Quite odd. The link does work for me. And it is a very LONG source.:rofl: Anyway, thanks for the link. I'll be reading it in the weeks to come.
Sino-India conflict
- Thread starter President
- Start date
- Status
chinawhite
Banned Idiot
here is a kinda essay i wrote in another forum. Please just read and dont reply
Topic: Indian border
The whole indian claim rest on the McMahon Line. A line drawn up by the british themselves during their colonial time in india. This was suppose to have been signed at the Simla Conference.
The only reason the chinese attended the Simla Conference was because it was acknowledged that it had sovernity over tibet during the conference. The british presented china with a treaty to sign (McMahon Line included) and they refused. Later they secretly forced the tibetians to sign in exchange for their independece.
This breached the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906, in which Britain was to "engage not to annex Tibetan territory," but also of the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907. which made a treaty that acknowledged chinese soverity over tibet
Their is no legallity with only tibetian representives signing without the chinese signing since they (the chinese) had sovernity over tibetian affairs. You might later say the chinese manchu empire was gone and tibet was soverign but it is not true according to the secession of states theory. Why did the british again approch china in 1919 to have another tripartite conference again?
Why did the british want to have a large boundary of land which was useless to them? Because of their greedy intentions to have a buffer at the chinese and tibetians expense. They tried to do the same in afganistan but the russians were there
No one during this time acknowledged tibet as a soverign country and NO country gave tibet diplomatic recognition. Only after the 1959 rebellion (with the help of india and the CIA) did the tibetians start telling the world that they were independent.
If they were so independent why did tibetian representatives go in 1947 to watch the drafting of a new constitution for the ROC?. If they weren't part of china why would they need to be there. Again they signed a treaty with china in 1951 which they had full knowledge of what they were signing why did they sign? Or why did the tibetians accept the gold jiang jieshi gave the dalai lama for being chosen to be the next dalai lama which all chinese empires had to do to, which the tibetians accept to acknowledge that they were under chinese rule. the cermony is called "sitting on the bed". That is a rough translatio of what it means
Now most if not all of you guys dont know what system the tibetians had before the chinese occupation. It was based on land owners and serfs which are slaves to the lamas. This system was roughly similar to pre-communist russia(Tsar) and againest every priciple communism is about. When the chinese tried land reform in the country the lamas rebelled againest chinese rule.
Why is western media saying that is was a general rebelion againest chinese rule? why would the slaves rebell againest a system which set them free. Claims that tibet was a peacful country. Not every was a monk. Who was making the food
Now with that written what is the basis of the indian claim which is legal?
The people on the other side of the border are mongolia type people. that means looks chinese/tibetian and are tradtional tibetian areas. Find any map before the drawing of the McMahon line and you will see that none of the areas india claims have been originally indian
Why do the indians think that the McMahon line is the boundary? Because they think that what the british said they were entitled to. The PRC doesn't reconize the Mahon line the ROC doesn't reconize the McMahon line only the indians do.
When china started to build a major road through askin chin it took the indians two years to realize what happened. This incident only shows how much the indians cared about the region .
Reagards,
chinawhite
Topic: Indian border
The whole indian claim rest on the McMahon Line. A line drawn up by the british themselves during their colonial time in india. This was suppose to have been signed at the Simla Conference.
The only reason the chinese attended the Simla Conference was because it was acknowledged that it had sovernity over tibet during the conference. The british presented china with a treaty to sign (McMahon Line included) and they refused. Later they secretly forced the tibetians to sign in exchange for their independece.
This breached the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906, in which Britain was to "engage not to annex Tibetan territory," but also of the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907. which made a treaty that acknowledged chinese soverity over tibet
Their is no legallity with only tibetian representives signing without the chinese signing since they (the chinese) had sovernity over tibetian affairs. You might later say the chinese manchu empire was gone and tibet was soverign but it is not true according to the secession of states theory. Why did the british again approch china in 1919 to have another tripartite conference again?
