not sure where you’re getting your information but you might want to try another source for future reference or just ask me next time. 😀

  274. Steve Says:

    @ sangos #272: I also saw that story about the possible dam on the Tsangpo/Brahmaputra river, but I could only find references in Indian media sources or non-credible ones so I’m not sure how valid it is. I was waiting for it to appear in one of the larger media outlets and hopefully with some decent substantiation.

    The first point doesn’t make much sense to me. If you “unofficially” recognize a country, then you didn’t recognize it. The act of official recognition is the only thing that would have any validity as a government act, so that one sounds bogus to me.

  275. buru Says:

    steve#274 : The Indian media has turned democratic freedom on its head–almost all of them indulge in yellow journalism to get an audience.My personal feeling is that PRC will some day make a dam just beyond the great bend of Tsangpo to take advantage of the mindboggling gradient & also to irrigate the parched Tibetan plateau.

    The Indian media monkey dance is based on presumption that the dam will direct the Tsangpo into some mainland Chinese river, like Yangtze– an impossible or useless feat if you ask me. Having lived in the Brahmaputra basin my points are:
    1.If PRC builds a hydroelectric dam India has no right to even whimper–its after all building 3 dams on the same river just downstream, right now!

    2.If its a river diversion dam International conventions do come into effect & PRC has to take India & Bangladeshi concerns into account.Personally I feel it would be an advantage rather than disadvantage to both India & Bangladesh!
    Because every year the Brahmaputra & tributaries cause tremendous damage through floods in both downriver countries.A lower water level would also release a tremendous amount of fertile land in its banks for cultivation.The only losers would be the riverine swamps & its wildlife.I guess even if the Tsangpo is completely diverted the Brahmaputra would still flow at 50-60% capacity in Assam & beyond–so massive are its tributaries.

  276. Otto Kerner Says:

    @buru #275 and steve #274,

    I agree that this “recognising Kashmir” story sounds totally hyped-up. It’s probably just an awkwardly-drawn map trying to sidestep the dispute between India and Pakistan.

    Independence for Kashmir doesn’t sound like a terrible idea, but, on the other hand, I don’t see how it solves the issues. I think the Indian position is that most people in Kashmir want to be part of India, but a large minority hates that idea and is disproportionately vociferous and violent. The fear would be that an independent Kashmir would be dominated by that vociferous minority, which might even become a majority if others fled the country. India would prefer not to have all of Kashmir linked in an alliance to Pakistan. A more reasonable solution would be some sort of partition, perhaps with a larger chunk of mostly-Muslims areas going to Pakistan than under the current line of actual control.

    Ladakh, in any event, should remain part of India.

  277. Otto Kerner Says:

    @buru #266,

    Ha! That should become the new official motto of Fool’s Mountain.

  278. sangos Says:

    +1 Buru # 275 – Agree totally with your analysis. What rather baffles me is why India (Assam’s Chief Minister) is so terrified with the prospect of Chinese damming of the Brahmaputra and Bangladesh too is going overboard. http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/123710

  279. sangos Says:

    Answer galore http://www.thehindu.com/2009/10/21/stories/2009102155830900.htm

  280. buru Says:

    Indian infrastructure frozen in 1962 level!

  281. sangos Says:

    @Buru – Good for you people! Looks like the Chinese are forcing India now to get to speed with basic infrastructure in the border areas!!!

  282. buru Says:


  283. Steve Says:

    @ buru: Please re-write your comment, but this time without the obscenities. Code of conduct rules are here.


  284. Steve Says:

    @ Buru: “Hogwash” isn’t a profanity. Being used in a political context is irrelevant to whether something is a profanity or not. I think you know what is and is not acceptable. All profanity does is indicate the lack of a better description. You’re a smart person, I’m sure you can come up with a more descriptive sentence. 🙂

  285. buru Says:

    steve, I am remimded of my Kindergarten m’am now LOL 🙂

  286. sangos Says:

    @Buru – yeah I got the same “body language feel” whenever I was in Arunachal (and this is like 10 years ago). I get that feeling whenever I step into the Northeast Btw :). Indians seem out of their element there and its their own doing neglecting these areas leading to their alienation. Sort of funny now that China with its blitzkrieg development of Tibet has finally arrived at the border to kick the Indians out of their short-sighted stupor(They thought the Chinese were busy building maglevs in Shanghai :). I am sure the Indians will now do their best to scramble and keep up(like the commonwealth games in Delhi). In a way its good for the Northeast – this huge pressure of the looming Chinese threat! I only hope there is no escalation into a war scenario.

  287. buru Says:


    I just hope it gets settled one way or other– either a permanent treaty with PRC(which will open the international borders), or a decisive war if it comes to that (either India or China should keep us for good);so that our fate doesnt hang in the balance this way.
    The worst for AP/NE would be a short inconclusive war.

  288. sangos Says:

    @ Buru post # 287: Wow man your easy come easy go speak is going to scare the hell out of the Indians. But I guess its high time that things shake up in the Northeast. I always believed that area has lot of potential and its a shame that its been India’s backyard (It was the most prosperous pre 1947 and most poor on date vis-a-vis rest of India. Might have been light years better off as a Brit crown colony Hongkong style. Remember Robert Reid’s proposals..). Its been over 60 years since world war 2, when the Japanese were taking over and its been quite a lulled spell; you knbow what I mean … 🙂

  289. buru Says:

    #288, realpolitik dictates that when the two elephants are fighting the grass should not choose sides– because it will get trampled anyway, and should it put its money on the eventual loser worse will come.So I am just playing it safe.Should AP/NE go Chinas way would it be worse than being with India? That is the million dollar question. On the one hand the racial & regional insults will prob come down plus speedy development of infrastructure is to be expected, but, a big BUT–democratic freedom will be curtailed to a great measure, and Aryan hegemony replaced by Hans. Not much of a choice is there?

    Perhaps the saying :’ Better a known devil(India) than an unknown evil(China)’ best sums up my thinking.

  290. sangos Says:

    @ buru post # 289 – Nice comments and insight! Strangely it feels more comfortable discussing local issues here than an Indian site (blame it on the unknown ‘evil’ I guess :))

    I would blindly go for development cause thats what badly needed. And most importantly opening up of the huge international borders with China, Burma and maybe Bangladesh – that would be the key!

  291. Steve Says:

    I think if China controlled AP, several developments would take place:
    1) China would immediately create infrastructure improvements. Roads from Tibet would be built, the train line would be extended, internal provincial infrastructure projects would be started on a massive basis.
    2) Large numbers of Han Chinese would move to AP, setting up shop in the cities and soon controlling most of the business there.
    3) The province would be run by a party leader appointed by the Chinese central government. This official would also be Han Chinese.
    4) Schooling would be taught in Mandarin Chinese and this would also become the language of government.

    I’m sure the people would appreciate #1, not so sure how much they’d go for the other three. I’m pretty confident in all of those because that’s been the pattern in the rest of Tibet and also in Xinjiang. Currently under India per your comments, it seems AP is suffering under benign neglect.

  292. Otto Kerner Says:


    If what you’ve said in the past is accurate, that people in AP’s Tawang area tend to prefer (in order of preference) 1) independent Tawang; 2) independent Tibet; 3) India; 4) China least of all; and people in the rest of AP don’t really have a strong preference at all between China and India, then a fair compromise might be for India to keep Tawang (assuming there’s no independent Tibet or Tawang any time soon) while China gets the rest of Arunachal Pradesh. This might just be the opposite of what China wants, though: they seem interested in the Tawang area and the Monpas in order to shore up their hegemony over Tibet, and I’m not aware that they have paid much attention to the various peoples of eastern/central AP at all. I’m sure they would build some roads and other infrastructure to welcome their new brothers and sisters who actually turn to have been members of the big Chinese family since time immemorial, but it may fall short of the spending spree we’ve seen in Tibet.

  293. buru Says:


    Steve, very astute observations there, much like my own.To answer ur points

    2) Large numbers of Han Chinese would move to AP, setting up shop in the cities and soon controlling most of the business there
    large numbers of Indians have moved to AP, setting up shop & controls almost all business. BUT..they cannot set up shop permanently by law, and leases their business from locals; Under PRC I think they Hans can buy up land& settle permanently.
    3) The province would be run by a party leader appointed by the Chinese central government. This official would also be Han Chinese.
    In AP the party is technically speaking self-elected; But practically the Centre often plays the kingmaker– eg presentChief Minister of AP Dorjee Khandu, who was an obscure man, was selected by the centre because i) He is from Tawang area( symbolic/anti-china act) & he was a former Army Intelligence man.Conversely the grapevine says that former Chief Minister Gegong Apang was ousted bcos’ of his pro-China leanings( CCP sleuths monitoring this site can weigh-in if the grapevine is correct 🙂
    At the same time, the centre has appointed as the Governor( who can dismiss the CM at his pleasure) the former Chief of Indian Army. So u get the drift..
    4) Schooling would be taught in Mandarin Chinese and this would also become the language of government.

    schooling in AP is in English, and Hindi is the 2nd language. Hindi has nearly killed-off many native tongues, none of which are taught in school.I hv no idea if ethnic lingos are encouraged in Tibet/Xinjiang/Mong/Yunnan?

    To conclude, its a Hobsons choice out there…so i will choose benign neglect over an unknown future

  294. buru Says:


    I suspect the Chinese are just using the AP issue as a cover for legitimizing Aksai Chin, with pre-emption of Tibetan separatist activity within India as a bonus. In other words, they dont seem to have a real interest in AP–this is absolutely fine, but not the scapegoating part; this is a very sick politics to play, for the people of AP has to bear the consequences of this power play. But then again, am I expecting too much for the regime who propped-up the Khmer Rouge & Tatmadaw without batting an eyelid?

  295. sangos Says:

    @ Buru # 294 – Thats a fair point. And I was wondering why the Chinese are suddenly so excited over AP over the last few years. And IMO its the good old ‘Chinese business acumen’ that might be at the root of it all. Take note of how the Chinese are pushing hard with their projects westward – PoK, Xinjiang, Tibet and AP. Its all about opening up land routes for huge ever growing Chinese commerce traffic, which now takes the circuitous(and pirate ridden) sea route via the Malacca straits. So Pakistan is the obliging unpredictable ally always sitting on a powder keg. The only stable option seems to be China’s competitor India with whom it has an uneasy relationship.

