Ladakh Flash Point

[BIGAPE]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Found an interesting paragraph on India's foreign minister Jaishankar'd views on India-China relations.

"In his analysis of China, where he served as India’s longest-serving ambassador (1 June 2009 – 1 December 2013), that Jaishankar offers arguably his most provocative ideas. Jaishankar argues that China is not in fact hostile to India because it “sees India as inherent to the rise of Asia and the larger rebalancing of the power distribution” (p. 40). Firstly, Jaishankar sees China and India as concerted stakeholders in Asia’s rise to power: “The ability of India and China to work together could determine the Asian century” (p. 133). Thus, when he praises nationalism, Jaishankar adds that it is “represented by the rise of nations like China and India, of a continent like Asia and the consequent rebalancing of the global order” (p. 112). The key is his firm belief that these two countries – and Asia in general – are meant to act as a counterweight to the West: “China is the great disrupter here since unlike Japan, South Korea or the ASEAN, its emergence cannot be accommodated in the old framework. The rise of India will only reinforce this pressure for change” (p. 113)."

 

[vincent]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Found an interesting paragraph on India's foreign minister Jaishankar'd views on India-China relations.

"In his analysis of China, where he served as India’s longest-serving ambassador (1 June 2009 – 1 December 2013), that Jaishankar offers arguably his most provocative ideas. Jaishankar argues that China is not in fact hostile to India because it “sees India as inherent to the rise of Asia and the larger rebalancing of the power distribution” (p. 40). Firstly, Jaishankar sees China and India as concerted stakeholders in Asia’s rise to power: “The ability of India and China to work together could determine the Asian century” (p. 133). Thus, when he praises nationalism, Jaishankar adds that it is “represented by the rise of nations like China and India, of a continent like Asia and the consequent rebalancing of the global order” (p. 112). The key is his firm belief that these two countries – and Asia in general – are meant to act as a counterweight to the West: “China is the great disrupter here since unlike Japan, South Korea or the ASEAN, its emergence cannot be accommodated in the old framework. The rise of India will only reinforce this pressure for change” (p. 113)."

Jaishankar is the one that push the Indian government to kiss the American butt and work with the American to prevent China from advancing economically

 

[twineedle]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Xizor]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A good example of an article with much mass yet no substance.

Ignoring the "PLA bad" snide remarks he sneaks in time to time, there is nothing about the incident at Galwan or his opinions on it. It just a retired soldier trying to relate the present with the personal stories of his from the past.

Also, he mentions that a confrontation could've taken place but not a clash. He mentions about a situation report that is officially significant. Are confrontations ignored from situation reports? I thought a breakdown of disengagement buffers to be worthy of a situation report. Quite inconsistent himself.

 

[twineedle]

A good example of an article with much mass yet no substance.

Ignoring the "PLA bad" snide remarks he sneaks in time to time, there is nothing about the incident at Galwan or his opinions on it. It just a retired soldier trying to relate the present with the personal stories of his from the past.

Also, he mentions that a confrontation could've taken place but not a clash. He mentions about a situation report that is officially significant. Are confrontations ignored from situation reports? I thought a breakdown of disengagement buffers to be worthy of a situation report. Quite inconsistent himself.

The Indian Army made it pretty clear that the buffer zones are still holding.

 

[Xizor]

The Indian Army made it pretty clear that the buffer zones are still holding.

The Indian Army never makes it clear if Buffer zine has collapsed momentarily.

 

[lgnxz]

Indian Army made it pretty clear that the buffer zones are still holding.

Easy enough for you if you can just cherrypick which opinions that follow your narrative.
"Oh, ajai shukla is agreeing with me today, good golly guess he's right for today! Oh this western media article written by indian/indian diaspora is agreeing with me, wow wow since they are not indian media then this must be unbiased, and their opinions mean that it's what's happened on the border!"
And then just repeat these ad infinitum.

Still waiting for the on-site photographs and concrete evidences from the indian side btw. Are the xiaomi phones still haven't arrived yet for the border guards? Or how about the footage from the alleged cctv cameras that are put in those hi-tech all-weather indian wooden poles? I'm gonna keep reminding you every time you try to foolishly extend this non-ending discussion on this thread without bringing such evidences.

 

[jfy1155]

The Indian Army made it pretty clear that the buffer zones are still holding.

Do you have satellite images yet?

 

[yungho]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Found an interesting paragraph on India's foreign minister Jaishankar'd views on India-China relations.

"In his analysis of China, where he served as India’s longest-serving ambassador (1 June 2009 – 1 December 2013), that Jaishankar offers arguably his most provocative ideas. Jaishankar argues that China is not in fact hostile to India because it “sees India as inherent to the rise of Asia and the larger rebalancing of the power distribution” (p. 40). Firstly, Jaishankar sees China and India as concerted stakeholders in Asia’s rise to power: “The ability of India and China to work together could determine the Asian century” (p. 133). Thus, when he praises nationalism, Jaishankar adds that it is “represented by the rise of nations like China and India, of a continent like Asia and the consequent rebalancing of the global order” (p. 112). The key is his firm belief that these two countries – and Asia in general – are meant to act as a counterweight to the West: “China is the great disrupter here since unlike Japan, South Korea or the ASEAN, its emergence cannot be accommodated in the old framework. The rise of India will only reinforce this pressure for change” (p. 113)."

Interesting ideas that ultimately contradict each other. If I understand the author wants to be the world's hedge against China in the short/medium-term, but ultimately keep relations at a level that's salvageable. I don't understand India's obsession about the Himalayas and ultimately Tibet. Indian nationalists seem to have this idea of 'losing Tibet' similar in vein of the US 'losing China' after WW2. Tibet has never been in the Indian sphere of influence, ever. Control/influence over Tibet lies on who borders them east and obviously not west where they would be blocked by the Himalayas.

 

[Xizor]

Interesting ideas that ultimately contradict each other. If I understand the author wants to be the world's hedge against China in the short/medium-term, but ultimately keep relations at a level that's salvageable. I don't understand India's obsession about the Himalayas and ultimately Tibet. Indian nationalists seem to have this idea of 'losing Tibet' similar in vein of the US 'losing China' after WW2. Tibet has never been in the Indian sphere of influence, ever. Control/influence over Tibet lies on who borders them east and obviously not west where they would be blocked by the Himalayas.

The US ideas of 'losing China' revolves around the concept of not turning China into a nation with US bases and US "allied" government soon after the war, first as a bulwark against USSR and then just as another modern "ally" of theirs - The same way Japan and SK is today. They lost China not to the evil communists but to the concepts of a notion of full sovereignty ( although they'd like to color wrap it as a loss to evil communism).

But big nations like China and India will always eventually end up trying to have their own say. India remained somewhat distant from the superpowers in the past too. Both these countries have distinct civilization traits and identities linked to past glory and global Power.
You would want to be strong, dignified and independent if your family history was glorious ( even if at present you are poor and broke).

This is where they differ from countries like Turkey, Greece, Iran etc( a matter of size and longevity perhaps?) . China, compared to India, however, has a long history of doing Global Power things through being a "unified" entity. India seems to artificially construct one for itself due to lack of a past that was continuous, unified and powerful.

---

Indian nationalists love for Tibet stems from their want to secure Indian mainland by turning Tibet into a buffer and choke on China. Tibet gives them the heights to command south Asia and hold for rivers.

But the reality is that Tibet is long gone from Indian grasp.