Loading
Jun 23

Issues with India/China Relations

Written by Steve on Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010 at 2:31 am
Filed under:Analysis, General, politics | Tags:, , , , , , ,
Add comments

I came across two articles recently, both concerning India/China relations but one written from the Chinese point of view while the other was written from the Indian side. I thought it might be interesting to compare the two viewpoints to see just how far apart they really are.

The first article is from the China Daily while the other is from an Atlantic Council forum. The China Daily article feels there are ‘three gnawing issues’, as they put it. The Indian side looks at it historically, politically and diplomatically. They are both short so I’ll include them in their entirety.

Gnawing issues in China-India relations

By Wang Hui ( chinadaily.com.cn)
Updated: 2010-04-09 14:44

This year marks the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties between India and China. Amid a series of exchanges of high-level congratulations and visits, news from the economic front is also exciting: The first two months of the year saw a 55 percent increase in bilateral trade as compared to 2009. All this seems to show that the relationship between the world’s two most populous countries is faring well and will grow even stronger.

Behind this promising picture, however, a few gnawing issues are still standing in the way between the two titans. If not handled properly, the road ahead for them would not be as smooth as expected.

First, China and India share about 2,000 kilometers of border, and the boundary has never been formally delineated. The famous poet Robert Frost said in a well-known poem that “Good fences make good neighbors.” Many confrontations between countries have been ignited by disputes in their border area. The two sides should quicken their steps on demarcation consultations that began in the 1980s.

Second, as China gains an increasing sphere of influence in the world arena, many Indians, including high-ranking officials, see China as a potential rival or even a threat to India. This may partly explain why India has yet to recognize China’s market economy status, while over 60 countries have granted such status to China. Such anti-China sentiments will not help cultivate a friendly atmosphere for bilateral ties to grow, but rather sow the seeds of distrust between the two countries.

Third, India has always harbored a grudge over China’s all-weather friendship with Pakistan. The China-Pakistan relationship is based on mutual trust and mutual support in nation building and international cooperation. To maintain a peaceful external environment, China also wants to build closer ties with India. If China could become a mutual friend to the two Asian rivals, it will contribute more to regional peace and stability. This will eventually serve India’s interests as well.

To address these issues, the Indian side needs to show real sincerity in forging a more friendly relationship with China. An “Asia century” will remain only a dream until the two Asian giants can treat each other with mutual trust and respect.

India-China Relations: Current Issues and Emerging Trends

January 25, 2010

Event Summary:

The Atlantic Council recently hosted Mr. Mohan Guruswamy, South Asia Center Nonresident Senior Fellow and Chairman of New Delhi’s Centre for Policy Alternatives. In his talk, he addressed the deep-seated rivalry between two Asian powerhouses, India and China, and the factors contributing to the exacerbation of the issue. He also discussed the future of the India-China relationship – where it is headed and what it could possibly bring on both regional and international scales.

Mr. Guruswamy first explored the India-China relationship through a historical lens, pointing out that the relations between these two neighbors have always been tenuous, riddled with contentious border issues and territorial claims, and made even more muddled by the lack of a clear historical record demarcating the borders. He indicated that the burgeoning border disputes, partly a result of the British Raj’s lack of setting clear borders, were exacerbated by China’s occupation of Lassa in 1962 and then by India’s retaliatory occupation of the Tawang region. Attempts to resolve these border issues – from China’s package deal offer in 1986 to their revised proposal in 1988 – have proved unsuccessful, and now neither country is willing to further negotiate on their dispute.

In today’s political context, Guruswamy observed, these two neighbors still show an unrelenting rivalry. China’s fears regarding India, such as their belief that India is a part of the US’ plan to encircle their country (a claim which China feels is “evidenced” by the US-India Civilian Nuclear Agreement) encourages China’s desire to “trip” India before the military asymmetry will begin to close. Further adding to the preexisting distrust between the two countries is India’s economic growth, specifically as China’s GDP growth rate is expected to decline in the recent future while India’s is supposed to steadily increase. Other political factors that continue to deepen the India – China divide is the issue of Tibet.  Ever since India granted political asylum to the Dalai Lama, China has accused India of being pro Tibet (despite India’s acknowledgement of Tibet as a Chinese territory). There is also what Guruswamy calls ‘the coming crisis of the Dalai Lamas’, where two Dalai Lamas will rise (one from Dharamsala and one from Tibet) to succeed upon the passing of the current Dalai Lama which will further create tension regarding this issue. The political stability of other key regional countries – such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Myanmar – all have the potential to impact India-China relations as well.

Indian interests in respect to China in the long-run include the following key concepts: avoiding an arms race with China, avoiding entanglement in the US-China rivalry, and avoiding being kept in check by China. India’s aim for the future, Guruswamy asserted, is to “walk softly but carry a big enough stick to keep the dragon at bay”.

The question and answer session following the discussion addressed several topics, most importantly, India’s developing relationship with key strategic countries Russia, the US and China. In respect to recent Indo-Chinese cooperation (specifically at the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change), Guruswamy noted that while they were rivals, they were not enemies, and that “they knew how to work together with common interests in mind”. To reassert his point, Guruswamy exemplified their burgeoning trade relationship, and the potential for the two countries to work together on a number of key security issues, such as terrorism and drug trafficking.

More on Mohan Guruswamy:

Guruswamy heads the Center for Policy Alternatives in New Delhi, an independent think tank that focuses on critical policy issues and whose studies are disseminated to India’s political, administrative and media leaders.  Prior to working at CPAS, Mr. Guruswamy was Advisor to the Finance Minister with the rank of Secretary to the Government of India.

His diverse career path also includes teaching, senior management and journalism.  He is a frequent television commentator on matters of current interest and writes a widely read and disseminated column. Guruswamy has authored several books on policy issues, the latest being The Looming Crisis in India’s Agriculture; India China Relations: The Border Issue and Beyond; and Chasing the Dragon: Will India Catch-Up with China?.

Let’s examine both viewpoints. The China Daily article’s points are:

  1. Border issues
  2. Geopolitical threat
  3. China/Pakistan relationship

The Indian article stresses:

  1. Border issues
  2. China’s fears of encirclement
  3. India’s increasing economic growth
  4. Tibet issues
  5. Political stability of Afghanistan, Pakistan & Myanmar
  6. Potential arms race
  7. Indian neutrality vis a vis the China/USA relationship
  8. China putting limits on Indian growth

Do you feel this covers all the issues facing the two growing world powers? Do you agree or disagree with the list of issues? Can you add others? What do you feel is the best approach for the two countries to take in the coming years to settle the issues fairly and equitably? Is this a win/lose  or win/win game between the two?


There are currently 3 comments highlighted: 69188, 69196, 69220.

87 Responses to “Issues with India/China Relations”

  1. Legalist Says:

    My question is: is it about isuues or something else? Issues can be solved if there’s nothing else involved. For example, China solved all its border issues with its neighbours but India. China offered a land swap with India in the 50s and 60s. It didn’t succeed. The same deal is still on the table. I think if the borders are settled betweet China and India, other issues will go away or can be dealt with more easily.

  2. ChinkTalk Says:

    I have more Inidan (Punjabi) friends than Chinese friends so I tend to side with the Indian sentiments.

    Having said that, I don’t think the problem is between India and China. If the Americans would keep their noses out of the India-China relations, there is absolutely no doubt of a peaceful India-China resolution to the issues.

  3. footloose Says:

    I can probably present the Indian view point. India considers the 1962 war as a great betrayal by China. Definitely, we understand that Prime Minister Nehru was much less war minded than Chairman Mao (no offences, but I am speaking about their past achievements and approaches) and he totally mis judged the situation. The long term by-product of this war is the deep seated dis trust towards the Northern neighbor.
    I would expect the Indian government to be bold and try to solve the Northern problems.
    On the part of the Chinese, they need to stop helping Pakistan by supplying them with nuclear, missile and aircraft technology. Its out in the open now that a lot of world problems are originating from the Af-Pak region. No one in the world has provided nuclear, missile technologies to India. We have developed certain institutions(military and non military) that provide us an identity and guarantee for survival in rough weathers. Let Pakistan stand on its feet and be identified as a sustainable, responsible nation before it threatens anyone else and before it can be entrusted with Chinese nukes.
    Talking about Tibet, I really don’t see any dangerous Indo-Tibetan nexus working to seriously damage Chinese interests(nothing at all in comparison to what China has done for India-Pak equation). Dalai Lama is treated and will be respected(for the time to come) as a religious leader in India. As a resident of this country I can tell you that he has no political clout over the Indian populace.
    Both countries have a great history and shall attain greatness and their rightful place on the world stage in the time to come.

  4. r v Says:

    The problem of Pakistan is a problem of India herself, because Pakistan is born of the fundamental chaos of India herself, an ongoing chaos, not limited and including the Gorkhas, the Eastern “Red Belt”, etc. China is not Pakistan’s only ally. US established alliance with Pakistan before PRC with Pakistan. Note: India had actually recognized PRC before Pakistan did, (which may be a source of the “betrayal” feeling). Perhaps India feels that PRC “owes” something to India for the early diplomatic recognition?!

    Perhaps what PRC “owes” to India is more reflected in India’s own ambition among the “Non-aligned” movement (NAM). (Which is to say that it is more India’s own disappointed hopes that China did not support India enough in India’s own game during the Cold War playing US against USSR.)

    If there is anything missing from the “List” above, one should perhaps include the Non-aligned Movement of India, for that is fundamentally opposite of many of its own policies. NAM is a dangerous game that India plays, that is duplicity to its own name.

    Like NAM, after the Cold War, India is searching for its own relevance in the new world, where there is ONLY 1 acknowledged superpower to play with. (Perhaps China is another that India can play US against?) In such a case, as long as India plays the NAM game between US and China (for India’s own benefit), then turn about is only fair game. Pakistan will just be the other that US and China will play against India.

    Whether Dalai Lama has political clout in India is irrelevant as whether the Taliban has clout in Pakistan. India is permitting DL’s followers to conduct their political (and other) activities in India, as much as Pakistan is turning a blind eye to Taliban(and other terrorists) in Pakistan.

  5. ChinkTalk Says:

    The Americans are providing nuclear technology to India for ?? civilian use???