    What can be more frustrating than to have thousands of miles of borders with a country and just a trickle of trade going through it. Doesn’t it strike you as an odd situation for two countries which have billions of dollars of bilateral trade? This might be a deep Indian ploy to make the economics expensive and difficult for the Chinese. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/No-time-frame-for-settling-border-row-with-China-says-S-M-Krishna/articleshow/5175127.cms. And what we are seeing is just China forcing to snap through the Indian fortress.

  296. linho Says:


    How do you know, steve? People have seen so many self-claimed China experts, both non-Chinese and Chinese related, like Gordon Chang, failed so miserably and become the butt of joke.

    Did you see China put up any infrastructure project after HongKong returned.

  297. Allen Says:

    @linho #296,

    I agree. Chalk it up as gossiping that many of us engage here…

  298. sangos Says:

    # 296 & 297 – Disagree. I re-read post #291 and it makes perfect sense. South Tibet is alittle better off than in the stone ages infrastructurally(Hongkong? you gotta be kidding), and the only way the PLA can get around otherwise on the ground is through …..Teleportation!

  299. Steve Says:

    @ linho #296: How do I know what? You never defined your question. How do I know what will happen if China took over AP? No one knows what will definitely happen unless it does. That’s why I said “I think if”. If you read buru #289, I was replying to his hypothetical situation. My personal view is that China and India are unwilling to go to war with each other.

    So I’ll assume you’re asking why I think that. Hmm… maybe because China considers AP a part of Tibet so I think it’s a reasonable assumption that they’d incorporate the same policies there as they’ve incorporated in Tibet. Why would you think otherwise?

    I have never claimed to be a China expert. Why do you bring up Gordon Chang? I read one of his books and didn’t think much of it. What does Gordon Chang have to do with a potential Chinese rule in AP? What does Hong Kong have to do with AP? Hong Kong has more infrastructure than any city in China. What infrastructure are you saying is missing in Hong Kong? Do you feel China is shortchanging Hong Kong?

    Your entire post didn’t make much sense. You never said anything about AP, never used any specifics concerning my post, never said what you disagreed or agreed with; in fact, you said very little. It came off as a criticism but just in a very general way.

    @ Allen #297: Are you saying I engaged in gossiping? In what way did I do so? It also seems like you are criticizing my post but again you offer no actual criticism and no specifics. Remember, buru commented on a hypothetical situation. Being that it’s hypothetical, everything said about it can only be conjecture. However, conjecture is not gossip. You might want to look up the word.

  300. Allen Says:


    Re-read your comments (start with #291). Think.

    In the mean time, I suppose I need to find a dictionary … and re-learn the English language.

    Anyone here care to suggest a book for me?

  301. Steve Says:

    @ Allen: Gee Allen, thanks for being so specific and answering my questions thoroughly. You wake up on the wrong side of the bed today?

  302. linho Says:

    #299 Steve — I suppose you understand what “one-country-two-systems” means !

  303. Allen Says:

    @Steve #301,

    Ok – perhaps I did wake up on the wrong side of the bed.

    I saw your comment in #291 as idle talk … the speculation and sharing of (unproven) facts and views. Of course, you can also characterize a lot of what we do on this blog as just that too … something which I would probably agree – as I mentioned in #297.

    None of us know what officials the Chinese gov’t or the Indian gov’t (for that matter) are thinking … doing. Few of have been to the disputed territory. What we are doing here is wanton speculation … “gossiping.”

    In any case, the real reason I personally don’t like #291 is that it seems to be very simple minded – to such an extent it seems more propaganda against China than anything else. Let’s look at points 2-4.

    2) Large numbers of Han Chinese would move to AP, setting up shop in the cities and soon controlling most of the business there.

    Is that right? Do you think that’s what happened in Tibet – Han Chinese moving in and taking over everything? When I was Lhasa, I lived in old Lhasa – or the Tibetan section of the town. It’s populated mostly by Tibetans because it was the original Lhasa. Immigrants from other parts of China did not take over old Lhasa. They settled outside of the old city – building up what one might call new Lhasa. Han Chinese business activities has definitely outpaced ethnic Tibetans, but that’s not the result of them controlling things and taking things over. The hotel I lived in was owned by an ethnic Tibetan from Amdo. The restaurants I went to were all owned by ethnic Tibetans.

    Most of the TAR is still populated by ethnic Tibetan communities. I saw a small part of the countryside; and the local communities are strong. The demographics – outside of Lhasa – has stayed pretty much the same over the last decade. That will not change anytime soon.

    Did you know that the population density in South Tibet / Arunachal Pradesh (over 13 people per square km) is almost 7 times more than TAR (about 2 people per square km)? If the demographics in Tibet (outside of Lhasa) has stayed stable over the last two decades, it will be even more difficult to change the demographics in South Tibet / Arunachal Pradesh.

    3) The province would be run by a party leader appointed by the Chinese central government. This official would also be Han Chinese.

    I don’t know what you are trying to say. South Tibet / Arunachal Pradesh is not a province … it’s considered part of the Tibet historically, culturally, politically.

    If I have to make an educated guess, I would say the leader of South Tibet / Arunachal Pradesh under Chinese control will be ethnic Tibetan.

    When I was in Lhasa – I learned that almost all the local leaders were ethnic Tibetans – including “mayor” of Lhasa, Xigatse, Gyantse, etc. I know the local leader of the area we hiked in was ethnic Tibetan. He was elected by the local people there.

    4) Schooling would be taught in Mandarin Chinese and this would also become the language of government.

    Most schools in the countryside in TAR are taught in ethnic Tibetans. Mandarin Chinese are required only from what we call high school onward.

    Just so people can get some perspectives about language here: the guide I spent a week with in Tibet got his education in India with the Dalai Lama. Tibetan was required subject in the education there (as expected). But so was English. The main reason was because all “modern” subjects – math, science, world history, geography, etc. – were all taught in English. (Mandarin Chinese is not taught by the exile gov’t). At least in TAR, these subjects are taught in Tibetan.

    Some people may see the fact that Chinese is taught at all to be some sort of cultural genocide. But I counter that this shouldn’t be. Tibetan culture can thrive even if ethnic Tibetans learn Mandarin Chinese. (This is something that even the DL has come to agree) Learning a common language will bring more economic opportunities for everyone concerned.

  304. sangos Says:

    @ Allen # 301 – Hey dude thanks for your detailed answer, very educative. Naturally as we are from the disputed area, there is plenty of anxiety for the future, especially one not of our choosing and control!

  305. Allen Says:

    @sangos #304,

    Thanks for reading my comments. I’ve heard that South Tibet / Arunachal Pradesh is biologically very diverse and very beautiful – it is supposedly ecologically very different from most of the other parts of Tibet. I hope I can visit that place some day….

  306. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Allen,
    it does seem, in your time away, that you have thoroughly lost touch with the English language, and re-immersion has been a bit of a slow process.

    Steve wrote this as his point #2: “Han Chinese would move to AP, setting up shop in the cities and soon controlling most of the business there.”
    Your paraphrase turns into this: “Han Chinese moving in and taking over everything?”
    — how does “controlling most of the business” transform into “taking over everything”? You stayed in Old Lhasa, and related your experience. Great. Does that experience generalize onto the rest of Tibet? And does it further generalize onto what might happen in AP if part of it returned to China? Maybe. Then again, quite possibly not. But it seems awfully bold to give Steve a hard time over his outlook simply by giving us yours.

    Steve wrote in point #3: “The province would be run by a party leader appointed by the Chinese central government. This official would also be Han Chinese.”
    Your response consists of local leaders and mayors. Steve’s talking about the provincial head. You are now the poster boy for comparing apples and oranges. Are you kidding me?

    Steve wrote in point #4: “Schooling would be taught in Mandarin Chinese and this would also become the language of government. ”
    Your response: “Most schools in the countryside in TAR are taught in ethnic Tibetans.” — now, this might be a typo. Maybe you meant to say schools…are taught in Tibetan, as in language. Then again, maybe your point is simply that schools…are taught BY ethnic Tibetans. If it’s the latter, then that point is about as useful as saying that schools in Canada are taught by Canadians.

    You provide an anecdotal example…which is nice. It’s also about as useful as any given anecdote, no more, no less.

    Furthermore, I see you’ve completely shied away from addressing the “language of government” aspect of Steve’s point. I wonder why.

    If someone is part of a country, it makes sense to learn the “official” language. I think ethnic Tibetans can thrive by learning Mandarin. But I don’t think Tibetan culture could care less whether its practitioners spoke Mandarin or not. And I think Tibetan culture would suffer if Mandarin was learned at the expense of the Tibetan language. Those last 3 sentences offer similar but subtly different points. I hope you can follow.

  307. Otto Kerner Says:


    Is most of Arunachal Pradesh historically and politically part of Tibet?

  308. linho Says:


    There is no question that South Tibet region was a governed region of Tibet since its very earlier history, that was long before India become a nation state.

    India needs to think about how it grabbed and occupied Sikkim.

  309. sangos Says:

    # 307 & 308
    Pretty accurate account IMO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arunachal_Pradesh#History. But lets get Buru’s validation cause he out of the land.

    Agree on Sikkim – it was sneaky usurpation of power by India from the ruler!

  310. sangos Says:

    Interesting article in Indian media. Notice how the tone is a complete 180degree swing from the ‘China bashing’ attitude just a month ago. http://beta.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article41916.ece?homepage=true

    Btw interesting to see Chinese FM in Indian headgear!

  311. wuming Says:

    sangos 310.

    I agree that this is a high quality, sober and sobering commentary piece. I have not seen anything like that written by a Chinese. My prejudice is that the Indian elites are better educated than the Chinese elites. However the Indian society is too fragmented for it to act in a cohesive and single-minded way to drive the country forward as it is happening in China. The side-by-side comparison is fascinating if not for all the emotions and ambitions involved.