Why did the british want to have a large boundary of land which was useless to them? Because of their greedy intentions to have a buffer at the chinese and tibetians expense. They tried to do the same in afganistan but the russians were there
No one during this time acknowledged tibet as a soverign country and NO country gave tibet diplomatic recognition. Only after the 1959 rebellion (with the help of india and the CIA) did the tibetians start telling the world that they were independent.
If they were so independent why did tibetian representatives go in 1947 to watch the drafting of a new constitution for the ROC?. If they weren't part of china why would they need to be there. Again they signed a treaty with china in 1951 which they had full knowledge of what they were signing why did they sign? Or why did the tibetians accept the gold jiang jieshi gave the dalai lama for being chosen to be the next dalai lama which all chinese empires had to do to, which the tibetians accept to acknowledge that they were under chinese rule. the cermony is called "sitting on the bed". That is a rough translatio of what it means
Now most if not all of you guys dont know what system the tibetians had before the chinese occupation. It was based on land owners and serfs which are slaves to the lamas. This system was roughly similar to pre-communist russia(Tsar) and againest every priciple communism is about. When the chinese tried land reform in the country the lamas rebelled againest chinese rule.
Why is western media saying that is was a general rebelion againest chinese rule? why would the slaves rebell againest a system which set them free. Claims that tibet was a peacful country. Not every was a monk. Who was making the food
Now with that written what is the basis of the indian claim which is legal?
The people on the other side of the border are mongolia type people. that means looks chinese/tibetian and are tradtional tibetian areas. Find any map before the drawing of the McMahon line and you will see that none of the areas india claims have been originally indian
Why do the indians think that the McMahon line is the boundary? Because they think that what the british said they were entitled to. The PRC doesn't reconize the Mahon line the ROC doesn't reconize the McMahon line only the indians do.
When china started to build a major road through askin chin it took the indians two years to realize what happened. This incident only shows how much the indians cared about the region .
Reagards,
chinawhite
Last edited:
chinawhite
Banned Idiot
Didn't you read the bit after that?. Traditional tibetian areas. Those people trace their heritage to areas in tibet. And the most important one is that they have their family over the border.
You know why modern india incorperates mongoloid people? Because of british expansion north. Not because any of those peopel were traditionally indian.
Only after 1870 did these areas actually been draw into a indian map with the mc McMahon line.
Now you have any edvidence for the legality of the indian claim? or is it just that?
--------------------------------
This is my last post about this subject until you provide edvidence why india has any legal claim to askin chin or the North-East Frontier Agency (aka Arunachal Pradesh.)
Regards,
chinawhite
You know why modern india incorperates mongoloid people? Because of british expansion north. Not because any of those peopel were traditionally indian.
Only after 1870 did these areas actually been draw into a indian map with the mc McMahon line.
Now you have any edvidence for the legality of the indian claim? or is it just that?
--------------------------------
This is my last post about this subject until you provide edvidence why india has any legal claim to askin chin or the North-East Frontier Agency (aka Arunachal Pradesh.)
Regards,
chinawhite
Last edited:
Zhu Ge Liang
Banned Idiot
what a coincidence just few days ago i saw some sino-indian wars film documentary and to my surprise that i found that most of the indian soldiers didn't have the courage to fight frontal wars with the chinese soldiers at all, they simply just fled to the surrounding forests ( happened near towns/garrisons units before Dawang/eastern sector) abandoning all their newly received war equipments fr the west, even fr israel ! someone will said that it's because of human wave tactics, no, actually it's because chinese commanders found some narrow passages in one side of the mountain ranges to reach positions behind enemy lines and attacked fr both sides also cutting their supply lines ! (what a surprise attack/tactic, the indian soldiers never expected them at all !!)
the film also described other war scenes, but i couldn't tell all of them here !
there are also a widespread chaos and confusions in new dehli when they heard chinese soldiers occupied last mountain defence town in the western sector ! (many chinese shops were burned & looted too !)
actually, i'm wondering why in the first place nehru's government wanted to provoke china with their aggressive policy by building many military posts beyond the mcmahon line ?
