Ladakh Flash Point

[Aniah]

I have to ask. At what point does one call another out at trolling? I've been here since the first page and every now and then people like tallgamer here come in and ignores everything said in the past pages while spewing his ranting. Is his behavior really not considered troll-like?

 

[ougoah]

Both India and Bhutan were Ok with China's presence in the northern part of the plateau, since China had been present there and was building roads long before 2017. The issue was China unilaterally attempted to extend the road to the south towards Mt. Gipmochi, near an area called Zampheri ridge, without consulting Bhutan. Construction of the road was stopped, and although China has been building roads elsewhere nearby in non-disputed areas, China still hasn't built any roads towards jampheri.

And its not like China would have accepted an agreement favorable to Bhutan. China was willing to offer it some less strategic land in the north in exchange for the Southern part of the Plateau, due to the strategic importance of Jampheri

Recently, China has even tried offering the Sakteng wildlife sanctuary in exchange for South Doklam, despite the fact that the area is already controlled by Bhutan. In addition, China claims that as its territory, even though it does not border China. Though it does border Arunachal's Tawang district.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So it's not like India simply interfered in bilateral Sino-Bhutanese negotiations.

That's semantics. India did involve itself and explained it as Bhutan requesting India's involvement. China wanted to build that stretch of the road in the disputed piece of land and offered in exchange another. Bhutan would only need to say yes or no. India's involvement was interpreted by China as its desire to interfere. Whether we personally regard that as such or not.

China building road in its own land is of course okay with Bhutan and India. You started your post with the claim that India was OK with China building road in China. That is a non-statement but used to portray that situation as if India was okay with this stretch of BRI road... well of course. It's like saying China is OK with India buying Rafales. It's not up to them to be okay with it.

As soon as the disputed section came into question, China wanted an exchange with Bhutan presumably because the engineers of the bridge and road required that section. In exchange China offered Bhutan another piece of land that Bhutan has wanted in the past. India interjected at this point in time. I think it's fair for China to interpret this as India just messing with China's interests in what China regarded as only a bilateral matter with Bhutan.

I feel like this is some sort of haggling dynamic. You have misrepresented the Doklam incident to gain favourable light for India in an effort to make it seem very reasonable and make it seem that India wasn't acting against China's interests. India wasn't OK with China building that road. If it were, it wouldn't have interjected. India had no say in whether China gets to build a road within China, therefore it is inappropriate to say India was OK with that and using it as the basis for supporting your argument that India was okay until China needed the disputed part. India was never OK with it from the start.

 

[yungho]

Google is your friend. If you have access to google. Thousands of Indians come back to India. Not saying usa is not the promised land for ambitious Indian's but the trend of Indians returning to India is well established and nothing new.
You read about the ill treatment of minorities in India but do you see Indian boat refugees like sri Lanka or like Pakistanis in europe or like the Hindus and sikhs coming to India from Afghanistan and Pakistan ? No you don't. Dont just go by official Chinese media and western media.
You have a brain. Learn to analyze. If India is so bad , why were Indian muslims and liberals protesting for months for repeal of a citizenship law that gave citizenship rights to some non muslim refugees from neighboring countries in 5 years instead of the normal 12. They were asking for muslim refugees to be included. Imagine muslims from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh migrating to evil anti minority India ?

No one is saying India is bad. Indians emigrate to the West for a better life and better opportunities. Han Chinese are the same. That's why your claim of mass Han Chinese emigration to Tibet is not only false, but makes no sense if you take few seconds to think it through. Then again, you would've already known that had you used your friend Google and looked at the patterns of migration in China.

 

[twineedle]

That's semantics. India did involve itself and explained it as Bhutan requesting India's involvement. China wanted to build that stretch of the road in the disputed piece of land and offered in exchange another. Bhutan would only need to say yes or no. India's involvement was interpreted by China as its desire to interfere. Whether we personally regard that as such or not.

China building road in its own land is of course okay with Bhutan and India. You started your post with the claim that India was OK with China building road in China. That is a non-statement but used to portray that situation as if India was okay with this stretch of BRI road... well of course. It's like saying China is OK with India buying Rafales. It's not up to them to be okay with it.

As soon as the disputed section came into question, China wanted an exchange with Bhutan presumably because the engineers of the bridge and road required that section. In exchange China offered Bhutan another piece of land that Bhutan has wanted in the past. India interjected at this point in time. I think it's fair for China to interpret this as India just messing with China's interests in what China regarded as only a bilateral matter with Bhutan.

My point was that a portion of doklam was occupied by China for decades, and Bhutan and India had accepted China being there. The standoff happened in a different area.

 

[ougoah]

Wha? more Tibetans have migrated to eastern cities than people from eastern cities migrate to Tibet.

Now with much improved food and basic services infrastructure, more Tibetans are staying and returning to Tibet.

 

[ougoah]

My point was that a portion of doklam was occupied by China for decades, and Bhutan and India had accepted China being there. The standoff happened in a different area.

You mean settled and demarcated with exchanges and on agreeable terms? There was no part of Doklam occupied by China. This is your bias coming through yet again. This would be like me saying India occupies Arunachal since it was never a part of India. India also currently occupies IOK, Goa, and parts of Sikkim. China has accepted and been okay with Indian aggression and occupation of Goa, parts of Kashmir, Sikkim, and of course Arunachel Pradesh.