  312. sangos Says:

    @ wuming # 311 – Thats a good point. And something that people from the border areas of India and China, especially in disputed land should take note. It is a fact that ‘Arunachal Pradesh’ has come increasingly under China’s influence, if not under control. The recent election had go/no go with China as a major issue. The Tsangpo river will be dammed soon, which will bring big changes to Assam and downstream areas. Most local people in these disputed areas are pragmatic and aware of China’s policies.

    However since Indians rule these areas there are good possibilities for conflict with China. As you rightly pointed out, a good number of Indians actually foolishly think of India as China’s equal and a friend. All these opinions create lot of confusion from the Indian POV and make things difficult for settling the dispute. IMO with the DL’s visit to Tawang there is enough provocation for China to take a decisive step for settlement ASAP.

  313. Rhan Says:

    308 “India needs to think about how it grabbed and occupied Sikkim.”

    and Kashmir, Nagaland, etc.

    I am curious, how the world established map maker draw their map when come to all this controversial area?

  314. Otto Kerner Says:

    Hey, guess what else was a governed region of Tibet since its very earlier history: Tibet!

    China needs to think about how it grabbed and occupied Tibet. I won’t hold my breath or put off any important haircuts or anything waiting for it to happen, though.

  315. Jason Says:


    Tibet was not a member of League of Nation (United Nation as of today) so China’s reclaiming of Tibet was not illegal.

    Britain invaded China’s Tibet twice, in 1888 and 1903. The Tibetan army and civilians did resist but were defeated. In a second war against Tibet, the Brits occupied Lhasa and the 13th Dalai Lama was forced to leave the city.

    The invaders forced the Tibetan local government to sign the Lhasa convention. But the ministry of external affairs of the then Qing government believed the Lhasa convention would damage national sovereignty. And thus its high commissioner stationed in Tibet refused to sign, leaving the convention ineffectual.

    Britain, in fact, exploited the political chaos in China after the Qing Dynasty’s collapse and the birth of the Republic of China in 1901. It presented the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs a five-point demand, which included the denial of China’s sovereignty over Tibet, which the Chinese government rejected. In 1913, the British government further pushed its nose into Chinese business, wheedling certain Tibetan authorities to declare independence with British supervision and support.

    In summer 1942, the Tibetan local government, supported by the British, declared the creation of a “foreign affairs bureau,” and carried out “Tibetan independence” activities.

    Can you imagine the Chinese doing that in Scotland against the Brits?

  316. Otto Kerner Says:

    Like I said, I’m not holding my breath.

  317. Rhan Says:

    “China needs to think about how it grabbed and occupied Tibet.”

    I don’t think China grabbed and occupied Tibet.

    The Mongols did what they usually do in places they conquered: rule with what might be said to be stern, military force. This wasn’t the way most Chinese dynasties operated, which is why until today, there’re still over 50 nationalities in China, with their proud customs and languages. And it was like that BEFORE Mongol rule. The unification of China and Tibet took place a thousand years earlier, when Tang princess Wen Cheng married the Tibetan king. On that occasion, the two sides pledged – and carved in stone – that China and Tibet were one. The unification, therefore, was voluntary. It was, indeed, during that same reign that the first – and very rare – conflict took place between China and an Indian state. The Tang dynasty was famous for pilgrimages to India, and some years earlier an Indian Buddhist King had asked a Chinese official who was also a Buddhist to help set up diplomatic relations with China. But land journeys took a long time, and when the next Tang entourage reached India, the Buddhist kingdom had been overthrown by Hindus.

    The Chinese ambassador and his party were suddenly faced with a people hostile to the former authorities and those connected with them. Attacked on all sides, most were lucky to escape to Tibet. The Tibetan King was uncertain what to do, so he sent a message to his father-in-law, the Tang Emperor, who replied with several hundreds of horse soldiers. These troops, again, took months to reach Tibet, but it was just as well for it allowed the Tibetan king to prepare his own forces. When the Tang troops arrived, they were joined by Tibetan soldiers. Together, they entered the new Hindu state and defeated their opponents, capturing the Hindu king in the process.

    The next conflict which involved Tibet and the central government took place around the middle of the 1700s. According to Tibetan sources, Nepalis had raided and pillaged Tibetan monasteries (the Lamas were very wealthy because the laity were mostly serfs who provided free labor – until the 1950s). Again, unlike the Mongols, the Ching (Manchus) operated largely by Confucian maxims, which believed more in persuasion than force. Thus the local Ching detachment wasn’t strong enough to do anything about the matter. Tibet asked for reinforcements and the central government sent not only troops, but also weapons such as rockets which set Nepali castles on fire. The Nepalis surrendered and in a treaty pledged never to attack Tibet again. And to their credit, they never did.

    Many people know today that all Dalai Lamas must first be sanctioned by the central government. This custom was followed by the present Dalai Lama as well. But relationships were not always cordial, especially after the British incursions into Tibet from 1888 onwards. There was the infamous Younghusband invasion around the turn of the 20th century, leaving in its trail pools of Tibetan blood. The Americans protested at this invasion, reminding the British that the latter had promised to respect the sovereignty of China in Tibet. By 1924, the British tried to dilute China’s sovereignty by insisting that Tibet was under China’s “suzerainty” rather than sovereignty. It was that year that the British managed to influence some young Tibetan officers to seize power. The British wanted China to sign a treaty that would make “suzerainty” a reality. Even though the Ching was very weak at the time, to its credit, it rejected the overture and thus deprived the British presence in Tibet any legality. (Another failure of the British was to get the Beijing authorities to sign the so-called MCMahon Line dividing Tibet and India. The Chinese refused to recognize this line and wouldn’t sign it. This line was to result into a hot war later on.)

    By WW2 the Americans had begun to get involved in Tibet. They contacted the Dalai Lama and suggested that they would consider the idea of Tibetan independence. The Kuomintang protested to Roosevelt, who then reassured TV Soong that the US did recognize China’s sovereignty over Tibet.

    But things changed in 1950 when China went communist. Even though China had reasserted control by 1951, the CIA still managed to communicate with its former contacts and plotted an armed rebellion around 1958. It’s believed that Indian Intelligence had helped the CIA in this – the rebels had Lee Enfield rifles which was the main weapon of the Indian army. Or it could be that the CIA wanted a conflict between the two Asian giants, figuring that that was the best way to dominate Asia. But that’s just a conjecture.

  318. Otto Kerner Says:

    You know, the point that I was making is that, if you ask the average Indian, they probably don’t think that India “grabbed and occupied” Sikkim or Arunachal Pradesh. But, at least they don’t justify modern politics with appeals to this sort of fanciful pseudohistory.

    Not even court historians like Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain believe that Tibet became part of China before the Mongol period. In fact, before the 1960s, Chinese historians used to say that happened in the 17th century.

  319. sangos Says:

    Guess its easy to get mired up with all the historical perspectives and interpretations. But let me indulge a little bit , especially on the history of the contested territory of ‘South Tibet/Arunachal Pradesh’ (we are missing Buru here!).
    Tawang the hot seat was under Tibetan control and the surrounding Monpa ethnic groups were politically independent. Now this chunk of land is roughly about 1/5 of the total disputed area. ST/AP is a beautiful Himalayan land with very diverse ethnic groups. At the other extreme geographical end are the ethnic groups of the Mishmi and Naga families with a large Tani group in the middle. The major ethnic groups do not have any affiliation with the Tibetans let alone being historically governed by them. They have been independent since time immemorial and the only interaction with a major power historically would be the Ahom kings of Assam and then later with the British who called it the North East Frontier Agency (NEFA)

    It is a fact that when India became independent, the Indian Army moved into these mountains under Indian prime minister Nehru’s ‘forward policy’. And then later the Indians renamed NEFA as Arunachal Pradesh (“Land of rising sun” in Sanskrit).

    Bottom line-to be historically fair ST/AP belongs to neither India nor China, but to the people of the land.

  320. Rhan Says:

    When liberal criticized China, many Chinese would cry you don’t know Chinese/China and our history, you can’t read Chinese, you never been to China.

    When Chinese presented their point, the liberal would use term like absurd, fancy, pseudo, shooting from the hips, cherry-picking-ville.

    Anyway, I treasure both our similarity and difference.

    Additional three points:
    1.Punjabis are not Kerala people, nor are Nagas, Sikkimese, etc.

    2 Tibet has been part of China for centuries. Certainly, China’s case is much stronger than, say, India’s stranglehold on Kashmir, Sikkim, Nagaland, etc

    3 “but to the people of the land.” – Hmmm…..good point.

  321. Wukailong Says:

    @Otto Kerner: What is your take on the early Dalai Lama institution? Has it always been mandated by the Chinese emperor?

  322. Otto Kerner Says:


    That’s absurd. Everyone knows that the Mishmi, Nagas, and Tani all became part of China in 1271 when Hubiliehan declared the Yuan Dynasty in Beijing.

  323. Otto Kerner Says:


    Of course not. The first two Dalai Lamas were named posthumously, so we can perhaps ignore those. The 3rd Dalai Lama became a prominent lama in the 16th century, when China had almost no political power in Tibet (the local Tibetan rulers had been using a royal title (ghongma) instead of “viceroy” (desi’) since early 1400s); he was later given the title of “Dalai Lama” by Altan Khan, a Mongol warlord. When Chinese sources say that the Dalai Lama was always appointed by the Chinese government, what they presumably have in mind is that the 5th Dalai Lama was the first Dalai Lama to become a major political power and he received titles from and more-or-less accepted the overlordship of the Qing emperors. However, this is still quite misleading, because the 5th Dalai Lama formed his alliance with the Qing after he was already in power in Tibet — he had come to power with the assistance of another Mongol chieftain, Güüshi Khan, who carried the title of “King of Tibet” for the rest of his life. And, naturally, the 5th Dalai Lama had had the religious title of “Dalai Lama” since he was a child. The 6th Dalai Lama was recognised in secret by the right hand man of the 5th, so he was presumably not authorised by the Qing. Tibet was in a state of considerable chaos and war when the 7th Dalai Lama was recognised, so I’m not sure if the Chinese were involved in that or not. After that, the Qing had solidified their influence in Tibet, which meant that they definitely began to certify the Dalai Lamas for the 8th through the 13th, although the extent to which they were simply ratifying a decision that had already been made is debatable on a case-by-case basis. Regarding the current, 14th Dalai Lama, who is the only one to have been recognised after the fall of the Qing, it’s indisputable that the Tibetans selected a boy with no supervision from the Chinese government. Some sources say that the Tibetans did request that the ROC government certify this choice, and that a Chinese official presided at the enthronement in Lhasa. However, taking Melvyn Goldstein’s account as reliable, in fact the Tibetan government went out of its way to avoid giving the impression that they had asked anyone for permission, and the Chinese representative did not preside at the enthronement, although he was given pride of place among foreign delegates.

