Ladakh Flash Point

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nobonita Barua

Senior Member
Registered Member
Indians have a right to immigrate all over the world particularly to the USA so that a lobby can be built up to control the governments.
So that means, If i immigrate to US , with my all paternal maternal cousins, I will be able to build up a lobby that can control US government.
Sounds delicious.

The doctrine being proposed is the occupation of countries with rich natural resources and with a large sparsely populated land mass that are diplomatically isolated and militarily weak. The occupation could be accomplished with the help of regional allies and superpower approval. There is much talk in the influential Indian think tanks of taking over the Iranian gas and oil fields since the population of Iran is only 83 million population ( as. compared to 200 million people in single province of India's Uttar Pradesh). Azarbaijan, Baluchistan, are also in India's cross hairs because of rich natural resources, low population density. India has also targeted Uzbekistan. India has a general approval from the "Powers that be" for its population creep.
Ya. It's a nice theory.
The problem however is, there is a good chance india itself might be taken over for it's landmass. India was never rich in natural resources. Yet it is probably the most invaded part of the world for some reason.
By proposing these theory, indians mostly practice their fantasy of being stronk.
If you go into every "flawed but must proposed & hoped for" theory , indians are fighting martians & & taking over Mars as we speak.


We in Bangladesh has population density over 1000 per sqr-km. Let me think, if we can just simply blow aways 1 billion lil indians, the entire land is ours,including 7 sisters.

Problem solved!!! Why didn't i think about this before? :eek:


I am feeling very hungry now :cool::cool:
 

Mohsin77

Senior Member
Registered Member
Are Indians the 21st Century Mongols?

No.

The Horde is the most successful land army in military history... It is literally the textbook example of combined arms maneuver warfare to this day. I was just reading a book yesterday, written by a US war planner that still cites the Mongols as the paragon of warfare. And considering the fact that their Islamisized children, the Mughals, conquered India, I personally take offense at this question lolz.
 
Last edited:

Bright Sword

Junior Member
Registered Member
So that means, If i immigrate to US , with my all paternal maternal cousins, I will be able to build up a lobby that can control US government.
Sounds delicious.
Migrations do matter.
North America was very different before Europeans came. Ask the remnant native American populations.
Sri Lanka did not have that many Tamils from India, 150 years back .
Fiji, Guyana, West Indies have migrant populations. So has Singapore.
There are military and political consequences to directed population movements.
Bangladesh quite smartly addressed the problem of a tiny linguistic immigrant minority before it became a threat, by internment. Having linguistic and cultural unanimity helps foster nationhood and development.,
 

escobar

Brigadier
There is no good guy or bad guy on a country level. Every country tries to get the best deal for itself. The currency is your hard power. India, along with every other country, have done its fair share of picking on smaller nations. Sikkim ring a bell? When you go against a much bigger power and you have no way to win with hard power, you try to negotiate a deal with the power to the best you can. The first thing is to preserve your national integrity and allow you to develop. China does not care that much about getting a few extra square km of land. They have settled their border with all nations that share land border except two, India and Bhutan. Many of these nations are much weaker then they are and they got more than what their power would have gotten them. They got a very good deal on the land border. China is open to settle the border issue with India and Bhutan. It would be along the line of actual control. For a nation with significantly weaker hand, this is a good deal. It frees up India to focus its energy on its own development. The fact that India alone failed to settle their border with China says a lot about their failures as a nation.
Just the same boring narrative from China side because India also say they want to settle the border issue but China not really interested...
 

Nobonita Barua

Senior Member
Registered Member
Migrations do matter.
It does.
However, political influence or might, of that you have mentioned, have you ever seen a weak civilization as old as the dinosaurs(they are saying it, i am not saying it) taken over a strong one?

Europeans colonized the world because their scientific knowledge far surpassed the others. You can't fight bullet with sword.

Simple migration & setting up colonies are per-civilization era idea.

Besides, you forgot the biggest difference between mongols & indians.
 

escobar

Brigadier
The situation has drastically changed since 1962. India's simultaneous hostility to Pakistan and CPEC and it's attempt to play a regional super-power role is serious obstacle to any resolution of the problem.
With the border issue not settle, why you are surprised India is hostile to CPEC?
Until China and India manage to solve the border issue, there will always be "animosity" on both sides in front of each action taken by one or the other.

Worst of all is India's alliance with other powers that have only long term strategic interests which is to involve India and China in a prolonged armed conflict. The ultimate objective is to weaken China with India as sacrificial pawn.
That is exactly what make the two gov stupid. Other powers have interests in a prolonged conflict firstly because China and India
were unable to settle the border issue.
 

Bright Sword

Junior Member
Registered Member
No.

The Horde is the most successful land army in military history... It is literally the textbook example of combined arms maneuver warfare to this day. I was just reading a book yesterday, written by a US war planner that still cites the Mongols as the paragon of warfare. And considering the fact that their Islamisized children, the Mughals, were able to conquer India, I personally take offense at this question lolz.
The reference to Mongols was only regarding how population pressures result in military actions; in this case whether population pressures are also driving India's posture towards its neighbors.
Before we divert too much from the topic:
1. The Mongols were decisively defeated by Allaudin Khilji in the late 13th century and early 14th century ( Battle of Kili onwards). This was one of the only two defeats the Mongols suffered globally ( the other at the hands of the Mamelukes in 1260) Read about the Khilji general Zafar Khan and Malik Kafur.
2. Mughals came to India 150 years later in the 16th century. Even though Mughals were descendants of Mongol converts their origins were in Central Asia ( Uzbekistan) where they had settled for generations. They were not from Ulan Bator in Mongolia.
 