  6. r v Says:

    US provides nuclear technology to India, only as part of the US game of playing India against China. Just as India plays US against China, it’s everyone playing against everyone else. (Free for all).

    I notice that Democracies have a habit of playing the Victim in some great “betrayal”. I guess by some logic, US was “betrayed” by the Taliban and Bin Laden, whom US funded and helped to fight against the USSR. And now, US is supporting warlords and bureaucrats of Afghanistan, who are too busy making heroine and dealing with Talibans.

    India, is also busy “helping” the Afghans. I wager, that those who are too eager to “help” will only suffer the betrayal of their own making.

  7. CMD Says:

    Admin,

    Please ban offensive ID based on ethnic slur. If we accept ‘ChinkTalk’ as valid ID, what’s next? GookTalk? N!gg3rTalk???

  8. ChinkTalk Says:

    CMD, my real Chinese first name is Chink King, and I am proud of it.

    but I do understand your concern

    but when we start to delve into freedom of expression and political correctness, that is another discussion all together.

  9. footloose Says:

    @r v : >>about Indian diversity:
    Gorkhas, Tamils, Kannadas, Hindi belt, NorthEast, Marathis, Gujaratis, Oriyas, Bengalis, Punjabis, Malayalis, Telugus all have a sensibility for the oneness of their nation. For the audience, these are some of the communities that compose India. I don’t blame someone sitting at a distance and just reviewing us through only one section of media to assume that we are chaotic. But a small question for your intellect: How can such a diverse nation register 63 years of existing(also, consider the state we started from) ? Please seek an answer with unbiased mind.
    >> about Pakistan: They were born out of India. But the there is a difference. I will sum it up in the words of an anonymous article I studied at nytimes…”Most countries have armies. Pakistan, is an army with a country”. Its a state policy of Pakistan to bleed India through covert means like fomenting unrest and terrorism.
    >> about DL: its wrong to compare DL and Taliban together. Talibs are armed militia and DL is not. Had he been one, the Leaders around the world would not be meeting him frequently and seeking blessings. Can you ever imagine Mullah Omar being invited to Taiwan to pray for earthquake victims. No ! I have never been to Dharamshala but I have seen a big market place and residential colony of Taiwan origin people in New Delhi. They are all peaceful. Even I have never heard of any armed activity going on from Dharamshala.

  10. footloose Says:

    @r v and ChinkTalk: Indo-US nuke deal is not a free gift from them to us. US wants to SELL civilian nuke tech to India and in return India will have to allow regular inspections of the civilian sites. Its no where like one party giving disruptive tech to another deliberately. India does have its weapons programme, FBR programme(all indegenous) that are kept separate from the deal. Above anything else, we have a clean record on proliferation.

  11. ChinkTalk Says:

    I think that India and China should have a nuclear exchange program and the Americans should just butt out.

    While I admire the American people and the US’ political system, but the people who run the country are vote whores and infiltrated by special interest groups. As a world leader, the US should promote peace between China and India.

    LIkewise, Taiwan and China.

    Why arm Taiwan? Why arm India?

    The US is the world’s expert on regime change and it would think of nothing in destabilizing India if it does not follow the US agenda.

    I trust the Indians but India should not be complacent on US loyalty.

    The US used to supply Iran and Iraq with the most sophisticated weapondry.

  12. r v Says:

    Footloose:

    (1) How can such a diverse nation register 63 years of existing(also, consider the state we started from) ?

    Answer: Not very productively, and certainly not very peacefully “coexisting”. Countless ethnic riots, Massacre of the Sikhs, etc. Need I even mention the continual violence and instability in the “Red Belt”? Or the persistence of the Caste based discrimination system in India? It’s a bit of a miracle that a charge of genocide has not been brought up against Indian political leaders. Little wonder that Pakistan wanted to be separated from India.

    If mere “existence” is what Indian ambition lays, what is the form of this “existence”? If India wishes to continue the status quo of the current chaos in India, then I am not surprised by the ongoing terrorism.

    (2) on Pakistan. Their difference is India’s own making. Their “existence” is no less enduring than India.

    (3) On DL. I see nothing wrong with comparing DL’s group with any other political groups. DL didn’t find his “peaceful ways” until the 1970′s, AFTER his failed armed uprisings. And if you wish to compare the popularities of DL vs. Mullah Omar, I think you will find that Omar’s followers are just as devoted and fanatical.

    What do I care what speeches DL gives in the world? Speeches cannot absolve the riots of his followers.

  13. footloose Says:

    You seem hell bent to uphold your prejudices and do not want to have a holistic view. Is every thing going absolutely fine with your society and country? Can you appeal in a court and expect a fair trial? Is there no rioting in Tibet? Is there no rich poor divide? Do you have freedom of speech to go on TV and ask questions from your government? Was Cultural Revolution justified? Did Great Leap Forward achieve anything?

    China is currently ahead of India economically but your economic and political system is very fragile from inside. Indians have freedom and are growing. Also, no one doubts the endurance of our democracy, neither us nor any foreign commentator. Can you say the same, on part of the communists? Since 1980s, the communists found economic tools to expand their rule over Mainland China and I am sure they will not abandon this path but what if some leader tries another great revolution. Can you be sure that won’t happen? Will they not officially kill their own students if they demand freedom?
    I didn’t mean to hurt but you(right now, I m referring to you as an individual) have grown arrogant and closed your eyes and ears even before you have attained any greatness.

    No country is perfect, you have to make it so.

  14. r v Says:

    footloose:

    It’s hardly “holistic” that the massacre of the Sikhs has been buried by Indian “committees” for over 20 years (of the long existence of India). Holistically speaking, it seems India is more hell bent on holding onto its own illusions of “Democracy”.

    No offense, if you think you can “make” India “perfect”, I’m not the arrogant one. Call me pessimistic, but I don’t buy such illusions of control.

    “Revolution”? I am sure Revolutions can happen anywhere, but your “what-if’s” of China are your own speculations.

    Reality, on the other hand, is that India HAS chaos in over 1/3 of its territory. I’m not sure, but that’s hardly a guarantee of anyone’s “freedom”.

  15. footloose Says:

    hahaha seems like you are not gonna understand…neways, it was nice talking with you and i ll be leaving now

  16. Steve Says:

    @ footloose: r v isn’t Chinese, he’s Chinese American so it’s not his country. r v, you’re playing “gotcha” and though it can be fun, it doesn’t lead to any understanding of the issues. India did this, China did that… ad nauseum, what does it mean? Nothing really. Both countries are where they are right now and the issues facing them aren’t going to go away because someone plays “gotcha”. They’re real issues that can cause eventual problems for both societies if not solved sooner or later. The “gotcha” stuff is just a media game to get the populace all riled up and nationalistic.

  17. r v Says:

    Steve,

    We were talking about the issues “list”, weren’t we? I mean, really, if we are not talking about who did what, then what’s the “betrayal” all about? What issues are left?

    And, also, I’m not even talking about problems that India had in the past. Pakistan, “Red Belt”, and the NAM policies are India’s current problems. Now, China has been blamed (at least in part) by India for some of these problems. (Some in India blame China for the Naxalites.) But if India really wants to resolve these problems, it needs only to look to itself.

    Frankly, China doesn’t blame India half as much for the Tibet problems than India blames China about Pakistan. China does blame DL and his followers, but I don’t see China griping about Indian “Betrayal” all the time.

    India’s problem with Pakistan and “Red belt”, is similar to the vaunted US policies on any of its enemies. (Ie. we don’t deal with them, until we can’t avoid it.) The facade of the hardline policy invariably crash into the wall of reality. US tried to avoid dealing with the Taliban after 9/11, only to find its Afghanistan occupation becoming increasingly costly and unsustainable.

    I mean, really, even China talks to DL’s people, many many times.

  18. Steve Says:

    r v: I just looked at my list and didn’t see anything about Sikhs on it. I didn’t see anything about India’s “internal chaos” or even anything about democracy. There’s nothing about ethnic riots or the “red belt” either. There’s also nothing on my list about the DL. Are you referring to another list?

  19. ChinkTalk Says:

    Steve, I think you have unfairly accused r v of playing “gotcha”.

    I have many Sikh friends and Khalistan is on most of their minds and it would be impossible to discuss India without mentioning about the Sikhs.

    Just because it is not on your list, why is it that we cannot mention it. Is this democracy?

    Maybe you are the one playing “gotcha”.

  20. Steve Says:

    Err… CT, you might want to re-read what r v wrote, which was “We were talking about the issues “list”, weren’t we?”. I was replying to that. You can mention anything you want but when someone says it was per the list I referenced and it’s not, I don’t feel unjustified in pointing that out. And I have no idea what you’re talking about when you say “Is this democracy?” What does democracy have to do with China and India solving their problems? Democracy is never mentioned in either article. What’s needed is negotiation and diplomacy. What’s needed is compromise and statesmanship. How to go about that was my purpose in writing this post in the first place. And when someone brings up items that have nothing to do with the topic (as in Sikhs), that’s “gotcha”.

    BTW, you’re more than welcome to write a post about Sikhs in India if you can somehow relate it to China, which is the subject of this blog. This particular post is about a completely different topic.

  21. Steve Says:

    Here’s an article in the Economist that talks about the nuclear rivalry between Pakistan and India and also goes after both China and the USA under Bush for increasing the proliferation of weapons and technology.

  22. r v Says:

    er, Steve,

    You did also write “Can you add others?” in your post? What’s wrong with adding a few to your list now?

  23. r v Says:

    The point about the Sikhs is illustrative of the general chaos in India. India has plenty of them, but wants to blame some on China.

    India dealt with the Sikhs in no less oppressive manners as India dealt with Kashmir and Pakistan (going so far as to maintain to today a black list of former Sikh nationalists and their families). While such policies do not directly impact China’s relation with India, they are certainly relevant to how China perceives India’s tactics or the mob of Indian “democracy”.

    The anti-Sikh violence of India was hardly new. After the break up of Nehru’s “brotherhood” policies with China, anti-Chinese incidences occurred in India, causing resident Japanese diplomats to clearly mark all their vehicles with large Japanese flags to avoid mob violence.

    Speaking of “gotcha” game, China’s “list” is hardly the comprehensive list. Root cause of many of the issues are not on the list either. Afterall, many have attributed China’s Tibet problem as symptom of China’s own economic disparity problem, or even Han Chinese “racism”. Why now can we not discuss India’s problems to the various possible causes?