  324. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Sangos:
    “Bottom line-to be historically fair ST/AP belongs to neither India nor China, but to the people of the land.” — now there’s a concept.

  325. sangos Says:

    @ Otto # 322 – I don’t and am on the verge of getting a heart attack (kidding :)). Seriously can you link me to some sources cause I am feeling very stupid!

    Btw a more readable historical narrative on Tawang/AP/ST (towards the end) http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1934948,00.html

  326. buru Says:

    Otto #307 buru,

    Is most of Arunachal Pradesh historically and politically part of Tibet?

    I thought I gave u the reply in a previous post? Sangos also has given a link(partially correct) in #309.

    To rephrase,
    1. two districts of West Kameng & Tawang are peopled by tribes which are close to the Tibetans historically, culturally & temporally.However they are NOT Tibetans, but Tibetan-like.Pretty close though–an untrained eye cannot differentiate the two.These 2 districts will constitute by area & population perhaps 10% of Arunachal/ST.
    2.There are a sprinkling of Bhutanese-origin Buddhist tribes along the MacMahon line on the Indian side( Membas & Khambas–not to be confused with Tibetan Khampas) in districts of Siang & Dibang valley.They paid nominal tribute to Lhasa– but by population & area they are of no import.
    3.The rest of AP/ST constituting perhaps 80-90% has no relation with Tibet.The only relation in the past was in the form of barter trade among tribesmen living in the borderlands, which stopped in the late 50s.However most tribes in the central zone traces their origins directly to Tibet in the remote past.

  327. Otto Kerner Says:


    I recall you saying this, but it seemed like some of the other contributors had missed it, so I thought it might be useful to review the facts again. Thanks.

  328. Steve Says:

    Why would events that happened hundreds of years ago have any import on today’s events? I’m always hearing this argument but it doesn’t make much sense to me.

  329. Sangos Says:

    @ Steve – That’s a good question something that India and China should consider when settling boundaries. Think both parties have been top heavy on historical claims and counter-claims bordering on the ridiculous on occasion. That said, for some reason history carries an all important import amongst these areas and peoples.

  330. Otto Kerner Says:


    Some events that happened hundreds of years ago make a big difference in the world today, and others don’t. Can you be more specific?

  331. sangos Says:

    This warning looks ominous http://sify.com/news/china-says-india-has-forgotten-lessons-of-1962-war-news-international-jljrOccgbae.html

  332. Rhan Says:

    From Otto comments, seem like not EVERY Dalai Lama is mandated by Chinese emperor, but there are still SOME who did.

    My contention is exclusively made to evaluate between India and China, and today we know both British and American admit Chinese sovereignty on Tibet.

    “people of the land” is another good question we shall raise not to China and India alone, what about Hawaii, San Diego or the Malvinas (Falklands)? Or shall we start to bring in native, indigenous and aborigines again? Sound interesting.

  333. sangos Says:

    @ Rhan – That certainly opens a can of worms. Most nations have got skeletons in their closets There have been some ‘people of the land’ or other who have been marauded and usurped of their lands. Might be news but even as we speak, the Sioux still have a dispute with the USA over ownership of the Black Hills in Dakota. Lets not even talk about the massacres of American Indian people a century ago. Guess all that discomforting history can be conveniently forgotten. Are the Indian people going to be returned their dignity in the least, forget about returning their lands. Thats a very difficult question with probably no answer. Point being if someone powerful still lives in a glass house, they feel it right to throw stones at others – very primitive!

  334. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Rhan:
    ““people of the land” is another good question we shall raise not to China and India alone, what about Hawaii, San Diego or the Malvinas (Falklands)? Or shall we start to bring in native, indigenous and aborigines again?” — indeed. It is a reasonable question to raise wherever such sentiments might exist. Hopefully the Chinese response won’t be: “we’re not asking it until everybody else asks as well.” Although the current Chinese position seems to be “we’re never going to ask regardless of what others might do”, so any movement from that position would be an improvement, I suppose.

  335. Otto Kerner Says:


    By the way, the thing that I object to about your post #317 is implied in your post #320. I feel like I’m just getting the talking points of the Chinese Point of View. How can I have a discussion with that?

  336. sangos Says:

    Came across this article more or less relevant here http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2009-06/436174.html.

    Whats was interesting and (even more entertaining than the article itself) were the unbelievable user comments. [Click on the “comments” link] Seriously that said, its no laughing matter that two potential superpower nations have so many ridiculous misgivings of each other!!

  337. Steve Says:

    Hi Otto~ Things that happened in the past can affect the present, but only in the context of how situations have developed from that time until now. The people living in AP or South Tibet probably don’t care about some line drawn by the British and probably don’t care so much about what either the respective Indian and Chinese governments think either. The only sense of what they think that I’ve read so far is what guys like Buru have written, since they’re from that area. It seems they are caught up in the middle of something they want no part of.

    So shouldn’t the discussion be based more on what the present situation is? India currently controls AP. China doesn’t like it. They have frequent… well, I wouldn’t say “clashes” on the border but it’s a dicey situation there. Recently China tells India that it should not allow one of its citizens to venture to another part of the country because China feels it should be a part of China. That part seems pretty outlandish to me but I guess it’s normal for the game being played over there.

    The India side seems to be (and correct me if I’m wrong), “AP is an integral part of India and we’re getting our butts in gear to try and develop it since we’ve been sitting on those same butts for the last 50 years doing nothing, but that doesn’t matter because we’re doing something about it now instead of just ignoring it which was our usual pattern.”

    The China side seems to be (and correct me if I’m wrong), “AP is an integral part of Tibet and Tibet is an integral part of China, we never signed any deal so the border is in dispute and we need to solve this problem as we’ve solved most of our other border disputes. We’ll develop this region so it’ll be much better off than it was under India and Tibet will all be reunified. We base our position on events that happened hundreds of years ago.”

    Now we all know that the reasons people give can have very little to do with the real reason people do things. So my question is, why does China want AP so badly and why does India want to hold on to AP so badly? I’ve gotta believe it has more to do with geopolitical reasons than historical ones, which are being used by both sides for justification of their position. I’m sure it was for geopolitical reasons that the British drew the line where they did. That would make the land more important than the people who reside there, wouldn’t it?

    But I read about a clash that happened in 1962 as if the results have any bearing on the present situation. Believe me, they have none. Neither country is anything like it was back then. Neither military is anything like it was back then. I am certainly in no position to know what will happen if there was a war, and I doubt anyone else on this blog really knows either. That’s why I think the military leaders of both countries would be very wary of war. The stakes are much higher today than they were back in 1962 and the technologies possessed much more destructive.

  338. linho Says:

    A recent popular discussion among Chinese bloggers:

    China successfully tested a new type SLBM from Atlantic Ocean, hitting its intended target 16,000 miles away in Xinjiang (http://cul.qidian.com/#show.aspx?mid=25&rid=108151)

    From the picture, the shape of SLBM is very similar to JL-2B (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JL-2)

  339. linho Says:

    China’s PLAAF is celebrating its 60th founding. There are several important announcement coming out in recent days:

    1. China’s own 4th generation fighter aircraft, comparable to F-22 and F-35, will conduct its first flight later this year.

    2. China’s own 200-ton heavy-duty transporter, comparable to C-17, is scheduled to roll out assembly later this year.

    3. Pakistan and China signed an agreement to acquire 2-squadron, 36 multi-role air-superior fighter aircraft J-10B. J-10B is considered to have better performance on maneuverability and high-speed, with comparable avionics and air-to-air combat munition to F-16.

    4. Pakistan is scheduled to roll out its own first production of FC-1, a light fighter aircraft co-designed with China.

    India has to seriously consider settling border region disputes with both China and Pakistan in order to have peace in the future.

  340. Steve Says:

    @ linho: The F-22 and F-35 are 5th generation aircraft, not 4th generation. No air force in the world has anything even remotely comparable to either plane nor will they for a very long time. You’ll also find very few aviation people who’d take a J-10B over an F-16. The main draw for the F-10B is that the US can’t embargo spare parts like they’ve done with the Venezuelan Air Force, grounding most of their aircraft. India’s HAL Tejas is just coming out and it’s also a pretty good fighter, so there’s not as much difference here as you’re implying.

  341. linho Says:

    4th generation – US style classification
    5th generation – Russian style classification

    Do more research on this subject !

  342. Steve Says:

    @ linho: If you actually believe China has an aircraft in the works that is even slightly comparable to the F-22 or F-35, well… keep dreaming.

  343. Wukailong Says:

    @Steve: Do more research on this subject… Just kidding. 😉

  344. S.K. Cheung Says:

    These last few comments are amusing. Before anyone compares Chinese fighters and heavy transports to American versions, let’s make sure they can actually fly first.

  345. buru Says:


    i am in full agreement with Steve & SKC;

    forget classification, use common sense. China still have not developed an aircraft that stands toe-to-toe with older generation US fighters like F-14, F-16 or even F-5, so one can only assume its naivety complicated by hubris when one starts talking of F-22 & F-35: aircrafts which are not in full service even in the US!

    That said, the PRC does have a genuine aircraft development programme now with some ok fighters already developed(though ppl says its reverse engineered from other countries( eg Israeli Lavi = J-10)
    Personally I feel the Indian Tejas is way behind its Chinese competition..