Mt1701d

Junior Member
Registered Member
Are Indians the 21st Century Mongols?
There is a sinister mindset prevailing in India under a "Bharat Expansion" movement, fueled by media and influential think tanks including the chief ideologue directing the regime in power .
This might have long term implications for China and other countries in the region.
The argument is that India is too overpopulated and resources strapped to exist within its geographical boundaries.The population simply cannot be sustained. Apart from depopulating its 11% minority India has two solutions to the problem.
1.A partial solution is manipulated immigration to North America and Australia, which will partially relieve the pressure of highly vocal unemployed youth. Which is why any changes to the US H1B visa system draws intense criticism in the Indian media. The assertion is that Indians have a right to immigrate all over the world particularly to the USA so that a lobby can be built up to control the governments.The intention for the USA is that sufficient persons of Indian origin will settle and rise to prominent political office which has already happened in Canada and UK and of course in smaller countries such as Trinidad, Fiji, Mauritius,Guyana etc. The Mongols in the 12th century followed a roughly similar pattern prepping countries targeted for invasion using their trading establishments infiltrated via the Silk Route.
2. The other solution is outright conquest using overwhelming military power. The doctrine being proposed is the occupation of countries with rich natural resources and with a large sparsely populated land mass that are diplomatically isolated and militarily weak. The occupation could be accomplished with the help of regional allies and superpower approval. There is much talk in the influential Indian think tanks of taking over the Iranian gas and oil fields since the population of Iran is only 83 million population ( as. compared to 200 million people in single province of India's Uttar Pradesh). Azarbaijan, Baluchistan, are also in India's cross hairs because of rich natural resources, low population density. India has also targeted Uzbekistan. India has a general approval from the "Powers that be" for its population creep.
There are two obvious major obstacles to India's north and western expansion which are China and Pakistan. Obviously the costs of facing these countries by open warfare is unacceptable. Keeping a low grade tension constant based on "territorial disputes" is an alternative with the expectation that the "Powers that be" will exert sufficient diplomatic and economic costs to weaken these adversaries for India to tackle later.
A flawed plan but this is what is hoped.
Will population pressures and economic strain, poverty and hunger ultimately propel India into open expansionism, whatever the costs?
As their population grew the Mongols were unable to sustain their nomadic lifestyle as they ran out of grazing land for their cattle. They then turned on China and the rest of the world for resources.
As Chengiz Khan famously said :
"We don't fight for any nation or land.
We fight because we are hungry ".
This is a joke right? So instead of controlling the population or building infrastructure or development of the land it already has... the solution is to throw their population to other countries... or conquer more land... or genocide of 11% of their minority population

Firstly, If this was in the 1600s I might agree but it’s the 21st century... we have technology to overcome these problem nowadays...

Secondly, even these 2 solutions presented are stupid... for immigration angle... it is not the obligation of the host country to accept any immigrants... on this point I am with the US, there is also the consideration of who can immigrate, if the Indians think they can throw a 100 million of their poorest to other countries, then perhaps these ‘think tanks’ need to re-examine the word THINK... otherwise it would just be a brain drain from Indian which doesn’t make this a solution at all!

Thirdly, the second point... open expansionism... with what? Purchased weapons? Considering they can’t even cough up the money to defend what they have already, in the form of drones... what makes these ‘think tanks’ think, even if they have the popular support of the people, that they have the means to do any of this... They can’t even produce the ammo need to fight a war, they can’t even fulfil the most basic of requirements in modern warfare. To even begin thinking of something like this, these people in the ‘think tanks’ need go for a check up ASAP...
 

escobar

Brigadier
Essentially what I'm saying is that the China has different reasons for acting against India/USA than India/USA has against China while you said it's all the same. I said the devil is in the details and explained why. Instead of discussing the details, you went into an even further oversimplification "A says B is wrong; B says A is wrong so they are the same." If you sue a person who burglarized your house and he countersues you for not having enough valuables for him to steal, is it all the same because you're suing each other? Your response nonsense, incorrect, and pointless.
You are saying china has different reasons for acting against India/USA than India/USA has against China.
A US hawk will say US has different reasons for acting China than China has against USA.
A India Hawk will say India has different reasons for acting China than China has against India.

You can be the one who is right among them but all of you have the same motivation : try to convince that you are right.
It is for this reason that this thread is filled with messages saying how right China is and how India is wrong. In a indian forum, it will be the opposite

This is where you all are the same.

And even though my analogy of destroying a rival company or getting rid of a nest of rodents may have sounded like I believe in the destruction/dismemberment of India, I don't, and it's just an analogy. We were talking about people who might have such desires and why they might have these desires, NOT the actual actionability of them. I don't believe in such a drastic outcome as national destruction over a border skirmish in the modern world; it's not realistic so your question is moot
It was a rhetorical question

I think the route for Sino-Indian relations is for China to grow so powerful that India eventually lets the hostilities die down because it realizes that it's damaging itself over a rivalry that isn't there because it's leagues too far beneath China to rival or challenge it.
Maybe. But as every country tend to be arrogant it could end differently too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top