    Why must all India’s problems on the list have to “relate” to China somehow? Isn’t that almost saying that somehow China MUST be the cause of these issues of India?

    I disagree. I think the 1st thing to do, we must identify the root cause of many of these problems of India. And as I have already stated, India’s problem with Pakistan is mostly of India’s own making. India had plenty of time and opportunities to repair its relations and resolve its problems with Pakistan (nearly a brother).

  24. ChinkTalk Says:

    I agree with r v.

    It is ridiculous to suggest that China must be part and partial to any discussion regarding India.

    While this blog is about China, India is a sovereign country and there is no need to always involve China in every instance.

    Sihk separatism is a major concern in India because the majority of the Indian diaspora in North America and Europe are Sihks.

    While on the diplomatic and political front Sihks represent India but if my friends are of any indication, they would rather disassociate with India and called Khalistan a country of their own.

    Many white politicians are simply fooled, or just living in wishful thinking that India will be united against China.

    The Sihks are pro-China.

    It makes me laugh when I see white people promoting India and everyone of my Indo friends Sihks and non Sihks alike show such disdain for white people.

    Like r v says, it is all a manipulative game. The Indians are playing the US against China and the US is trying to use India against China.

    The Indians will win the game simply because the Americans are bending over and ready to be F*kc thinking that appeasing the Indians will get India to go against China. But the situation is far more complicated because the Indians are much smarter than the Americans.

    Ever notice that all of the present enemies of the US were its best buddies just a few years back. Iran and Iraq used to enjoy the most sophisticated US weapondry.

    India will go down the same road.

  25. Steve Says:

    @ r v #22: There’s nothing wrong with adding to the list but you didn’t add to the list and you failed to answer any of the questions I asked in #20. So let’s take it from the top:

    1 – This post is about India/China relations. It’s not about China issues and it’s not about India issues. If you want to discuss China issues, write a post about what you want to discuss. If you want to discuss India issues, go to an India blog, such as Maitreya Bhakal’s excellent one which is referenced in our links. Over here we’re blogging for China, remember?
    2 – What do Sikhs in India have to do with solving China/India problems? If you can make that connection, I’m all ears but so far you haven’t made it at all.
    3 – What does India’s “internal chaos”, a rather broad phrase, have to do with solving China/India problems? If you can make that connection, I’m all ears but so far you haven’t made it at all.
    4 – What do ethnic riots in India have to do with solving China/India problems? If you can make that connection, I’m all ears but so far you haven’t made it at all.
    5 – What do “red belt” issues in India have to do with solving China/India problems? If you can make that connection, I’m all ears but so far you haven’t made it at all.
    6 – I’ll grant you that the DL’s presence in India contributes to problems in China/India relations. That was cited in the second article. So since it’s already on the list, how do both nations go about solving this particular problem in a way that’s amenable to both sides? So far you haven’t addressed that at all.
    7 – What issue did you bring up that wasn’t on the list and could be listed as an area that needs diplomatic attention between the two countries? Why does it need attention and what would you recommend that would be acceptable to both countries and solve this problem?

    @ CT #24: It not only ISN’T ridiculous to suggest China must be part and partial (I believe you mean ‘parcel’) to any discussion regarding India, it’s the purpose of this blog that it is. There are multitudinous blogs out there devoted exclusively to India issues so why are you bringing them up for discussion here? To do so is called “threadjacking” and if you or others continue to do it, you’ll be placed in moderation since it’s rude to the post writer and rude to the other bloggers to do so. After a post has run its course, then there’s far more leeway to get off topic but this one is just starting. This is simple internet etiquette. To bring up the Sikh issue is no different than someone bringing up Uighur issues in China. That’s not the topic of this post either, even though it would relate to China in some way. In the end, both are examples of threadjacking.

    I asked you a series of simple questions in #20 and noticed that you failed to answer any of them. If you can’t answer responsive questions, you’re not willing to engage in an intelligent discussion and I’ll just ignore your comments in the future.

    @ CT: This blog prohibits profanity. Using $*%*&# with another letter or two isn’t any different than using profanity except it’s more childish. It’s been said that when someone has no argument, the last resort is to use profanity. If you continue to engage in such childish behavior, you’ll be placed in moderation.

    So the both of you did one of three things:
    1 – Failed to read the post itself.
    2 – Have minimal comprehension skills or
    3 – Engaged in threadjacking

    So gentlemen, which one is it?

  26. r v Says:

    Steve,

    If you are only going to give us only 3 choices to describe what we wrote, that’s rather a strawman argument (the type of media “gotcha” arguments that you were so against). And I have already answered your question from #20, “The point about the Sikhs is illustrative of the general chaos in India. India has plenty of them, but wants to blame some on China.”

    But perhaps I can elaborate more. How India deals with its Sikh problems, or its Pakistan problems, or its Kashmiri problems, or its Red Belt problems, is indicative of India’s MINDSET, which is IMPORTANT if China wants to resolve issues with India to India’s SATISFACTION. (Afterall, China can hardly claim to resolve issues with India, if India remains UNHAPPY.) But what would make India happy?

    That being said, HOW can China resolve the issues with India to India’s satisfaction, given that India continues its rather hardline policies which continues to generate chaos (in Red Belt, etc.) Or, is it simply that India will fear a strong China just because? Surely, US’s aid to Pakistan in terms of money and military could be counted as more than China’s over the years. (I have no doubt that China would naturally fear any of its neighbors colluding with US as part of “containing China”, but that is far more natural than US fearing Chinese companies operating the Panama Canal.)

    I will offer a 4th choice as answer to your #25: 4 – Offer alternative answers to India-China issues. If you do not wish to accept my answers a valid, that is your wish, I have no wish to force you to read my answers. But I disagree to your suggestion that my answers have “nothing to do” with the topic. I maintain, and you can disagree, how India approaches its own many domestic problems has EVERYTHING to do with how China should set its policies with India. Obvious, China is treading very carefully in NOT interfering (or even commenting) on India’s domestic disturbances (unless risking yet more accusations of “betrayal”). (YET, even China’s “lack of support” of India’s acquisition of nuclear technology from US last year was portrayed as a betrayal by some in India.) Need I give more examples of how India seems to be set on accusing China of “betrayal” at every little thing?

    Call me crazy, but I don’t understand the “Betrayal victim” mentality in India. Or maybe, it’s because there is already so much mutual “betrayals” inside India, that they can’t see anything but “betrayal”, traitors, and terrorists? That “betrayal” is just another Orwellian Newspeak in India, much as “terrorism” has become in US?

  27. ChinkTalk Says:

    From Steve: “”@ CT #24: It not only ISN’T ridiculous to suggest China must be part and partial (I believe you mean ‘parcel’) to any discussion regarding India, it’s the purpose of this blog that it is. There are multitudinous blogs out there devoted exclusively to India issues so why are you bringing them up for discussion here? To do so is called “threadjacking” and if you or others continue to do it, you’ll be placed in moderation since it’s rude to the post writer and rude to the other bloggers to do so. After a post has run its course, then there’s far more leeway to get off topic but this one is just starting. This is simple internet etiquette. To bring up the Sikh issue is no different than someone bringing up Uighur issues in China. That’s not the topic of this post either, even though it would relate to China in some way. In the end, both are examples of threadjacking.”"

    Steve, could you explain freedom of expression to me.

    And I meant part and partial.

    As to #20, I still need more time to respond, is there a time limit on anwsering your questions?

  28. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To #26:
    that sounded good, and it’s unfortunate you didn’t come up with that earlier.

    The China Daily article made no mention of India’s handling of internal problems as an issue that’s pertinent to India/China relations…so you are definitely adding to the list.

    So, how does India’s “mindset” as reflected by her handling of “Sikh problems” etc affect CHina’s pursuit of her gnawing issues as identified by the article? Answer that, and you’d really be on topic.

    To #27:
    is that the best you got? You’ve been around here long enough to know that Steve does not appreciate people venturing off topic, especially in the first 100 comments. Furthermore, this is his post, and as such he has more latitude in defining the parameters he wants for discussion. If you wanna go on and on about India, then write your own post and do so to your heart’s content.

    Your freedom of expression, I think, is that you are free to take your expression elsewhere if Steve is rubbing you the wrong way. Choice is all yours, pal. But if you’re gonna express yourself here, then I’d suggest from personal experience that you stick to the blog rules.

    I must say your last statement is rather pathetic, even by adolescent standards.

  29. r v Says:

    I don’t see any deadlines to when I can come up with “that”. And obviously, China’s official news media refrained from commenting on India’s “internal problems” as it would obviously be called “betrayal” by India.

    Obviously, China needs to take into account India’s usual “mindset” in dealing with “betrayals”, such as the Sikhs (who are Indian citizens), and Pakistanis (who were akin to India as brothers in the same region). If a solution cannot mitigate India’s usual “mindset” of “betrayal”, it wouldn’t be much of a “solution”.

  30. r v Says:

    One should note an exemplary quote from Gandhi, which is repeatedly overused with exceptional generalization in India: “Muslims are bullies, and Hindus are cowards.” This quote is often used by Hindu nationalists when portraying the relationship with Pakistan and the problem in Kashmir.

    No one really knows, nor does anyone care to debate, the exact context of this quote when Gandhi said it. Some even accused Gandhi of encouraging Muslims to be more violent in their attacks on Hindus, and thus used the quote to suggest that Gandhi himself was calling for a surrender and appeasement to Islamic extremists.

    Evidently, India increasingly sees itself as the only victim in its disputes with Pakistan, and sees Gandhi’s secularism as a failed doctrine. However, that also evidences that India itself is moving away from secular tolerance, and toward extremism and nationalism. “Self-victimization” is merely a media tool to perpetuate increasingly hardline policies.

  31. S.K. Cheung Says:

    As I said, better late than never.

    Did China’s official news media (and presumably by extension, the CCP who controls said official media) at some point in time pledge/agree/promise/stipulate/ or otherwise obligate themselves to avoid commenting on India’s “internal problems” even if they deemed it relevant to a particular discussion, such as it’s possible role in the evolution of China/India relations? If they hadn’t, then I’m not sure how India would construe it as a “betrayal” if they did so on an issue where it bears potential relevance.