  346. buru Says:

    steve 337 says
    The people living in AP or South Tibet probably don’t care about some line drawn by the British and probably don’t care so much about what either the respective Indian and Chinese governments think either. The only sense of what they think that I’ve read so far is what guys like Buru have written, since they’re from that area. It seems they are caught up in the middle of something they want no part of. “

    True. Let me give you a link which shows what locals from AP/ST think of the Indian( and Chinese) media monkey-dance .The recent elections in AP were tomtomed by Indian media as a great affirmation of Indian patriotism by the Arunachalis; This seems to have provoked the editorial team of this paper from AP/south tibet to come out with this article:

    “To an average Arunachali, the news of Chinese claims and the border incursions are neither intimidating nor xenophobic. For them such reports are like any other news which is overtly sensationalized by the national media. Many of the recent incursion reports are concocted and one such news in Times Now has been substantiated as vague information which was provided by locals living in plains of Assam. Even after more than four decades of border debacle of 1962, India and China is yet to arrive at any solution on the vexed boundary issue. If the boundary issue remains unsolved and govt fails to make any affirmative response to Chinese claims then the fault lies entirely with them and the innocent people of Arunachal should not be hauled into this game “

    The educated Arunachalis have now started to see through the ploy of Indians using them as ultra-patriotic scapegoats.This view is bound to seep down to the hoi polloi sooner or later.

  347. Sangos Says:

    @ Buru – Hey thanks a ton for the Roing news link:). And well done website too. I always wanted to read local news directly from AP without all the Indian BS! (lots from Nagaland and Manipur btw). And who is this NERIST fella? Assamese…am very angry! I know thats a Govt job but at least he can keep his mouth shut instead of lying.

  348. linho Says:


    steve: clearly you are one of those who should be waking up to the NEW world REALITY:-) Don’t keep dreaming that US can FOREVER dominate the world with economy and technology.

    Take the example of China’s J-10 fighter aircraft: the program was designed with a specific goal to suppress the F-16 fleet operated by Taiwan’s air-force. If that design goal was not met, it would not enter into service in 2006.

    Along with J-10, China also developed a new turbofan engine that is more powerful than imported model from Russia. Now, newly-equipped J-10 and J-11 fighters are using China’s domestic produced model. An improved model will be used for China’s 4th generation aircraft.

    Educate yourself more on this subject !

  349. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Linho,
    that’s fantastic news. Wake me up when this J-10 thingy of yours actually takes out an F16, or this whatever-the-heck generation shiny new fighter knocks down some F22’s and F35’s, k?

    Otherwise it’s just hot air being emitted from one ginormous turbofan.

  350. linho Says:


    Look at your own comment: no fact except empty hot air 🙂 LoL.

    Somehow, you are quite upset about the fact that some people in Taiwan now are shaking in their feet, screaming to US for new jets, yet they could not get. Even Japanese are upset about no more air power, screaming for US’s F-22.

    Educate yourself more, kid !

  351. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Linho,
    like I said, wake me up when you have something substantial to say. Otherwise I’m busy sleeping. By your waffling, I’m also assuming that your fancy J10 hasn’t registered too many F16 kills yet. Surprise surprise. I wonder what other education I might need.

    Your second paragraph is pointless. And there may be more about you that fit that category.

  352. linho Says:


    steve: pay attention to this report by Kanwa in 2002



  353. S.K. Cheung Says:

    That’s a good one.

    So let me get this straight. Almost 7 years ago, China wanted to modify a propulsion system to attain the maneuverability standard of an F35. So, has she done it?

    She was “preparing to research”. Has she researched it?

    She was working on a “sub-system”. Has she built a plane in which to install and utilize said sub-system?

    And after all of that, is there a plane that’s air-worthy that’s actually comparable to a current US fighter? Cuz right now, all you’ve shown us is a 7 year old brochure.

  354. linho Says:


    you have asked way too many questions and your ‘teacher’ is asking you why did you do your homework; -)

  355. Jerry Says:

    @linho, @S.K. Cheung, @Steve

    “Before anyone compares Chinese fighters and heavy transports to American versions, let’s make sure they can actually fly first.”

    SK, sounds like the kind of education I would like to see. First steps first.

    Linho, talk is cheap, very cheap! The proof is in the pudding.

    “The F-22 and F-35 are 5th generation aircraft, not 4th generation. No air force in the world has anything even remotely comparable to either plane nor will they for a very long time.”

    Steve, that is a fact.

    “steve: clearly you are one of those who should be waking up to the NEW world REALITY:-) Don’t keep dreaming that US can FOREVER dominate the world with economy and technology.”

    Linho, you are blowing smoke. Why have you switched from discussing aircraft to a typical Chinese rant? “Educate yourself more”, you say to Steve. That is so nebulous.

    “Wake me up when this J-10 thingy of yours actually takes out an F16, or this whatever-the-heck generation shiny new fighter knocks down some F22’s and F35’s, k? Otherwise it’s just hot air being emitted from one ginormous turbofan.”

    Precisely, SK! All claims are just that unless substantiated.

    And yes, SK has asked you way too many questions. And it is apparent you have no answers. Just like Joe McCarthy. Linho, if you were a teacher, you would be educating us. All you have proved is that you are a mediocre blowhard, not even as effective as Joe McCarthy. You seem to be just one more angry, average FQ, hoping to sweet-talk/con his way out of his mediocrity. This is reminiscent of the “Ginger” hyperbole which was put out by Dean Kamen, Jeff Bezos and others. All talk, little show. And years later, still very little show. Great hype, though! Really cool hype!

    Linho, while you are immersed in speculation, dreaming of cool fighter jets and Chinese numerical superiority, you might want to consider

    World-class logistics and logistical experience in actual battles (not video games)

    Training to produce world-class military leaders, pilots, engineers, scientists, researchers, support staff, maintenance staff, logistics staff.

    Experienced, world-class military leaders, pilots, engineers, scientists, researchers, support staff, maintenance staff, logistics staff. After all, who is going to teach the inexperienced?

    Are your personnel disciplined and battle-ready?

    Let me relate this to a different metaphor or allegory. Linho.

    Let’s talk basketball. The Chinese seem to like basketball. There seems to be a desire to excel in basketball. So where are your Michael Jordans, Larry Birds, your Magic Johnsons, your Kobe Bryants, your Dwayne Wades, Paul Pierces, etc.? Where are your great pro coaches, Phil Jacksons, Doc Rivers, Larry Browns, George Karls, Gregg Popoviches, etc.? Where are your great college coaches, your Mike Ks, Ben Howlands, Bill Selfs, Roy Williamses, your Billy Donovans, your Lute Olsons, etc.?

    You can’t develop world-class basketball programs overnight. You can’t develop world-class militaries overnight. Or even in a decade. It will probably take several decades.

  356. Steve Says:

    @ linho: “YOU CAN’T BE SERIOUS!!!” (said in my best John McEnroe imitation)

    China’s next generation fighters will, I’m sure, be better than their current generation fighters. China’s current military is infinitely better equipped than it was 20 years ago. The rest of it is “The Emperor’s New Clothes” and I’m laughing while watching your parade. Apparently, you still haven’t figured out you’re naked. 😛

  357. sangos Says:

    Doing my best to figure whats the deal in the bunch of last few post exchanges – think its about airpower. Can someone please state the barebone facts – before we get into the colorful wranglings 🙂

  358. Steve Says:

    @ sangos: Go back to #339. linho seems to think China is about to come out with an fighter that is competitive with the American F-22 & F-35. I seem to think that’s crazy. A few others have expressed their opinions thereof. Ob-la-di, ob-la-da, life goes on… 😛

  359. Wukailong Says:

    Alright, alright… No more gloating about US military dominance, please. 🙂 I don’t believe in Linho’s claims about producing something similar to the cutting-edge of the US, but certainly it could happen in 10-20 years? I don’t mean this in terms of “anything could happen in 10-20 years,” but rather that China, even on a relatively low level of economic development, has a space program and carries out advanced military research.

    To Linho I want to say that, considering that the world’s most advanced military power finds itself in such a quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan, I wouldn’t bet on advanced aircraft to shame India into submission.

  360. sangos Says:

    The Indians are developing stealth aircraft too with all the advanced gizmos…in collab with Sukhoi. So its an open game I guess, but definitely China is very single-mindedly pursuing air superiority fighter aircraft parity with the US and one never knows when its going to pull out a rabbit from the hat! Do we see a repeat of another Japan of the 30s in the making!?

  361. linho Says:


    >> “The Indians are developing stealth aircraft too with all the advanced gizmos…in collab with Sukhoi.”

    LoL. India has been practically buying off Sukhoi’s production lines, with twice of market prices. Yet, Indians still can’t figure out why Russian planes keep off sky.

    #355, 356 — you two can definitely keep “smoking on south beach”, no one bother to dispute with what you enjoy.

  362. linho Says:


    steve: facts definitely have spoken louder than your embarrassing and empty laughs. How long it took for China to come up with an advanced nuke program. You know it for yourself.

    Chinese do not like to show off muscles, only when it is necessary !

    J-10 entered into service in 2006, did not get declassified until 2007. It was a BIG surprise to many western people like you.

  363. sangos Says:


  364. sangos Says:

    # 362 – Su30MKIs with the Indians are damn good planes..better than F 16s. Jointly developed by Russians and Indians, so no open market purchase or lack of spares. The Chinese have the MKU versions. Dunno what you are loling at buddy?

    Indians and Russians are test flying the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) planes this year, again with Sukhoi. The Indians might go for MiGs @5G too.

  365. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Linho:
    size matters. But it also matters what you do with it. Even in your most romanticized dreams, China’s air force hardware is not the equal of the US today. That’s not to say that the gap won’t be closed or even reversed in the years to come. We shall see. But as Jerry has suggested, even when you’ve got the size, you still need to know how to use it. And the gap in that arena might even be bigger than in the hardware category.

    But in the meantime, I’m glad you take so much pleasure in the size aspect of the equation.

    Notice I’m just making statements now. Questions didn’t seem to work, since you don’t seem to have very many answers. Not surprising, really.

  366. Otto Kerner Says:

    I got to wondering about the unwonderable: suppose China and India did end up going to war, and suppose that China somehow suffered a major reversal, but the fighting ended with escalating into a nuclear confrontation. What would be the consequences for Chinese domestic politics? One gets the feeling that the CCP’s current stable rule is heavily tiānmìng-based. In other words, it lacks a reservoir of public support on any grounds other than the simple fact that the country is moving in the right direction. If things suddenly go bad in a dramatic way, will the CCP be able to retain power?