india at that time was a non-aligned country and suffered alot fr british colonialism, why should india follow the imperialism doctrine of their former ruler ? if nehru wanted to raise their national pride & dignity 'cause of the long british occupation, they should choose other smaller targets like pakistan or burma etc instead of china !
china and india are both 5000 years old civilizations who lived/co-existed peacefully since the ancient times (buddhism even came fr india to china) and i don't see why these two nations should fight each other now or in the future or to be used by western imperialism to be a counter-weight to each other to create regional instability!
the film also described other war scenes, but i couldn't tell all of them here !
there are also a widespread chaos and confusions in new dehli when they heard chinese soldiers occupied last mountain defence town in the western sector ! (many chinese shops were burned & looted too !)
actually, i'm wondering why in the first place nehru's government wanted to provoke china with their aggressive policy by building many military posts beyond the mcmahon line ?
india at that time was a non-aligned country and suffered alot fr british colonialism, why should india follow the imperialism doctrine of their former ruler ? if nehru wanted to raise their national pride & dignity 'cause of the long british occupation, they should choose other smaller targets like pakistan or burma etc instead of china !
china and india are both 5000 years old civilizations who lived/co-existed peacefully since the ancient times (buddhism even came fr india to china) and i don't see why these two nations should fight each other now or in the future or to be used by western imperialism to be a counter-weight to each other to create regional instability!
I reckon that Peace and stability between China and India won't last long.There still remains a lot of disputes about territory between them.Until
now India still have occupied parts of southern Tibet which originally belonged to China,and these problems will never be solved by negotiation.
There must be a war in future!
now India still have occupied parts of southern Tibet which originally belonged to China,and these problems will never be solved by negotiation.
There must be a war in future!
why did Nehru do it? Because he was a moron. He thought India was bad-ass enough to fight against a country which more or less fought 3 of the five major powers of the WWII period. He believed that by aligning India with Russia, he could project the possibility of a two front war to China, but of course, as was mentioned before, he was a moron, and thus calculated wrongly.
and then India had to beg to every god damned country on Earth to provide arms and supply, looking like a piss dumb coward in the process, but of course it never realized that the war was already lost because the Indian Air Force was not deployed during the beginning days of the war.
In my not so damned humble opinion, half of the ministry of defense, a quarter of the ranking army staff, and Nehru (actually Nehru and his entire line), should be castrated and then shot because of blatant incompetence.
and then India had to beg to every god damned country on Earth to provide arms and supply, looking like a piss dumb coward in the process, but of course it never realized that the war was already lost because the Indian Air Force was not deployed during the beginning days of the war.
In my not so damned humble opinion, half of the ministry of defense, a quarter of the ranking army staff, and Nehru (actually Nehru and his entire line), should be castrated and then shot because of blatant incompetence.
Actually, I read in Rueters that if the IAF had been deployed, it would have serioulsy hindered the advancement of the PLA, but by no doubt it would have turned into a full blown war. Nehru was smart not to deploy the IAF: if he would have done that, this conflict (or skirmish) would have been far more serious.
I completely agree with Zhu Ge Liang. Strategically China and India have a lot in common and both would only suffer severely if they went at each other especially with plenty of third parties who would pounce on the lesser loser in such a scenario.
Practically, the status quo is very bearable at least in situations where China and India deal directly with each other. Where the two spheres of influence overlap and compete indirectly on the turf of third parties would require much more active and delicate management. Areas such as Nepal, Burma... and ofcourse there is Pakistan. But that is where China is more of a side player.
Practically, the status quo is very bearable at least in situations where China and India deal directly with each other. Where the two spheres of influence overlap and compete indirectly on the turf of third parties would require much more active and delicate management. Areas such as Nepal, Burma... and ofcourse there is Pakistan. But that is where China is more of a side player.
deploying the IAF in the tactical roles would not escalate the conflict. Indeed, the CCP made it very clear that the strike was punitive and LIMITED, which is one of the fundamental aspects of active defense. Only if the IAF was deployed in the strategic role, like bombing Lahsa, would there be strategic backlashes like the widening of the conflict area.
- Status