    Let’s also not overlook that, if indeed “self-victimization” is a tool employed by Indian media, it is certainly not their exclusive purview.

    If China is mindful of treading softly upon India’s apparent aversion-to-betrayal-mindset, how does that affect her pursuit of resolving border issues, of resolving India’s suspicion of China’s rise as a world power, and of her ongoing relationship with Pakistan?

  32. Janvi Says:

    HINDI CHINI BAHI-BHAI !!!!!

  33. r v Says:

    SKC,

    Good questions. If anyone has any good answers, I’m all ears. I’m not sure India has any good answers for its own mindset problem (as relevant to multitudes of its problems).

    Let us also note that Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu Nationalist, and yet it is the Hindu Nationalists who often accuse Gandhi of betraying Hindus. Let us also note the prevailing tendencies of many “democracies” to resort to accusations of “betrayal” and “treason” within. Let’s see, President Ma of Taiwan, President Clinton of US, were just some more prominent figures to be accused of “treason”.

    As I said, “betrayal” is now perhaps nothing more than Orwellian Newspeak in the “Democratic media”. If that “betrayal” stands to block mutual trust, then I see no way to solve that problem.

  34. r v Says:

    If one is to approach any border issues rationally, there is simply recognition that such issues are naturally contentious, and negotiations will be long and difficult. There is only expectation of more efforts and less hostilities.

    In such issues, Democratic governments and media often have the tendencies to actually ratchet up hostile war of words first before any negotiations. Any compromise by a moderate would be perceived as “betrayal”, and if the other side is infuriated by the war of words and break up the talks, it’s even more “betrayal”.

    The 1962 Sino-India border war was preceded by hostile words by some Indian politicians, (such as Indian politician speeches calling to “drive the Chinese out of the disputed areas,”) which only made the Chinese side see less and less probability that any reasonable compromise is possible. If that history is any lesson, as many times in recent Indian history, it is that India does not know how to negotiate. The over use of the word “betrayal” and hardline policies in Indian politics are further evidence of that.

    India does not negotiate with Pakistan. India does not negotiate with the Sikh Nationalists. India does not negotiate with the Red Belt. With such a mindset, India puts itself into a corner and calls itself the victim, over and over again.

    *For contrast, China and USSR fought a border war in 1969, but resolved the border issue in treaties from 1991 to 2004. (Most of that time with neither side making any public remarks about the ongoing negotiations).

    That’s over 13 years of negotiations and multiple treaties between China and USSR (later Russia). That’s what I would call earnest hard effort in diplomacy by both sides.

  35. S.K. Cheung Says:

    For external negotiations, India’s inability to resolve conflict with Pakistan is either an example of her inability to negotiate in general, or an example of her specific inability to negotiate with Pakistan. China’s treaties with Russia show that she is either a successful negotiator, or a successful negotiator when it comes to Russia. Whether India/Pakistan and China/Russia have any bearing whatsoever on India/China is anyone’s guess, if for no other reason that we are dealing with unique issues. Just as an example, Kashmir might just be less negotiable for India than AP.

    On the other hand, I’m not sure if the success (or lack thereof) in internal negotiations has much bearing on the capacity for success in external negotiations, for no other reason than the fact that the issues are once again different. India has a poor track record in addressing Sikhs, but there’s no shortage of examples of Chinese shortcomings when it comes to her western frontier. Maybe India and China will both be better at dealing with each other than with some of their own. I would agree that playing the victim card is not very compelling, for either side.

  36. r v Says:

    I would give another more relevant example of how India put itself into a corner below:

    It was well known that even before 1962, India, Pakistan and China had a 3 way dispute over border territories in Kashmir. Pakistan had actually feared PRC’s intentions. Pakistan urged India to present a united front against China, “the Northern Neighbor”. India turned Pakistan down COLD, no compromises. This actually forced Pakistan to turn to China. Pakistan and China then rather quickly resolved their border disputes in Kashmir and began incrementally extensive military and economic cooperations.

    This episode and others, actually paints another interesting picture of India’s “mindset”, one of “GOING alone hardliner” mindset.

    Consider the geopolitical policies and cultural context of India in 1950-1960: It harped its Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) hard and fast. Why? It didn’t want to be aligned to either US or USSR (though it was closer to USSR). It was so desperate to establish NAM around the world as its own way of achieving some significant global influence, that Nehru felt that it had no choice but to seek China’s help/support.

    But there is a problem, India in 1950′s did not really respect PRC from a cultural point of view. India was ruled by the elite caste of educated wealthy. PRC was ruled by peasant soldiers, at least perceived by Indian elites as “low caste” people. (Which is evidenced by the repeated gross underestimation of PRC military by India. Indian elites simply could not believe that the peasant generals and leaders of China had the will or the ability to challenge the Indian upper caste.) This perception problem created another political problem for Nehru. To speak of “brotherhood” with a bunch of peasant leaders was degrading to the Indian elite. But Nehru’s desperation for PRC’s support meant that he had to risk it.

    The secondary cultural implication of that is, India was not really talking “brotherhood” with PRC. India was talking “Big Brother to Little Brother” to PRC. From the very beginning, India set out its claims to China, and expected China to simply acknowledge and support India without questions or disputes.

    Furthermore, the cultural implication of India’s “extension of friendship” was one of traditional upper caste to lower caste. In the mindset, the upper caste does not “ask” for help, it simply demands it, and the lower caste is not suppose to refuse. An refusal to support by the lower caste is considered an insult and a defiance. China’s supposed “slapping away India’s hand of friendship” is indicative of the Indian caste mindset of the time.

    In similar fashion, India approached its league of Non-Aligned Nations with the “big brother to little brother” mindset. India saw itself as the big brother in the league. Every thing was great, until some of the other members didn’t fully support India. For example, immediately after the Sino-India Border War of 1962, India attempted to seek a condemnation of China in the league of Non-Aligned Nations. However, the league did not issue a full condemnation, disappointing India. After which, India’s influence in the NAM waned over the years (or we should say, India simply gave up.)

    What we can surmise from India’s recent history is that India’s mindset continues to be one of “Going alone hardline” born from the cultural mindset of the India ruling elites. The “caste” mentality still shows through in much of Indian politics. Even when India was losing the war of 1962, it was reluctant to ask for help from US and USSR. Even when it did receive some help from US and USSR later, when it could afford to, India withdrew itself into its corner again. At the same time, it maintained hardline and uncompromising claims to much of its disputes with all its neighbors.

    Negotiations are negotiations. Internal or external, they relate to similar habits and abilities and mindsets. India’s approach to negotiations simply shows that its style is uncompromising and hardline. Which only explains why there has been so little progress to India’s internal and external problems.

  37. Steve Says:

    @ r v #26: Look, I’m sure in you mind you’ve answered my questions from #25 but if you could humor me and answer 1-7 as asked, it’d surely be appreciated. Just line them up number by number and reply to each. My fragile eggshell mind isn’t able to understand them any other way.

    Just so we’re clear about this, the list of positions from the post isn’t MY list, it’s China’s list per a government run newspaper and India’s list per an Indian think tank. Rather than add or subtract from the list, why don’t we just address it instead of sidetracking into India’s domestic issues. From an Indian point of view, they can just as easily sidetrack into China’s domestic issues. Both are irrelevant to the process except as to what is acceptable to its populace. The Indian government maintains power with its populace through elections and China maintains power with its populace by catering to public opinion when it does not interfere with party goals. Neither side can compromise beyond a certain point. The question would be, what is that point for each side and where is the “middle ground” where they can come to an agreement?

    The three choices are the only ones I can think of. You never gave me an alternative answer to India/China issues since you had only brought up internal India issues. So far you’ve failed to give me a fourth so in this case it seems I did “getcha”. ;)

    Let me rewrite your last two paragraphs from an Indian point of view:

    I maintain, and you can disagree, how China approaches its own many domestic problems has EVERYTHING to do with how India should set its policies with China. Obvious, India is treading very carefully in NOT interfering (or even commenting) on China’s domestic disturbances (unless risking yet more accusations of “betrayal”). (YET, even India’s “lack of support” of China’s selling of nuclear technology to Pakistan over the last few years was portrayed as a betrayal by some in China.) Need I give more examples of how China seems to be set on accusing India of “betrayal” at every little thing?

    Call me crazy, but I don’t understand the “Betrayal victim” mentality in China. Or maybe, it’s because there is already so much mutual “betrayals” inside China, that they can’t see anything but “betrayal”, traitors, and terrorists? That “betrayal” is just another Orwellian Newspeak in China, much as “terrorism” has become in US?

    Now where does that get us? Both sides can call each other names like schoolchildren in a playground and might do so in their own media to build nationalism within their societies, but this has nothing to do with actual diplomacy. It’s just posturing.

    @ CT #27: There is no such expression as “part and partial” but there is one called “part and parcel”, which dates from the 15th century and means “an essential or integral component”. I was trying to help you out in a nice way but if you truly want to make a fool of yourself, go right ahead. If you don’t believe me, look it up yourself.

    “Freedom of expression” is a summation of the relevant portion of the first amendment in the United States Constitution.

    You can have all the time you want to answer or not answer any or all questions.

    @ r v #29: India’s media in general is not an expression of the India government’s position on any issue, though certain media outlets lean towards one party or the other. China’s media is state controlled. And how much control does the state have over the media? Well, this article gives a pretty good account of it.

    @ r v #34: Ahh, you finally brought up an actual topic address by the post! Do I understand your position correctly as being that negotiations between India and China are impossible because India will simply not negotiate? If you believe that, then what is the eventual solution? War? Embargo? Border skirmishes? The status quo?

    This is not 1962. At that time, China was just coming out of the Great Leap Forward after millions or tens of millions (depending on who’s figures you believe) died from starvation. Are you comparing the China of that time to the China of today? If not, then why compare the India of that time to the India of today? I would never compare the China of that time to the China of today. I think the China of today is a BILLION times better place to live in than the China of that time, and that’s based on the stories I was told by the Chinese survivors of that time. I can’t think of any country in the world that is comparable to what they were back in 1962, including my own and I can personally remember 1962.