China never fought a war with Bhutan and never used soldiers to occupy parts of Bhutan like India does with Kashmir. Whatever portion of Doklam you personally interpret as under Chinese occupation was in reality, settled and demarcated disputes with Bhutan.

Disputes happen. Especially after tumultuous times. PRC inherited a lot of the problems from the ROC era and before that, imperial China. It has since settled all disputes except the two major ones with India. Islands disputed is another matter. Japan disputes with Korea, Japan disputes with Russia, Taiwan disputes with Philippines and Vietnam and Malaysia too. India just annexed neighbours until it met heavy resistance in Kashmir.

India also uses Hindu softpower to hold firm control of Bhutan and Nepal... well until recently when they have realised what sailing with India is like.

 

[yungho]

I have to ask. At what point does one call another out at trolling? I've been here since the first page and every now and then people like tallgamer here come in and ignores everything said in the past pages while spewing his ranting. Is his behavior really not considered troll-like?

It's always good to see what the average Indian is thinking and their perspective.

Wha? more Tibetans have migrated to eastern cities than people from eastern cities migrate to Tibet.

Now with much improved food and basic services infrastructure, more Tibetans are staying and returning to Tibet.

The original comment was about "uncontrolled han chinese migration" to Tibet lmao. Good for the Tibetans, but the idea of mass Han Chinese migration to the outer regions of China is hilarious.

 

[twineedle]

You mean settled and demarcated with exchanges and on agreeable terms? There was no part of Doklam occupied by China. This is your bias coming through yet again. This would be like me saying India occupies Arunachal since it was never a part of India. India also currently occupies IOK, Goa, and parts of Sikkim. China has accepted and been okay with Indian aggression and occupation of Goa, parts of Kashmir, Sikkim, and of course Arunachel Pradesh.

Satellite images prior to 2017 had shown Chinese roads in the northern part of Doklam. The standoff was in the southern part of the plateau. I was simply saying China was present in the northern part before 2017, and that China had wanted to expand into the South up to Jampheri.

Why wouldn't China be ok with India liberating a State that was forcefully occupied by the Portuguese colonists? China actually supported India at the time. Also, Nehru only invaded Goa after the Portuguese refused to seek a diplomatic solution, like the French did by ceding Puducherry peacefully. Sikkim voted to be a part of India, that has already been discussed. And I do not think China is fine with India controlling AP, as was mentioned a few pages ago.

But we are getting off topic here.

 

[ougoah]

Satellite images prior to 2017 had shown Chinese roads in the northern part of Doklam. The standoff was in the southern part of the plateau. I was simply saying China was present in the northern part before 2017, and that China had wanted to expand into the South up to Jampheri.

Why wouldn't China be ok with India liberating a territory that was occupied by the Portuguese? China actually supported India at the time. Also, Nehru only invaded Goa after the Portuguese refused to seek a diplomatic solution, like the French did by ceding Pondichery peacefully. Sikkim voted to be a part of India, that has already been discussed. And I do not think China is fine with India controlling AP, as was mentioned a few pages ago.

But we are getting off topic here.

Yes China was present in its own land. When Chinese construction crews made it clear they needed the disputed stretch to complete the road, it offered Bhutan another stretch in return for this. China didn't invade Bhutan, it didn't Annex Bhutan, it didn't wage war or threaten them in any way. They offered Bhutan a piece for a piece and was happy to negotiate terms if they weren't happy with that offer. There was no threat or gun held over its head to get that stretch. As it concludes (I'm assuming here) China just got its engineers to divert the road to avoid the drama with India.

Seems rather sensible to me and if any one person was in that position of China, would naturally become aware that India is out to do harm.

Imagine if a classmate of yours went out of their way to interject in a civil negotiation deal for lunch swap between yourself and another. If that were to happen, you would naturally think there is something wrong with the intentions of the person who interjected. Anyway I'm trying to explain the thought process which serves as one backdrop for the ongoing enmity. One does not need to learn the lessons or think about it.

 

[ougoah]

Satellite images prior to 2017 had shown Chinese roads in the northern part of Doklam. The standoff was in the southern part of the plateau. I was simply saying China was present in the northern part before 2017, and that China had wanted to expand into the South up to Jampheri.

Why wouldn't China be ok with India liberating a State that was forcefully occupied by the Portuguese colonists? China actually supported India at the time. Also, Nehru only invaded Goa after the Portuguese refused to seek a diplomatic solution, like the French did by ceding Puducherry peacefully. Sikkim voted to be a part of India, that has already been discussed. And I do not think China is fine with India controlling AP, as was mentioned a few pages ago.

But we are getting off topic here.

Mate I was using those annexations as examples. You missed the point.

The point is China was negotiating with Bhutan for something it needs and willing to offer something Bhutan wants. It wasn't an invasion or annexation of Bhutan. This cannot be said for India with what it has done.

So you are wrong in calling it as China occupied parts of Doklam. This is factually wrong. China was in China's side on Chinese land in northern Doklam. India refused to allow Bhutan to strike a deal with China regardless of how peaceful and civil and two sided (as in both get a say and both can refuse offers).

China decided that it's not worth the drama dealing with India and finished the road without involving the disputed stretch which it wanted Bhutan to exchange for some Chinese land.