  367. wuming Says:

    “it lacks a reservoir of public support on any grounds other than the simple fact that the country is moving in the right direction”

    Do you mean that other governments, for example the western democracies, can move the country in the wrong direction while still have ground for popular support? Now I see why my country, the USA, can get into so much trouble. Our voters support our government based not on what the government did for them, but their reservoir of faith.

    The logic is ironic: democracy, because it is a democracy, can afford to govern badly while still enjoy support; while an autocratic government, has to earn their support by trying to govern wisely. Seem to me that is democratic fundamentalism at its best.

  368. Otto Kerner Says:

    Correct — Americans have a very strong emotional attachment to our constitutional framework and even, to a lesser extent, to the two-party system.

  369. wuming Says:

    “Americans have a very strong emotional attachment to our constitutional framework and even, to a lesser extent, to the two-party system”

    The sad thing is, I know you are right. The success of American democracy in the 20th century has by now hardened into an ideology. The destructive power of ideology is vividly on display in the first decade of the 21st century, just like it did in China 1949-1977.

  370. Wukailong Says:

    Ideology is only bad when it doesn’t work. I think the wholesale Sino-American dismissal of ideology is a bit extreme; as someone from a country where “ideology” is a neutral world, it took me some time to understand this anti-ideology complex.

  371. wuming Says:

    as if to re-enforce your point. OP-ED by Maureen Dowd:

  372. wuming Says:

    In my case, the aversion to ideology should be easy to understand. I was born during GLF and “educated” during GPCR, received my graduate education in the Reagan revolution and somehow still sane after 8 years of GWB (though I am not quite sure of the last one.)

  373. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Wuming:
    “Do you mean that other governments, for example the western democracies, can move the country in the wrong direction while still have ground for popular support?” — the party in power can’t count on such support, as evidenced by your last election. Even if Bush had been constitutionally permitted to run for a third term, he would’ve lost. As it was, his party got thumped. So no, if your party, being the party in government, screws up, you shouldn’t count on ongoing popular support. But that’s quite different from an ongoing support of a democratic system, by virtue of which you can turf the governing party out of power if you disapprove of their performance. Obviously, such a system is lacking in China as we know it, so the party = the government = political system.

    “democracy, because it is a democracy, can afford to govern badly while still enjoy support” — as I suggested above, you are confusing apples with oranges. It is exactly democracy that allows a party that is governing badly to be removed from power by a loss of popular support. That Bush governed badly is not a flaw of democracy. This is what makes Otto’s question all the more interesting. What happens if, for argument’s sake, the majority of Chinese people actually felt that the CCP was doing a lousy job? Do you honestly think the CCP would remove itself?

  374. wuming Says:


    I understand your point, but I think it is really a superficial explanation of the US political system as it stands. It is extremely hard for the Republican party to loose an election because there is about 30% of the population that are hardened right wing ideologues (the ideologue on the other side is negligible in numbers). Rush Limbaugh/Fox News audience are rarely affected by either fact or logic. Though nominally the right wing is not in power, the democratic party does not represent a real alternative because they either have to pander to the right wing or they are non-functioning. The current health care debate is a illustration of both.

    Your view on CCP is also simplistic. The dynamics is almost the opposite US. If a particular crop of leadership runs the country to the ground like the Republican had done, CCP probably will not loose their power, but the crop will stink to the high heaven with hardly anybody blind to the fact. Though we have no example yet to verify what will happen in such a circumstance (luckily for Chinese,) I doubt they will survive very long. On this point, we yet to have data to back it up. But to me it is clear that CCP is much more responsive to the popular sentiment of China than either democrats or republicans to US popular sentiment

  375. S.K. Cheung Says:

    “It is extremely hard for the Republican party to loose an election” — and yet they managed that apparently nearly-impossible feat just last year. How likely is the CCP to lose an election?

    “the democratic party does not represent a real alternative because they either have to pander to the right wing or they are non-functioning. The current health care debate is a illustration of both.” — actually, the real reason they need to “reach across the aisle” is because they lack the filibuster-proof 60 seats in the Senate. If they only had a couple more senators, they’d be good to go, sorta like how things were in Bush’s first term.

    “If a particular crop of leadership runs the country to the ground like the Republican had done, CCP probably will not loose their power,” — okay, so the GOP stunk out the joint, and they got turfed in 2008; yet if the CCP screwed up as badly as the GOP had done, they “probably will not” get turfed….and that is a better system how, exactly?

    “On this point, we yet to have data to back it up. But to me it is clear that CCP is much more responsive to the popular sentiment of China” — I’m happy you’re clear about it. Me, not so much. Some data would be nice; a meaningful voice for the people (and not just this “stink to high heaven” business), even better.

    I think you’re still conflating the Bush administration being bad with democracy being bad. Suffice to say those are different things. And you’ve yet to give your opinion on whether the CCP would/should give up power if that was the will of the PRC Chinese people.

  376. tanjin Says:


    Otto Kerner: “uppose China and India did end up going to war, and suppose that China somehow suffered a major reversal”

    That could happen ONLY in your childish backyard play ! If you understand the history of both military, and their current level force strength, you would dare not to make such silly suggestion.

  377. wuming Says:

    There is not enough data to show how CCP transition will occur in a systematic fashion. Up to today there is only one transition can be called entirely peaceful. So we all have to wait for verdicts on that one.

    As for the eight looooong years of GOP, this is a government that shouldn’t have been in 2000 in the first place, should have been decimated in 2002, should have been turfed out in 2004, should have been impeached in 2006, should be tried for treason in 2008, and yet they ran the country like a dictator until 2008.

    During those eight year, it’s president was a virtual illiterate and its current bright star is also one, although she probably has a larger vocabulary but less understanding of whatever she says. And yet they governed for 8 years and have a chance to get back the seats in the House and Senate they lost in 2006-2008. In many of these years, they could run a literal elephant and still win.

    As for 2008, fortunately this sleeping giant occasionally come to its senses, but unfortunately it does so in lesser and lesser frequency. I have little knowledge how Canadian political system works, but for the sake of mankind and personal sanity, I hope it does better.

  378. S.K. Cheung Says:

    “There is not enough data to show how CCP transition will occur” — when you say “transition” in the context you’ve used it, are you just referring to power simply moving from one CCP person to another CCP person? Do you interpret my question as being that if the Chinese people became disenchanted with one CCP leader, they would simply want another CCP leader? I’m talking about what happens if Chinese have had enough with the CCP, period. “transition”, in the way i think you’ve used it, to me is just the shuffling of deck chairs.

    “As for the eight looooong years of GOP” — you have your American compatriots to thank for that one. Obviously, enough people disagreed with you to keep the GOP in power. Unfortunately, they did not have the benefit of hindsight in 2000, and who knows what happened in 2004 (apparently Kerry was just not appealing enough). But again, it seems you’re equating “Bush was bad” with “democracy is bad”, which makes no sense to me.

    “In many of these years, they could run a literal elephant and still win.” — this I would like to see.

    But going back to Otto’s question, what mechanism do the Chinese people have of displaying their displeasure with their government, if such came to pass? To me, it’s not much of one…and certainly none with any real bite to it. Unless, of course, the CCP is beholden to a sense of altruism and selflessness that thus far has not been in abundant display.

  379. Otto Kerner Says:

    tanjin, I guess you sure showed me! Consider me cowed.

  380. Jerry Says:

    @wuming #374, @S.K. Cheung

    Wuming, you responded to SK in #374:

    Your view on CCP is also simplistic. The dynamics is almost the opposite US. If a particular crop of leadership runs the country to the ground like the Republican had done, CCP probably will not loose their power, but the crop will stink to the high heaven with hardly anybody blind to the fact.

    My, that is a marvelous form of government. So let us turn our attention to a “crop” which continues to stink to “the high heaven with hardly anybody blind to the fact.” (I will leave out the lack of redress available to the Chinese people during Mao’s CR and GLF.)

    The Sichuan earthquake last year killed 70,000 to 100,000 last year. Thousands of school buildings collapsed, killing thousands of children. Parents went searching for their children and protested locally, at first. After a few weeks they were blocked from protesting locally in an effort to seek information about their children and blocked from petitioning for redress of their grievances in Beijing. Meanwhile, the Chinese government rushed in to demolish the schools and cart away the rubble, removing and destroying all forensic evidence which is necessary for a proper investigation of why the buildings collapsed. IMHO, it was a cover-up instituted by the Chinese government.

    Since then, the government has arrested Tan Zuoren for “subversion”; it appears that he was arrested in order to prevent him from issuing an independent report on the collapse of the schools in Sichuan. Huang Qi was arrested for helping parents of the students who died in bringing legal cases against local authorities. Chinese authorities have detained, harassed and intimidated parents who were seeking legal redress. Some detainees, including an 8 year old, were held for up to 21 days.

    The death or near-death of a child is an incredibly painful experience. I nearly lost my daughter to a rare cancer which kills 85% of its victims. I saw 19 kids with the same cancer die. I looked their parents in the eye; how did I get so lucky to have my daughter live. There but for the grace of God go I. And I almost lost my son to a serious car accident.

    What happened to those children, their parents and the school buildings stinks to high heaven. And that is as far as it goes in China. My god, those poor parents and the parents of those injured and maimed, deserve some sort of redress. Right now, the government gives them no solace, just a swift kick to their collective tuchuses. Shame on China!

    At least in America, when something stinks to high heaven, there are avenues for redress and remedy. Not so in China, it appears.

    Wuming, Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath stinks to high heaven. Shame on the Bush administration! America is far, far from perfect. But there are avenues for redress and remedy. Just last week, following was reported in the WaPo in an article titled Katrina compensation urged as judge faults Army Corps.

    Louisiana officials called on the Obama administration Thursday to compensate residents after a federal judge’s ruling that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was responsible for some of the worst flooding in and around New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

    U.S. District Judge Stanwood R. Duval Jr. ruled late Wednesday that the Corps’ “monumental negligence” in maintaining a man-made shipping channel known as the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet created what analysts said was a “hurricane highway,” channeling floodwaters from the August 2005 storm into eastern New Orleans and St. Bernard Parish.