  38. r v Says:

    Steve,

    #37, I’m all ears, as to where you can find China called India’s actions as “betrayal”. If you are going to rewrite in India’s perspective, at least match to some historical facts.

    re #29: Indian politicians made enough speeches during 1962 to present a similar view to the Indian media. “Drive out the Chinese” speech was made by an Indian politician. And there was also threat to repeat India’s military actions in Goa. I obviously was not just talking about some unrepresented media fringe opinion in India in 1962.

    re #34: If one has understood the other side’s hardline policies as difficult to negotiate with, it’s DIFFICULT to negotiate. It is that simple. Perhaps China needs to simply wait for India to suffer the consequences of its hardline policies. (On that point, one can say the same thing about China’s hardline policies, but I guess we will just wait to see who cracks first. My money is frankly on that India will crack first.)

    Why compare? I believe India still holds onto its mindset of “going alone hardline” policies. Time has not made India more willing or capable of negotiations. I believe Hindu nationalism is on the rise in India, which will only increase India’s hardline policies over time. Indian politicians still speak of 1962 as a “betrayal”. They still outrage against the Partition of India and the “appeasement to the Muslims”. In that, it is evident that they have not changed their mindset on negotiations since the 1940′s.

  39. Steve Says:

    @ r v #38: And why should I answer any questions from you when you’ve continually refused to answer my questions in #25? When you make statements and are asked questions pertaining to those statements, your refusal to answer makes your opinions one big monologue.If you want to engage others, you need to agree to a dialogue and that means having blog etiquette and answering direct questions directly.

  40. r v Says:

    Steve #39: I don’t believe I asked one single question in #38, except a rhetorical one. But since you insist upon some answers to your questions:

    1 – This post is about India/China relations. It’s not about China issues and it’s not about India issues. If you want to discuss China issues, write a post about what you want to discuss. If you want to discuss India issues, go to an India blog, such as Maitreya Bhakal’s excellent one which is referenced in our links. Over here we’re blogging for China, remember?

    India’s mindset, as applied to China, is obviously relevant to the relationship. It affects how India perceives China’s actions in the past, present, and the future. Obviously, How India generally perceives the world has something to do it as well.

    2 – What do Sikhs in India have to do with solving China/India problems? If you can make that connection, I’m all ears but so far you haven’t made it at all.

    Perception by India of its Sikh relations, is obviously relevant as an example of India’s general “mindset” in negotiations, if any negotiations had occurred. How it set its postures and policies toward the Sikhs, how the problem ESCALATED into violence in 1984. Surely, we want to avoid ESCALATIONS. OBVIOUSLY, studying an episode of escalated violence in India is relevant.

    3 – What does India’s “internal chaos”, a rather broad phrase, have to do with solving China/India problems? If you can make that connection, I’m all ears but so far you haven’t made it at all.

    The fact that Indian policies allowed the escalation of violence internally is most enlightening and relevant. Obviously, no nation wants internal chaos. Every nation seek to control internal chaos. Many have attributed India’s internal chaos to India’s rise of Hindu Nationalist and Hindu Fundamentalists. Obviously, these hardline factions will influence any India/China relationships and negotiations in the future.

    4 – What do ethnic riots in India have to do with solving China/India problems? If you can make that connection, I’m all ears but so far you haven’t made it at all.

    See above for influence of rising Hindu Nationalists.

    5 – What do “red belt” issues in India have to do with solving China/India problems? If you can make that connection, I’m all ears but so far you haven’t made it at all.

    Obviously, India has blamed China for its “Red Belt” problem. One should understand that problem.

    6 – I’ll grant you that the DL’s presence in India contributes to problems in China/India relations. That was cited in the second article. So since it’s already on the list, how do both nations go about solving this particular problem in a way that’s amenable to both sides? So far you haven’t addressed that at all.

    First, we identify what is at stake for both sides, on this issue. China see its sovereignty at stake. India? I’m not sure how India would justify its stake in DL’s presence. Religious connection and admiration? Obviously, it was said that DL has no political clout in India. If that claim is true, India is sticking its neck out for very little reason. (“Humanitarian purposes” would be far too much of a fairy tale excuse, even for India.)

    Then, we recognize that India’s unwillingness to do anything about DL, or downplays the issue, only indicates that India has no interests in DL’s movement, other than what it deprives China of. In which case, China understands that this issue is merely a p*ssing contest with India, and reciprocates. (So, it’s a p*ssing contest, why should anyone resolve it?) Afterall, if India wants to harbor some exiles, China can do the same. That’s the nature of P*ssing contests, they don’t get resolved, unless both parties stop at the same time.

    7 – What issue did you bring up that wasn’t on the list and could be listed as an area that needs diplomatic attention between the two countries? Why does it need attention and what would you recommend that would be acceptable to both countries and solve this problem?

    Not all of your issues require solutions. For example, India’s “neutrality” vs. China/US relationship is hardly a problem that requires solutions. It’s merely a condition of policies. Both China and India should be mindful of each other’s long standing policies. Similarly, both China and India should be mindful of each other’s “mindsets” in setting policies.

    As I have already stated, India’s mindset seems to be unchanged relating to China since 1950′s. This is not only foolish but dangerous, because many of the causes of the 1962 border war was due to fundamentally erroneous assumptions about China that India had, such as grossly underestimating PRC’s military capabilities and will and determination of PRC’s leaders. Whereas PRC in 1962 analyzed and studied every word of Indian politicians, and correctly countered Indian moves (even according to US military historians).

    I have no doubt that China has been continuously studying India’s political mindset for the last 50 years. I do not think India can claim the same. India still harbors much unverified assumptions about China, and these assumptions will lead to mistakes and possible escalations.

    The question is, whether India could challenge its own traditional views of China, get over it, and make wise policies relating to China? In the face of rising Hindu Nationalism? I do not think so.

  41. Steve Says:

    @ r v #40: Thanks for answering my questions. Before I respond, I’d like to ask you two questions just for clarification. As far as I can tell, every word you wrote blames India for the problems between China and India. Not once do you put the onus on China. Is that correct or am I missing something? It also seems that your position is that negotiations between India and China on any issue are impossible because of the political, economic and social situation in India. Is that also correct?

    Your reply affects my answer to you so I wanted to make sure of your position.

  42. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To RV #36:
    you’ve made a compelling case that negotiations between today’s China and the India of circa 1962 would be futile. Is that necessarily the case today? Specific to your points in #36, does India today still view herself as the big brother to little China? Does India today still hope to simply dictate terms to China?

    Negotiations are negotiations indeed, and compromise is vital. But we shouldn’t forget that compromise is required from both sides. And of course we can similarly list issues about which China has been comparably inflexible. General historic attitudes are useful in the context of a general discussion, but any current negotiations will not hinge on historic attitudes; they will hinge on how those attitudes might be applied as pertains to the current issues that are on the negotiating table.

  43. r v Says:

    Steve #41:

    “every word you wrote blames India for the problems between China and India.”

    Whether India’s claims for territories and influences are better than China is 1 question. Whether India’s actions or China’s actions were more responsible for the escalation of tension is a separate question. Afterall, WHO knows who had the more legitimate claims of territories on the frontier mountain areas that are not clearly demarcated and have been disputed over in history?? But it’s a different matter on who made the dispute worse.

    Obviously, by my words, I do not question that BOTH sides (all sides if including Pakistan) have claims, nor would I say that by merely having claims, India is causing a problem. (India seems to continue hold the opposite view that somehow, just by making claims, China is being aggressive.)

    I do acknowledge that a break down of negotiations and escalation can be attributable to all parties involved. But it is evident that India’s “no-compromise” position is so far not negotiable.

    If you believe India is willing to negotiate and compromise, I’m all ears as to the evidence. Otherwise, you tell me, is the party with the no-compromise position to blame for the failure of negotiations?

    (2) “It also seems that your position is that negotiations between India and China on any issue are impossible because of the political, economic and social situation in India. Is that also correct?”

    Not impossible, just improbable. India’s PM Singh has stuck his political neck out a few times, and the Hindu Nationalists blame him for all sorts of problems. So perhaps there is some hope that Singh can negotiate with China to resolve the issues. But I doubt Singh would last long in India. And if Singh is pushed out of power in India, what would become of any negotiations he had with China? Nothing at all.

    Obviously, my answer is not going to be a simple Yes/ No on this one, because who is to say what is possible in India in the near future? Singh’s government has some negotiations with China, but obviously, the success would ultimately depend on the overall political “mindset” of India, not merely Singh’s.

    So no, NOT impossible, just improbable as to the success. Obvious also, China realizes this reality of India, and will be extra cautious in every step of negotiations. (Note, I do not allege that China should simply give up on negotiations with India, and China has not given up. But I’m a pragmatist, and the Chinese leaders are pragmatists. Thus, I do not put much in the odds of success. that’s all.)

  44. r v Says:

    SKC #42:

    “Is that necessarily the case today? Specific to your points in #36, does India today still view herself as the big brother to little China? Does India today still hope to simply dictate terms to China?”

    I believe that part of the problem in the India’s political “mindset” is that they still WISHED that they were big brother to little China. But it’s more than that. The traditional Indian “Caste” system may be buried by the laws of India, but the “mindset” is still there. (Such mindsets are hard to get rid of. In China, it wasn’t until the upheaval of the Cultural Revolution that much of China’s habits of feudalism were removed from society).

    The problem is, this mindset of “Caste” is projected by India in its dealings with all ethnic and religious groups in its “near sphere of influence”. Ie. Hindu nationalists feel that there is a historical system of social hierarchy not just in India, but also around it, because of histories of shared cultures and close contacts. That means, Nepal, Bhutan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, and groups like Gorkhas, various Nepalese groups, Sikhs, Pakistanis, Muslim and Christian Indians, ALL should fit into the Hindu ideal of the social hierarchy.

    And any attempts by any of these “Indian sphere” groups to buck the hierarchy is almost always met with hardline policies and paranoia. When Nepal turned Communist recently, there was paranoia in India (even though Nepal has little military to speak of). Why? Because there are a lot of Nepalese domestic servants in India being treated very badly. (not just low pay, but also often scapegoated for crimes). (But I supposed the same is happening in US, so I guess US would worry if Mexico turned Communist.)

    The problem for India furthers when India projects the SAME mindset of its “near sphere” when applies to its relationship with the rest of the world. Other nations are categorized into the closest that would fit into the Hindu hierarchy. And things that don’t fit, ie. alien, are as bad as those things that buck the hierarchy.

    For example, Christians are traditionally tolerated in India, because Christians account for about 2% of the population. However, when Western churches began to convert Hindus, especially the lower caste Hindus, anti-Christian violence went significantly up in India in recent years. (You can search through some of online blogs of Hindu Nationalists who rail against “mass conversions” by Christian churches in India as attacks on Hindus.) So, Western nations, by association with Christianity are mildly tolerated as outside influences, but they are not going “convert” India in any sense.

    Communists are also bad in that sense in the Hindu Hierarchy, because Communists are by ideology anti-religion, and Communists in the “Red Belt” active urge the poor lower castes to revolt against the Indian Government. (And since many Communists in the “Red Belt” consider themselves “Maoists”, China and Mao are often blamed for that problem.) So the “Red Belt” and China were both recently named India’s #1 problem and #1 threat, both or either, because Communists are the anti-Hindu Hierarchy revolt.

    There are many other examples to evidence how India projects the Hindu hierarchy mindset onto its policies in the world. (in recent history).

    *Does India today still hope to simply dictate terms to China?

    While most Indians recognize the reality of China’s position vs. India, India’s reluctance in negotiations with China indicates that India is waiting for its position to overtake China’s in terms of economic and military power. Of course, there has been frustration that India seemed unable to catch up.

    So I would guess that India is now hoping that China will decline or plateau long enough for India to gain its position of power and then, dictate terms to China. naturally, it is just a hope.

  45. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To RV:
    if India’s attitudes from yesteryear are still similarly pervasive today, and if they remain as inflexible as you suggest specifically as pertains to the issues that are of importance to them, then compromise will be impossible and negotiations will be futile. Time will tell, and we shall see.

  46. Kai Ni Nainai Says:

    The sooner Maitreya and his gang of rabid hoodlums SKC and ChinkTalk (yeah right that’s not racist) don their bastard “I’m A Commie” hats, declare their hatred of anything to do with India and display their syphilitic superiority complex of China over India then the sooner we can put them against the wall and execute them in the name of decency to the human race. And especially China-India relations. “Wankers” is hardly a strong enough word.

  47. vmoore55 Says:

    I was born in China, grew up in the US and now working and living in Canada, so that makes me bias.

    China is right and India is wrong.

    The CIA with the help of the US welfare takers, India and Tibet are making China pay for every inch of real estate the Chinese wants to take back.

  48. HKer Says:

    Please everyone go check this out:

    http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2010/07/on-civil-disobedience-and-commonality-between-mohatma-gandhi-and-martin-luther-king-jr/#more-8367

    Lovely photos.

  49. Hker Says:

    “The Chinese experience is one of invasion and exploitation by foreign powers for the last few centuries because the Chinese were not able to muster up a strong enough government to defend themselves. This experience is polar opposites to the European experience – where strong governments tyrannized the people. So, the Western priority is one of “check and balances” for their governments. In China today, the people want, foremost, a government that can protect them from outsiders.” DeWang

    http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2010/07/on-civil-disobedience-and-commonality-between-mohatma-gandhi-and-martin-luther-king-jr/#more-8367

  50. Tanmay Says:

    @R.V, Chinktalk:

    Guys I have been reading all these posts and most of your posts have been nothing but rants about how India is squarely to blame for all the failed diplomatic relations between India and China.

    I will not get into this argument at this time but I wish to address three things that you raise again and again in your posts as if they are of paramount importance to relations between India and China.

    1) Apparent Continuous Mis-Treatment of Sikhs by Indian Goverment:

    Guys I have lived in India for 20 years and grown up with a lot of Sikh friends. People of my generation have long have long forgotten this issue!
    The so called oppression of sikhs occured a couple of decades ago due to the egotistic machinations of a former Indian Prime Minister and they understand this.
    I don’t know who you have talked to but I have very close Sikh friends, friends who are close enough to have told me if they have any anti-Indian feelings.

    Sikhs very much patriotic. In fact they comprise 15% of the Indian army. We have a Sikh prime Minister and several high ranking sikh officers in the Indian army. If you truly think that after being oppressed daily they would still stay a part of India then I salute you!
    Link to verify this info:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh

    As for Sikhs being pro-chinese (I had to laugh on reading this), Sikhs are just pro-Indian (They dont even think of being for or against China for the most part) except for maybe some whose families were involved in the struggle for Khalistan. Drawing a conclusion about the entire Sikh community based on them would be stupid. Damn it guys I would be pro-taliban if my father was killed fighting for them and was raised to believe in them! Dont even try to deny this!

    2)Rise of Hindu Nationalism in India:
    This one really pisses me off. Nothing could be further from the truth! A so called secular party has been in power in India for around 10 years now. They were re-elected to power in almost all states in India just recently forcrying out loud!
    Most Indians of my generation (brought up in either Hindu, Muslim or Sikh families) are not very religious. Most of them just care about doing well in Life.

    3)Caste System in India:
    This is really the big one isn’t it? Every rant against India has this included in the list.
    Guys if you really think this plays a part in the general mindset of Indians then I will have to say that you don’t know much about Indian people after all!
    Growing up in an Indian city you will grow up with boys from all castes and will not even know about castes to differentiate on their basis.
    I have friends from all castes and never really cared about it!
    Sure it might still exist in rural India but are any of the top level Indian politicians from Villages?

    The point of this post is that we should focus on the issues at hand! Please do not make up your opinions before hand and then try to defend them using everything you can get at!

    If you are there on this thread to learn about the real situation in India and the reasons why Indo-Chinese diplomatic relations have failed then you will take this post in the right way.
    If on the other hand you are here just to continue spewing venom, then please go ahead. I will not post on this thread again.

    Note: If there is any specific question you want to ask, I can answer if from the perspective of a middle class Indian guy who has grown up in an Indian City.
    But please ask questions when you are not completely sure of facts!
    I believe this is a rational forum and not a forum where it is common to indulge in nationalist rants!!

  51. lw Says:

    Google “Chinktalk” to pull out his diatribes polluting all over the talk sides. SHAME.

  52. SAMIR AGARWAL Says:

    Dear Friends,
    Hi this is Samir from New Delhi India , We sincerely believe that peace in south Asian region is the only desire by all living in India and China , We always wish and hope that top leaders in both the countries understand this that
    after centuries our civilization has come to this stage that we can dream and work for better life for our citizens , We need to focus more on co-operation between technology and human resource sharing so that both countries can make better living for all.
    There is no authenticity in who is in number one position in Asia , But it is the quality of progress and life that any region can offer to its people.
    All countries are well equipped with nuclear capabilities and with weapon of mass destruction , It should not happen that mistake of our generation leave a permanent scar on our lifes , that will require generations of pain and misery to fill in our lifes.

    Humanity is very very advanced now and very much mature too. We sincerely pray to god & believe that China – India can be good friends again and if tried with open mind , We can be brothers too soon as we used to be 60 years ago when there was abject poverty in both the nations.

    Regards ,

    Samir.
    Mobile -0091-9811563958.

  53. akhil Says:

    dear readers,
    this is akhil from india. i think india and china both being neighbours need to understand that taking offensive steps such as planting missiles and increasing army activities on the border will do nothing else than worsening the situation. while india needs to hold talks with china frequently, china needs to understand that india has never been a country which has invaded or attacked any foreign territory. the first and the foremost step to be taken is demarkating the territories so that any further insurgency can be checked. in any case none of the counterparts should be offensive in their approach since it may lead to war like conditions which will ultimately hamper growth of both the nations. who wins or who looses is a secondary thing. governments of both the countries should work together and build up such ties specifically in terms of trade and commerce so that there is no chance of war taking place.
    hope both the countries can be friends since a war will take us back from where we started.

    and after reading the posts i feel there is more of a blame game being played here. and particularly some of the narrowminded comments like the one quoted

    steve #38 ” I believe Hindu nationalism is on the rise in India, which will only increase India’s hardline policies over time.”

    may i know mr steve that what makes you assume that hindu nationalism will lead to hardline policies?
    posting such irrelevent and stupid comments only shows the level of maturity one posseses.

    TC. GOD BLESS.

  54. Steve Says:

    @ akhil #53: I didn’t write comment #38, it was written r v in reply to my comment #37. Maybe you ought to be a little more careful before you start insulting people since you didn’t even get the name of the correct person. That would make your comment stupid and irrelevant and show the level of maturity you possess, wouldn’t it?

  55. akhil Says:

    @steve
    I wont feel disgraced in saying sorry, since it was posted by mistake. sorry for the comment.

    @ r v .people commenting on relegious issues ought to be careful while doing so.

  56. Buru Says:

    nitpicking..

    akhil 53:

    china needs to understand that india has never been a country which has invaded or attacked any foreign territory
    supposing ‘ India’ existed only since 1947: East Pakistan invasion,1971. Otherwise Srilanka 1500B.C.E & 1987 ;)

    Tanmay 50:
    Good points 1&2. Totally disagree with 3)Caste System in India: As a person observing from outside the caste hierarchy, I see caste operating at every level and every sphere of life in India;consciuosly & unconsciously.

  57. Steve Says:

    To add to Buru’s response, I’ve never been in India but I have spoken to quite a few naturalized Indian Americans who told me they left India because of the caste system. Of course, they were from the wrong caste. It’s been a few years since they’ve immigrated so things might have changed but I guess my question for Tanmay would be, what caste are you from? Unless you live it, wouldn’t it be almost impossible to know it?

  58. Sino-Gist Says:

    Its interesting to note the recent problems that have emerged over China’s denial of a visa to an Indian general (see this article from the BBC website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11106235).

  59. No99 Says:

    I heard there is something called gothra or caste within a caste. Not sure how it works, but can anyone enlighten me?

    A question of curiosity, not adding anything to the debate you all have here.

  60. Steve Says:

    @No99: I have never heard that term before and am as curious as you are to know more about it. Good question.

  61. No99 Says:

    @Steve: It was something I read from one of those international news articles, maybe BBC or Al Jazeera. I tried reading more about it, but it’s pretty confusing for me. It’s true what you commented before that it’s really hard to understand what it is like if we’re not part of that system.