    Sen. Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.) said the decision vindicated those who have called Katrina both a natural and man-made disaster, citing the failure of government-built levees and water control systems. She said the federal government needs to make widespread changes in coastal-management and flood-protection efforts in Louisiana and Mississippi. …

    Duval’s 156-page order awarded $720,000 in damages to four individuals and one business. Legal analysts said the opinion could open the way to huge judgments against the federal government. About 100,000 people live in the area that was the subject of the lawsuit, said plaintiffs’ attorney Jonathan Andry. Overall, 490,000 claims have been filed with the Corps seeking hurricane-related damages. …

    I doubt that you will ever see this type of redress in China under the CCP. That is why, in spite of all the warts, blemishes and stink which inhabit American democracy and governance, I will pick the USA over China, any day. Hands down! No brainer!

  381. Jerry Says:

    @Otto Kerner #366, @tanjin #376

    Otto, that is an interesting speculation. It speaks to an inherent weakness in the foundation and stability of the CCP’s reign in China and governance in China. If there was an institutionalized system of governance, that institution(s) could survive the fall of the CCP. Right now, the CCP party seems to be the institution, with governance flowing from and tied to the CCP. If so, then no CCP = no system of governance.

    Tanjin, you responded to Otto:

    That could happen ONLY in your childish backyard play ! If you understand the history of both military, and their current level force strength, you would dare not to make such silly suggestion.

    That was a rather juvenile, haughty, hubristic response.

    First option — Proverbs 16:18 – Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

    A little paranoia is a good thing. Keeps you humble and your eyes open! Discontinue your juvenile, haughty, hubristic ways.

    Second option — Why don’t you continue your juvenile, haughty, hubristic ways? There is a morbid part of my personality which would schadenfreudically enjoy seeing you get blindsided and knocked flat. Remember also, that the light at the end of the tunnel may actually be a train headed right for you. ::LMAO::

    Really, I would suggest the former rather than the latter. 😀

  382. Sangos Says:

    # 381 – Agree. While China definitely has the upper hand, I would not wish India away. A war in Tibet/Himalayas has very unpredictable parameters even with all the hi-tech warfare techniques today in play. China has to check its over-confidence from 1962, cause then the Indians were caught with their pants down. Today they are at heightened levels of alertness, as evident from how they are hammering their side of the fence recently.

  383. Otto Kerner Says:

    Sangos, I agree. A decisive Chinese victory is considerably more likely than a decisive Indian victory, but the latter is not impossible. That’s why I termed this thought experiment an “unwonderable” … people tend not to consider that scenario, since it is unlikely.

  384. Jerry Says:

    @Sangos #382

    Excellent points, Sangos.

    While China definitely has the upper hand, I would not wish India away. A war in Tibet/Himalayas has very unpredictable parameters even with all the hi-tech warfare techniques today in play.

    “Unpredictable parameters”, for sure. “Hi-tech warfare techniques”, “shock and awe”, and numerical superiority are not the only factors in battles and wars. Often, the military and the country’s leaders do not take into account other important factors such as asymmetrical warfare, guerrilla tactics, not understanding the battlefield terrain, lack of political will to fight extended wars, and the effect of mounting casualties and costs on the morale of the citizens and combatants alike, just to name a few. America has haughtily, arrogantly entered wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, among others. They later seriously regretted and lamented overlooking those other factors I mentioned. Hopefully, Americans will learn the lesson some day.

    One other important factor which is almost always overlooked is “winning the hearts and minds of the people”. They are the victims of the war, the innocents who are almost always ignored, but whose cooperation is often the difference between winning and losing.

    BTW, I will never forget Shrub landing on the aircraft carrier, USS Abraham Lincoln, on May 1, 2003. Dubya’s “mission accomplished” statement showed the height of arrogance, vanity and stupidity.

  385. wuming Says:

    I hope this is my last comment on this diversion from the main thread. I wish to end it by stating my frames of reference.

    The first is a historical reference, by that I don’t mean the thousands of years of Chinese history, but the history of CCP rule. the history of suffering of the GLF and GPCR and the subsequent liberation from it. If on the cusp year 1978, somebody had described what China is today, nobody in China, including Deng Xiaoping himself, would have thought this is possible. And yet here we are. Fact at the end must speak for itself. Whatever CCP was or is, in last 30 years, it had not been an obstacle on the paths where Chinese people sough better lives. In my frame of reference, this is not trivial.

    The second is a cross-cultural reference. I think I have a basic understanding how American democracy works. Because of my own political bent, I have experienced only very rare elations in the nation’s politics (the election of Obama is only one that comes to mind.) I am frankly very disappointed by what I see in American political system. One example symbolizes my frustration, while on the other side of Pacific, China is drawing tic-tac-toes with high speed railroads, we can’t even build a single genuine high speed line for the northeast corridor. It is nation moving in the wrong direction and I sees no hope of that being reversed.

  386. Rhan Says:

    I have no doubt the America government treat their citizen far better as compare to most other government in the world, I am not sure if this has anything to do with democracy. However from a wider perspective, I would say the American government is ruthless, selfish and would not hesitate to exploit any other country be it a poor one. It is actually the worst form of global citizen.

    Of course I wish to pick America over China if I am given a choice to migrate. As I have no intention to do this at this point of time, I despise the America government more than any other country in the world.

  387. Otto Kerner Says:

    This is entirely a digression — all I said is that I think popular support for the Chinese government is broad but shallow. I didn’t say anything about how much support it deserves, i.e. the question of which country’s system is actually better is irrelevant to what I said.

  388. Jerry Says:

    @wuming #385

    Wuming, you wrote:

    Whatever CCP was or is, it had not been an obstacle on the paths where Chinese people sough better lives. In my frame of reference, this is not trivial.

    Don’t tell me about it, Wuming. Tell that to those poor Sichuan parents who, in futile attempts to seek redress, to protest about their dead children and to seek more information, have been detained, harassed and intimidated by the police. Tell that to Huang Qi and Tan Zuoren who have been arrested and detained by the police for merely wanting to help the aforementioned parents. Tell that to Jiang Tianyong and his protégés who were harassed, interrogated and eventually arrested last week for the heinous crime of standing outside the US Embassy, hoping for an audience with Barack Obama. Tell that to Jiang’s wife who was beaten by the police at the same time Jiang was arrested, in front of her 7 year-old daughter. Tell that to the Tibetans and Uyghurs.

    I, too, Wuming, am disappointed with the American political system. Its priorities are still screwed up. I am disappointed with Obama. I am disappointed with transportation planning, especially mass transit in densely populated areas. The culture in the US is entrenched in using highways, automobiles and air transportation. Furthermore, the US has some densely populated areas which, unlike China, are located far from each other. And we don’t have 1.3 billion people. Thank god for the small things. Oy vey!

  389. Steve Says:

    @ Wuming #385 & Jerry #388: Jerry, though everything you wrote is correct, I agree with Wuming that the progress in individual Chinese lives has increased immeasurably in the last 30 years. I’ve heard this again and again from my Chinese friends. There is far more personal freedom, social freedom, intellectual freedom, freedom of movement, freedom of information and even political freedom than there was 30 years ago. They’re not comparing freedom in China with freedom in the States, they’re comparing it with what they had. They can surely see the relative benefits accrued to Chinese people within most of their lifetimes.

    And now, a caveat. All of my friends lived in the coastal areas. All of them were Tier One high school graduates who went to some of the best universities in China. They were all successful people. But even so, they wouldn’t have had the opportunity to be successful before ’79.

    Here comes the tricky part. The success in China is attributable not only to the CCP but just as much to western governments, western business and western technical help. Was this solely because of altruistic reasons? Of course not. But it created a win/win situation for China and the western world. To try and isolate it to the CCP is silly, and it’s just as silly not to give the CCP credit for the success. Countries do not operate in a vacuum, especially in today’s multinational, global world. China’s rapid rise happened because it was in the interest of China and of China’s trading partners. When it ceases to be in both parties interest, then protracted negotiations and possible negative results to one or both can and will occur. That’s just life in the big city. The difference is that today China is a part of that world whereas in ’79 they were separate from that world.

    Wuming, I’m sorry to hear your negative feelings concerning US politics. As a person who couldn’t stand GWB, I still don’t have the same feelings as you do. I guess I wonder exactly how well you understand the American political system or if your opinion was overly influenced by the ’00-’08 time period. Sometimes things can get out of whack over here, the ship lists overly to one side but eventually things get righted.

    Yes, the American political system has been screwed up for awhile and even now there are issues in both the Senate and House that need to be resolved. There are black eyes that have occurred and that are occurring, as there are in every country.

    Yes, the Chinese political system has been screwed up for awhile and even now there are issues within the CCP that need to be resolved. China also has its black eyes, some of which Jerry mentioned. To pretend that the Chinese government is all knowing and all seeing is just as foolish as pretending that any government can meet that standard.

    I don’t see the big change to Chinese government occurring in ’79, I see the big change to Chinese government occurring in ’92 with Deng’s Southern Tour. I never got to China in the ’80s but I knew a lot of businessmen who did, and they all thought the place was interesting but very bleak. After ’92, events began to change rapidly and things just kept picking up steam. Yes, the changes in ’79 set a precedent, but the changes in ’92 initiated dramatic, positive changes that have affected hundreds of millions of lives in an incredibly positive way.

    From an openness point of view, I think Jiang was more of a reformer than Hu but from a personal freedom point of view, things continue to get better for ordinary Chinese under Hu. So let’s not make this into an “us vs. them” debate, OK? Shanghai is as modern a city as I’ve ever seen, but there is no part of the US that is remotely comparable to the backwardness of most rural areas in China. That’s just the way it is right now. No need to argue about it.

  390. tanjin Says:


    Of course, Mr. “Jerry” — an Indian with 80 yrs old Jewish father, will be willing to lead a batch of Indian soldiers to “invade” China.