  62. vikas Says:

    @steve , @ no99….:

    term “gothra” related to “ancestor”. in india there is a custom that you cant marry in your gothra ..i.e you can’t marry in any of your ancestor’s blood relationship at least for 3 generation (both side mother and father)….it is scientfic too becoz it can cause some sort of genetic problems. though science was not developed that much at that time but still they know…its kind of impressive to me.
    And in ancient time people of India had been divided into four castes:
    1- Brahman
    2- Kshatriya
    3- Vaishya
    4- Shoodra

    “caste” can be recognized by sirname.

    i know divide people on the basis of caste is bad thing but what to do….??????

  63. vikas Says:

    in #62 …..its hindu’s tradition. sorry to mention it as people of India. its only for hindus not for other respected religions..thanks :)

  64. No99 Says:

    Thanks vikas,

    It’s kind of similar to what I heard about Ancient Chinese customs. Like back then, a lot of people with the with the same surnames really were related, and they couldn’t marry someone that had the same surname. Overtime, many people adopted similar surnames and relatives were distant enough where people with the same surnames weren’t always blood related.

    I think our Ancients tried their best to come up with a system of dealing potential problems like genetic disorders, given what they knew and had during their times.

  65. Steve Says:

    In the USA cousins can’t marry but I know that in the Iranian culture (and I believe other Middle Eastern cultures) it’s considered best to marry your first cousin. My son’s Iranian American best friend growing up has parents who are cousins. Apparently, you either come out with genetic problems or quite smart.

    What to do about the caste system? For me, that’s something the Hindus in India are going to have to work out for themselves but there is hope. During the Tokugawa shogunate in Japan, the people were severely limited to occupational choices when formerly there was upward mobility, so it was a type of caste system. Since then, it’s all but disappeared with the curious exception of the burakumin caste, which was abolished in 1871 but still exists in the culture.

  66. Akhil Says:

    buru 56:

    nitpicking…

    “ china needs to understand that india has never been a country which has invaded or attacked any foreign territory”

    “supposing ‘ India’ existed only since 1947: East Pakistan invasion,1971. Otherwise Srilanka 1500B.C.E & 1987″

    have a go at these following links. in the case of what you term as east pakistan invasion(1971), was a political and armed assistance to the Bengali muslims in the east who were highly suppressed and exploited by west pakistan. YOU SAY INDIA INVADED EAST PAKISTAN? funny.

    read the link and you’ll find what actually happened.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War

    In the case of what you call as India’s attack on Sri lanka, it was India helping Srilanka to overcome their problem of the LTTE.

    do open this link.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Peace_Keeping_Force.

    TC. GOD BLESS.

  67. buru Says:

    akhil,

    I dont need the Wikipedia to know that India invaded East Pakistan after atleast a year of planning & preparations — the major commanders of the Indian army has said as much in their memoirs.It was an invasion regardless of cause. If tomorrow Pakistan invades and ‘liberates’ Kashmir which is under heavy army occupation, would you term that an ‘invasion’ or not? Even George Bush went into Iraq to ‘liberate’ them LOL!

    Same explanation on Sri Lanka. If India was ‘helping’ Sri Lankans why did the Sinhalese naval rating attempted to assasinate then-PM Rajiv Gandhi in Colombo? If India was ‘helping’ Sri Lankans why did the Sri Lankan Tamil separatists assasinate then ex-PM Rajiv Gandhi in Chennai?

  68. Akhil Says:

    buru,

    IF INDIA HAD INVADED EAST PAKISTAN as you say. THEN THE INVADED TERRITORY WOULD HAVE BEEN A PART OF INDIA. IT WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN WHAT IS NOW THE INDEPENDENT NATION OF BANGLADESH

    In case of Ragiv Gandhi, he was assassinated because when he was the PM, he had ordered an attack on the LTTE.

    You need wikipedia. Just go through it. Although I’am sure you wont agree to any of the facts.

  69. Buru Says:

    akhil,
    1. Pl dont shout.

    2. Invasion:Its your unique definition of an invasion.Conquest is only one of a number of reasons that can cause an invasion.So by your definition if Pakistan or China attacks India tomorrow to ‘liberate Kashmir’ (or Manipur)and give it Independence, like you say( AFP quoted Hindustan Times yesterday which polled 72% of Kashmiri Muslims wanted Independence from India + Indian troops have killed nearly a hundred unarmed protestors there over last 1 month, including 12 killed today) you wont term it an Invasion, righto??

    3.Rajiv Gandhi : So then tell me why did the Sinhalese naval man attempted to murder him? If he had succeeded we would have witnessed a Tamil country there by now ! Sri Lanka 1987 is same like Soviet invasion of Afghanistan– on paper they came from a friendship accord but with an ‘or else’ in the fine print.

  70. Otto Kerner Says:

    by the way,

    72% is an interesting figure. If that is accurate, and if we assume, taking the demographic figures from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammu_and_Kashmir#Demographics, that 0% of the Hindus in Jammu and Kashmir, 0% of the Buddhists, and 50% of the Sikhs want independence, this works out to 49% in favour of independence and 51% opposed. In practice, it’s hard to be so precise, and polls are probably under-counting independence supporters if anything, but we can assume that about half of the state wants to be independent and the other half does not. Why does no one ever discuss the obvious solution for the Kashmir Valley to be an independent buffer state (plus AK if they can get it, which I doubt), while Jammu and Ladakh remain in India? To be fair, there should also a be a referendum in Baltistan to see whether they would prefer to join Ladakh as part of India, but I don’t imagine that would be in the offing, either.

  71. Buru Says:

    otto
    Why does no one ever discuss the obvious solution for the Kashmir Valley to be an independent buffer state (plus AK if they can get it, which I doubt), while Jammu and Ladakh remain in India?”

    you are bang on target… from what I observe, many Muslim Kashmiris(and even Pakistanis) have raised your solution as a practical and obtainable target.In fact it is the only solution that has any chance of passing muster in India.The separatists position seems a maximalist one, I am sure they will plump for the Kashmir valley if given a final choice.Most Kashmiri Muslims in polls wanted Independence, not joining Pak. So if plebiscite is given for all of J&K regionwise, Pakistan stands to lose a much larger chunk of its territory than India. If Pakistanis refuse plebiscite or honour its results, they will have an insurgency in PoK worse than India is having in J&K @ present :)

    On an aside, I feel in the event of a war between India with either Pakistan or China, both countries will eventually coordinate their offensives and split J&K among themselves– Kashmir for Pakistan, Ladakh for China( it was part of Tibet till the Dogras came along AFAIK) and Jammu for India.

  72. "poverty" A SUBJECT Relation amoung neighboring countries Says:

    American and western world never like India, China and Pakistan to unite. If India, Pakistan and China maintain good relationship American and Western economy and war weapon sellers would starve. These countries should understand if go for war would reverse economy and advantage would go to Western world for its dominance. India and China should reach agreement and unite to dominate world to bring social-capitalism pattern economy in the world. I think both countries are sensible enough and not fool to go for war as both are trade promoters being world’s most populated countries. Their economies are reviving to consume if war exists it would be loss to the western industries also. Their trade relationship would create dependency to strengthen relationship and dominate world economic market. Do not forget both possess nuclear warheads. Future war is Market war and not nuclear war.

  73. Akhil Says:

    buru,

    what oxford dictoinary says.

    [with object]
    • (of an armed force ) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it

    • enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect

    Indian army entered Srilanka but not to conquer or subjugate clearly not invasion.in case of east pakistan the act was of liberating since it was’nt entered for either subjugation or occupying.

    Reason of attack on Gandhi and what was the actual scenario at that time: During the court martial that followed, Vijithamuni (the naval rating) stated that he thought that the Accord would make Prabhakaran the leader of the northeast, and he would have to honour Prabhakaran in the same way he was ordered to honour Rajiv Gandhi.

    The Sinhalese felt the accord made too many concessions to Tamils, the most militant of whom demanded a separate nation.

    Since The peace accord assigned a certain degree of regional autonomy in the Tamil areas with Eelam People’s Revolutionary Liberation Front (EPRLF) controlling the regional council and called for the Tamil militant groups to lay down their arms.

    India was to send a peacekeeping force, named the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF), part of the Indian Army, to Sri Lanka to enforce the disarmament and to watch over the regional council.
    most Tamil militant groups accepted it. But the LTTE rejected the accord because they opposed the candidate, who belonged to the EPRLF, for chief administrative officer of the merged Northern and Eastern provinces. Instead, the LTTE named three other candidates for the position, which India rejected. The LTTE subsequently refused to hand over their weapons to the IPKF
    Thus LTTE found itself engaged in military conflict with the Indian Army, and launched its first attack on an Indian army rations truck on October 8, killing five Indian para-commandos.

    Subsequently Indian army assisted the SRILANKAN army against the LTTE which ultimately lead to the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.

  74. Buru Says:

    akhil,

    1.Even going by your chosen definition, BOTH SriLanka and East Pakistan affairs easily qualify for the term invasion by 2nd definition provided.

    ( **Wikipedia definition: An invasion is a military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof.

    2.Sri Lanka : India already did an act of war by flying armed & ready fighter jets over Sri Lankan airspace and airdropping supplies to insurgents well before the ‘accord’( Premadasa nearly declared war on India @ that time, later memoirs say). B4 that India was arming & training all sorts of violent groups to fight against Sri Lanka. Thereafter it rammed down Sri Lankas throat the ‘peace’ accord. Vijithamuni was right, indeed India had offered the CMs post of unified North East province to Prabhakaran if only he accepted the ‘accord’ fully.So Vijitha was absolutely right in his apprehensions. No wonder he was feted greatly by Sinhalese as a patriot after release from jail! Again no wonder Chinese are all over SriLanka now rather than Indians–they dont trust us. While the LTTE was reluctantly disarming, the Sinhalese govt sabotaged it by arresting many top LTTE leaders during the ‘peace process’ who then committed mass suicide.Since the area was under IPKF Prabhakaran blamed the Indians for not preventing the Sinhalese arresting LTTE, and thus attacked it. In the ensuing war the IPKF was humiliated which on its part unleashed great atrocities on Tamils, which became the cause for Rajivs death. It was an invasion in all senses as both Sinhalese and Tamils wanted IPKF out of Sri Lanka ( the Sri Lanka GOVT even gave weapons to LTTE to kill IPKF; that sounds like an invasion right?)