    Wait a minute, is that just a kid play. LoL 🙂

  391. Sangos Says:

    Take note of the tone of this article http://english.people.com.cn/90002/96417/6822610.html. I would surmise that war over Tibet is not unlikely with the underlying tensions and rivalry being very real. And that certainly looks like the ‘peaceful’ border is just a facade. Interestingly the Indian Prime Minister’s comments on China during the USA visit rings of a reality check. Would be interesting now to watch how China acts vis-a-vis Inda, now that it has the US acknowledging it as a partner superpower of sorts. China has the global mandate to whip India into subjugation and set the house in order in South Asia.

  392. wuming Says:

    Sangos, You said:
    “China has the global mandate to whip India into subjugation and set the house in order in South Asia.”

    I think the so-called understanding about South Asia between China and US has more to do with Afghanistan and Pakistan than with the subcontinent. This gesture may have tripped on the sensitivity wires on the Sino-Indian rivalry, but it is hardly intentional, unless India started to think of Afghanistan to be within its sphere of influence. Therefore I believe the Indian reaction in this case and your statement above are exaggerations.

  393. Steve Says:

    Sangos, I also agree with Wuming. From what I’ve been able to gather, the Indian press has had a field day turning a relatively innocuous statement into almost an imminent declaration of war. If you’ve been subject to that press, I can see why you might draw that conclusion but it’s really just yellow journalism.

  394. Sangos Says:

    # 392 & 393 – Add Kashmir into the mix -“The Tibet of India”. That’s the sore point with India, not AfPak; fair enough from the Indian POV and the media. China is the new appointed Marshall for ‘all of the continent’. Which brings me to India’s insurgent Northeast, with historically closer relationship with Beijing opposed to none of Kashmir. The insurgent camps have already moved to China from Bangladesh and surprisingly Burma!

  395. pug_ster Says:

    I think India got US’s back if it comes to China and India simply of the way Prime Minister Singh is treated. Today Singh came to the US got the red carpet treatment, Official State Dinner with Hollywood A-listers, political biggies, Hollywood and Bollywood Entertainers, 21 gun salute, the whole shebang. Hu Jintao came here to the states 3 years ago and got this:


    President Hu is coming again next year to see Obama. Let’s hope Obama can do better than what GWB did.

  396. jpan Says:

    Facing a fast growing China, India’s politicians and elites are often behaving like some anxious and immature teenagers, unsure of their own place while competing for world’s attention.

    Even when India’s PM is in an official state visit to US, he did not forget to take a jab at China. With due respect to this old fella, does he know his action is really against diplomatic norm?

    He seems to be so obsessive with GDP growth rate (as always), forget GDP rate really defines a country. Nobody compares India with China just basing on that. In fact, India is better to spend less on purchasing advanced weaponry, more on feeding its hungry population and on providing basic services such as roads, electricity, schools and hospital.

    Given China’s far larger population than India’s, the percentage of population making less than US$1 a day is over 38% in India, comparing to 9% in China, while GDP per capital of India is almost one third of China in 2008. India’s current literacy rate is around 65% in comparison to over 90% of China. (all the numbers are based on publications of Indian source)

  397. jpan Says:

    continue …

    Despite all these hard facts, the question is why India’s PM still feel triumph and want to chearlead its outdated political system .. not to mention China’s bitter experience of economic setback in 60s and 70s.

  398. Sangos Says:

    # 397 – ‘Despite all these hard facts, the question is why India’s PM still feel triumph and want to chearlead its outdated political system’ ….

    Agree India’s democracy is rickety…just curious but what might per you be the alternative other than autocracy(actually PM Singh does not like the Chinese model)?

  399. Sangos Says:

    Interesting analysis, though top heavy on the Indian POV http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091120-713855.html

    Btw unbelievable but true? 90% respondents of a survey in China says India is #1 threat!

  400. buru Says:

    sangos’ recent apprehensions may have some substance… the border areas have received a big boost of personnel and literally crawling all over with them; they have also recruited tens of thousands of labourers to dig trenches et al; many are returning dead–from the cold, falls and apparently gunfire.. big guns transported at night after cordoning off the roads

  401. sangos Says:

    @ Buru…post above…Wowo! thanx for the heads up. And not a whimper in the usually hyper Indian Press :)…looks like its all under wraps of the Indian Army. From the looks of it the PLA might be readying for a major ground offensive in AP…guess all the mountains on the Mcmohan will be dug in under heavy snow by now…odd time for the Chinese to go trekking…keep us posted…thanks again!

  402. sangos Says:

    Hello….some news just in http://australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=426:india-china-relations-to-worsen-further-&catid=80:fayaz-wani&Itemid=128

  403. shibu jacob Says:

    India can not afford war at this time and I’m sure China wont want one either, as War is draining for any side.All these problems go back to the 1940’s and India’s partition.It has been written openly about Britians part in seeing India disintegrate,and they sowed the seeds of dissent with pakistan and kashmir.They haven’t forgotten how Gandhi forced them to quit India. In fact When Prince Charles visited Delhi and went to pay homage to Gandhi at his memorial, he refused to garland Gandhis bust which is customary by all visiting dignitaries.The colonial rule got over with end of WWII supposedly and new power equations under new names came up.I say its not over,just under a new name.Its a pity that India and China still need brokers..divide and rule is very much alive.The Brits partitioned India on basis of the 2 nation theory..ie muslim and hindu.India is still bleeding from the scars of that partition.Then we had a naive Prime minister in 1962,who didnt believe in warding off aggressive neighbours and believed in brotherhood with them.We are still paying for his naivette.Someone correctly commented that India is a land with people from different princely states that were united after independence under one state called India. That’s a problem; someone is a punjabi,someone is a malayali and someone a gujarathi.No one is Indian.Hindi is supposed to be the uniting language but not everyone has that as their mother tongue.There are 26 languages or so and hundreds of dialect’s.Running affairs in India is not easy and then to boot all the problems based on religion,caste and creed.We have great politicians who are dividing the country further on language and religion and what not, for their political gains, and add to all poverty and border skirmishes with neighbours.Its not at all easy.Theres a lot riding against India, but I’m sure it will manage to keep afloat.Good leadership and wise decisions are required.Someone correctly commented that India has many mouths to feed, and to use the money for that than getting arms.True, but defence is important too.The outcome of a war can tilt in anyones favour,but destruction,death and economic drains are sure for both sides.War never resolves anything, but only creates bitterness and future problems. Starting a war is easy, but making peace is difficult.

  404. slimshady6291 Says:


  405. Mackkenny777 Says:

    I have gone insane reading all the craps posted by people here over the future possibility and aftermath of a war between China and India. I pity the general Chinese citizens over their ignorance of real facts, obsolate national
    pride, arrogance and unnecesary foul attitude they carry. They are subjecting to China and India militarily as such
    they are comparing a military war in between The USA and the African Republic of Kenya or Ethoipia. Wake up
    on time from your day dreamming. China is no USA and India is no Kenya or Ethoipia. Though now China is ahead
    of India economically which I admit but as per as military is concerned India ain’t a puss over and matches China’s overall military might. I am absolutely disgusted by some of the people’s view of nuking India several times. What
    are you thinking…are you all nuts…India also have nukes as well as bilological weapons…what do you expect India will sit silent when you nuke her several times…Let me give you one example. If someone is shot pointblank then certainly he or she will die instantly, so no point of emptying the full magazine over and over again. If India retaliates and hit your main cities with nuke then you people will also die instantly. You are not super humans. Though in case of a nuclear exchange between China and India, India will grossly be in ruin but so will be China’s fate. No one will
    remain alive to cheer the victory for then a powerful China.

    China aspire to go on war with the world’s sole super power America and defeat them….Oh hey!…then you need to have ample practise before confronting the great USA’s military might. So I just want to remind you what great a real
    practise will China have than going on a war with their self proclaimed weak neighbor India. India is the only country
    in Asia which you guys are real afraid of. India matches your Army and Airforce and are miles ahead of China in Naval Mights. So if you really have that much beleive in your arms and ammunition then engage yourself with a one
    on one militaristic war with India. Your fictitious dream will crash coming down infront of your own eyes and will then
    no yourself that have done mistake by engaging yourself with the brave,powerful but peaceful India. You will get your own medicine in return if you want a piece of India. India is no Japan, Philipines or Taiwan with whom you will
    yell at ease and will terrorise as per your willingness.

    Bring on your binoculars and have a look into your so fully claimed South China Sea. You will be able to clearly see
    the presense of the Mighty Indian Navy. Now it’s in your own backyard, do you have the guts to oust the Indian navies presense from South China Sea. You know it very well Indian Navy is not Vietnam Navy or Philipine navy.
    You don’t have the courage to face the mighty Indian navy in your own backyard. Don’t bully the small country like
    Vietnam, Philipines, South Korea and Japan. If you are so great and powerful engage yourself with equally a powerful nation as yours. Then see what comes as an aftermath.You will forget to go on war with the Unites States for about 200 years then. Don’t yell or abuse India over the Chinese Military Forum. If you have guts then come one on one and also bring your poor ally Porkistan and face the Indian Military Might to test your own bloods.

    Oh!…I almost forgot….I am shivering in fear of the powerful Chinese Military….LOL….Face India anytime now.

  406. sarah Says:


    I don’t think China wants to go to war with America or India, but neither is it afraid to do so if it has no other choice left. I think you should take a good look at Indian forums to see how much hate and abuse they have for China and Pakistan. Indians are much more obsessed with China than the other way around–so don’t kid yourself that the Chinese spend much time fantasizing about going to war with India. Based on ancient and recent history, it seems like the Chinese are not afraid to get ‘their blood’ tested in battle. How about the Indians? Yes, great countries should only ‘engage yourself with equally a powerful nation as yours’—ha, seems like the country you’re so eager to use against China could benefit more from this advice. The question is do you have the guts to tell it that country? Didn’t think so— so please don’t pretend to be so righteous and brave telling the Chinese off. It reeks of cowardice and hypocrisy.

    ‘Oh!…I almost forgot….I am shivering in fear of the powerful Chinese Military….LOL….Face India anytime now.’

    Sure! As you wish, please the name the date and the PLA will certainly not disappoint you.

Leave a Reply

301 Moved Permanently

Moved Permanently

The document has moved here.