    3. Pakistan : Pakistan was a sovereign country which was attacked and divided by India after months of planning.So its an invasion.Period. If not, you would term Pakistan freeing the Kashmir valley as liberation, right? and China freeing Manipur, Nagaland and Assam as ‘liberating’ hmm?

  75. Akhil Says:

    Buru,

    The second definition which I quoted doesn’t anyway qualify for what you call invasion. “large numbers” is a relative term.

    And anyways the possibility of China and Pakistan attacking India may seem to be possible sometimes but atleast China wouldn’t want to come in a state of war with India only to loose a HUGE consumer base of over a whopping one thousand million customers. Obviously China is quite self dependant but the share it enjoys in Indian markets is really really large. So I don’t think any country would want to loose such a market.

    Plus

    I agree with the previous poster “India and China should reach agreement and unite to dominate world to bring social-capitalism pattern economy in the world. I think both countries are sensible enough and not fool to go for war as both are trade promoters being world’s most populated countries.”

    Promote love and not hatred.

    HAPPY INTERNATIONAL NON-VIOLENCE DAY.

    TC AND GOD BLESS ALL.

  76. Buru Says:

    Akhil says
    The second definition which I quoted doesn’t anyway qualify for what you call invasion. “large numbers” is a relative term.”
    Now would you please define what is a “large number” in your dictionary?? Sri Lanka : 80,000 foreign soldiers entering a tiny island country with 100,000 military(at that time) looks like a ‘large number’ to me.Pakistan: Most of the 1 million-strong Indian military was involved in some way over the war.If that is not a ‘large number’ pl furnish your new definition.

    Re China attacking India I have always been of the opinion that its extremely unlikely for China to attack.But the Indian Govt dont seem to hold this view cos’ they are rushing army Divisions to Arunachal etc and even raising new Divisions to counter ‘Chinese threat’ .

  77. dev Says:

    : To all those who talk about India

    Mt. Kailash is abode of Lord Shiva of Hinduism. It also houses ManSarovar Lake which is a pilgrimage centre for Hindus. My forefathers like other hindus were travelling to that place at least once in a lifetime. Now a days you need a VISA and 1200$ to travel there as it is occupied by china. Why ??? Only rich hindus can afford a trip. No matter what the government says in INDIA or CHINA or the so called world communities the Hindus will never trust China..

    We have khalistan movement , naxalite movement and god knows what else movement. But the base behind all of these movement is demand for a separate state (which is the result of asymmetric localised development of India) NOT A SEPARATE COUNTRY

    and yes we have the CASTE SYSTEM and it will prevail for a long time. it is because people here are traditional and the tradition changes in every 200 km in India. the rituals in marriage, birth ceremony, death ceremony , greeting ceremony etc. varies in every few hundred kilometers and people generally tend to stick to their own traditions. In what way it effects indo-china or for that matter any other international politics i dont understand even though i have lived for 40 years in my country.

    people speaking 13 different languages who cant understand eachother still leaving together is enough to prove solidarity. Go ask naxalites or punjabis ulfa or any other groups whether they want a separate country that will clear your doubts

    on side note : dunno about politicians, but indian people may trust pakistanis but will never trust Chinese . Sorry no links to prove this but this is the mood here. believe it or not.

  78. dev Says:

    It is the govt. of Srilanka which asked for Indian Peace Keeping Force to help them eradicating LTTE.

    And when 20,000 women are raped in a week in bangladesh and the neighbours ask us to interven we will allways support. Its a shame that it is compared with kasmir where even after 6 decades hindus from kasmir are not settled and are leaving around delhi as refugees. and guess what ? we have separate laws for them providing special privilages not only to kasmir but to all Muslims. In a medical entrance exams even if we score 85 out of hundred we are not eligible but minorities are eligible even if they score 40 !! Can you imagine this in China ? Demography of tibet is changed in a over night while indians cannot buy property in Kasmir as per our Constituion. we can only expect Tiananmen from china nothing else

  79. anton Says:

    I say don’t trust the Chinese. I worked with Chinese people for a decade and although they are nice, they are exclusive to all other races, put their race first and are inscrutable. They will never let you know what they are really thinking and what is in their heart. India should follow a strong policy on its border rights. No other nation is willing to give up their borders for another country. Just ask the Chinese if they will leave the lands they have occupied from the Tibetans and Uighur, I doubt so! India should follow a policy of friends with all so that in times of trouble she is not dependant on one country only. Besides she has the brains and manpower to not be dependant on any one country.

  80. Wahaha Says:

    In a medical entrance exams even if we score 85 out of hundred we are not eligible but minorities are eligible even if they score 40 !! Can you imagine this in China ?

    ********************************

    Are all of indians ignorant about China as you are ?

  81. rahul Says:

    Hi all,
    Iam little worried as china military is growing .So i have a question for you all that Is china’s growing army is a big concern for india.Share your views with me on this link- http://sawaal.ibibo.com/newspapers/what-dp-you-think-chinas-growing-military-concern-india-1718434.html

  82. dheeraj tirunahari Says:

    India and china instead of competiting if can act complementarily it can emerge as giant power is Asia and counter supremacy of west .Both the countries have ancient civilisations and fast emerging . The bilateral trade between countries is the example of potential of ecomony of two countries . China on the other hand maintining”all weather ” coopeartion with pakistan should act as a detterent and faciliate to resolve the kashmir issue . The border problem issue can settled in accordance with international laws and guildelines . China can emerge as a super power only with indias support because much of its trade is from indian ocean and along mallacca coast . China should abstain from provocating by building infrastructure along karakoram range and claiming its right over south china sea .
    India and China are most populous and fast growing economies of the world . The growth of two nations is dependent on its relations with each other .

  83. Akash Says:

    i agree both countries are important for asia.and both have to do efforts for solving the matter.and about the histroy,each country has his own points .if u realy wanna see the real points then visit both country .and u can see the reality.all of these things are just a politics.and blaming china or india,first check all deals and issues,every countries have issuses,u can’t blame any country.as a indian,i agree we have some faults but that’s not mean,other side has nothing.1964 war is now histroy ,we hardly discuss that.and about pakistan,we never have problem with pakistan ,we have problems to terrorist .visit india my friends,u can see that we hardly care about china-pak matter.we have problem to only terrorist and my friends we are not playing any game.come and feel the pain of all the families ,families ,they lost their son.mother and other realatives. and one thing more -india is not bad as u guys think.what happened in past is past.as a common man,i want to say a single word=visit india.we welcome u

  84. gt Says:

    China did not do any thing about their border problem during British rule and now every day threatning India by war of words.How can you trust a country who has supplied nuclear technology to muslim pakistan knowing they are the biggest terrorist producing country and their ISI and military is supporting them.There have been 14 talks but China did not solve so called boundry problem so far. All because they have ego problem of their military power and money.Chinese people have been suggesting India be friendly with China to create trust but what kind of trust they want, just to give them whole Arunachal Pardesh?They are not happy after grabbing whole Tibet and everday creating problems on our border and provoking Indian border army to attack.China should understand the future war will not be like 1962 war because both countries have nuclear weapons now and both can be destroyed by using them.China knows it will be mutual destruction and may not start war but still threatning everyday.China has three time land than India and almost same population but still want our land.Finally China should know we are independent country and if want to keep good relation with USA or any other country they should not be worried afterall Chinese are our neighbours and we are not doing any military pact with any one.

  85. tatac Says:

    Why u people blaming india over this issue.
    Do u ever see a bad thing done by india to any of the country,
    we always try to help peoples of this worlds.
    our all trading policies, deals, e.t.c all are made according to rules and regulations,
    we never fight with any country until opposite country wants to fight with us( look at any of the war in which india was involve , the opposite country started fight with us then we just reply them )

    we are taking weapons just to defends our-self, other wise why would we make deal on our nuclear resource with U.S.A .
    look at the history of india , you find that from the starting every one want to rule india , and we just try to defend our self and if we fails , we let them rule forever,
    same for British case also, but they are not ruling india not like their home country, so we reply them,

    now same china is doing nowadays, i know same days there will be a war b/w india and china (This world will not seen this king of war in his history , both the country having around 50 % of world populations , and when they having a war so u know whats going to happens ,)
    we are just try to avoid it as mush as possible bcz we don’t want to fight with anyone ,
    why a country fight with anyone , when the country having 40 % of people living below poverty line , we are try to reduce the populations growth , infliction rate, corruptions )
    so india is not planning any kind of war with anyone , …!!!!!
    this is a land of GOD , land of heavens.

  86. jaswinder jaswal Says:

    India has the the history of 10000yearsand it is evedent that india is invasioned by mkay invadors but India never invaded any countary in his past.we always adopted the peaceful ndoctraine and accorded with all countries .we have nuclear weaponised country but we have a different nuclear doctrine which may not have to the any copuntry “no first using”even we have a very viberent neighboured like china and very hostile like pakistan.in present senario india is on the oath of rapid growth and scholars of different country believes that india will lead the world now but china with his geopolitics started to make pressure on the india,which commonly known as “string of pearls”and p[akistan prvide intial foundation to china.china assistance pakistan on many projects even in nuclear side.we can see the chinese presence in the POK which is the strategic part of china to bounded the indian broder.ideologically there has many differences in india snd china .this is the time noy only for the china but also the china to make the cordu8al relation between both because in present world is not engaging in the weponised war but in the economic competion and india and china are the boththe countries which provide the biggeset market of the world and india always open hearted to such negotiation……..we loved peace and believe in nio-violence and faith in world peace and human development….

  87. ParvataRaj Says:

    The Chinese have forgotten about 1962, to them it is some incomprehensible skirmishes at the remote frozen wastes of the empire. The Chinese intellectuals think it is a terrible mistake and rather embarassed that they should have acted so unwisely against a gigantic nation which historically is their Equal. The Peace Treaty or the current modus vivendi may be the only way out. Any talk of war is lunacy.

    The Chinese intellectuals freely admit as an undeniable fact that much of Chinese religious spirituality was from India. Even now, millions of Chinese Buddhist monks, nuns and adherents are reading and learning Sanskrit. The Land of the Ganga is the Holy Land of the Buddhists. Was not the great chinese epic “Journey to West” in reality a Journey by a Buddhist monk to India? Could not India achieve much more with soft power and with the superiority and profundity of her Spiritual heritage. Should Mother India make war on her spiritual offspring?

Leave a Reply

Powered by sweetCaptcha