Huh ? I'm speaking of a war strategy which India successfully deployed and won in 1971. Even the SFF was also part of that war. What's all that got to do with British rule ?
Well, if you have read the next line, it should be pretty clear what I meant.
Copy pasting past strategies and applying them to future events without any consideration for the different circumstances is worse than just repetition.
I'm saying India is ready to deploy the same strategy vis-a-vis China to break apart Tibet from it. That's why SFF exists in the first place !
My entire last post was to illustrate what a ridiculously bad idea that would be for India to ever try it.
Yes. Rest assured, a 1962 won't be repeated atleast, if not an outright victory for India.
Indian Maoists regard Chairman Mao as their leader. They want to capture New Delhi's Parliament, tear up the Constitution and blah blah bah
If that is the prevailing attitude of Indians wrt the Maoist rebellion, it's little wonder the insurgence has gotten so out of hand.
Its more to do with land rights, forced urbanization, etc. But Tibet is far more serious, because an another race of people (Han Chinese) are occupying Tibetans, who are distinct from Chinese in language and culture, history and what not.
Please spare us your political propaganda babble. Thus far everyone has tried their level best to keep politics out of the discussion and have only been focusing on the practicalities of how absurd it is for India to aim to resolve it's territorial disputes with China by trying to promote Tibetan separatism.
All nations will apply their tactics and only time will tell who wins or loses.
Is that how they do things in India? Just go for it without any consideration about the feasibility of a plan, never mind the costs and consequences and see what happens?
If at all, 'International sympathies' are with Tibetans and the least with an oppressive regime like China's. The fact that His Holiness and his followers' trips go to the UN, the US, Europe and many other countries are sponsored by India. And they welcome him with open arms, much to China's protestations and complaints.
So you think the world is going to side with India if Indian trained and equipped Tibetan terrorists start launching terrorist attacks in China? Much that says about your judgement.
And how do you claim that ?
Is google banned in India? This is a well documented fact, even if you did not know of it, you could have found out about it in 20 seconds on google.
In 1973, the original Inspector General of the SFF was replaced and in 1975 a new rule pertaining to the SFF was issued. This prohibited the SFF from being deployed within 10 km of the Indo-Chinese border. This came about after several incidents in which SFF commandos had crossed the border and conducted unsanctioned cross-border operations.
The Indian military adopts and executes strategies according to its own needs. It doesn't have to copy other nations.
Funny you say that, since the Indian military does seem to go out of it's way to emulate the British, but even the British make damn sure their Gorkhas regiment is well staff with British nationals at every level.
But if you honestly cannot see the potential dangers of having entire military commands comprised almost entirely of foreigners, then I am clearly wasting my time trying to discuss anything with you.
India and Nepal are both Hindu nations (Nepal officially so), and historically have had strong military ties since centuries. India sort of acts as the protectorate of Nepal. Note that Nepali and Indian citizens do Not need a Visa to visit each other's countries. They can even freely take jobs, buy property or conduct business. They only cannot vote.
And India and Pakistan were once one nation.
Similarly Bhutan is India's protectorate too (India handles its foreign affairs).
Funny you have the cheek to pontificate about Tibet and then gloat about India's effective annexation of Bhutan all in the same post.
This discussion is becoming political in nature. Let's get back to the military discussions.
The discussion is only turning political because you are bringing politics into it to try and deflect from the fact that your suggestions make no sense and are downright ridiculous.
Advocating trying to cause parts of your neighbors to break away as a means of resolving territorial disputes is plainly ridiculous as a strategy in itself, and as India's boarder clashes with Bangladesh shows, entirely ineffective as a means of solving India's boarder disputes. It merely transfers the boarder dispute from one nation to another.
That is assuming the strategy works in the first place, which as I have already explained, because of the imbalance of power between China and India, there is just no way India could hope to orchestrate the secession of Tibet from China without China knowing and being able to prove it. So for India to even try would lead to all out war.
You have also been twisting history to fit in with your own agenda, because East Pakistan only became Bangladesh because India fought a war with Pakistan for it. The SFF played their part, but it was the war that caused the breakup, not the SFF. If the fully might of the Indian military was not brought to bare and only the SFF were involved, they would have been crushed.
So, if you had managed to get your history straight, you would have realized that what you are proposing is in effect for India to fight a war to annex Tibet. That is what following your only precedent means and requires. Even if India had the stomach for such a war, it clearly does not have anywhere like the capability to pull it off.
The moral of the story is that something called an SFF exists, a highly trained unit of Tibetans who will be ready to conduct covert military ops inside Tibet or Chinese territory, should the need arise. Its interesting, though not much is known about it.
That is just a statement of how things are, the moral of the story is that the way the Indians have set up the SFF is a recipe for disaster. The SFF has already gone rough in the past, to the point where India had to ban them from operating in the region they were created to operate in.
But instead of learning for that and making the necessary changes to entire the SFF's loyalty and obedience, India merely treated the symptoms and not the cause.
As I have explained already, Tibet isn't going anywhere, and if India ever does enjoy better relations with China, it could suddenly find the Tibetan populous and military units on their soil not as friendly or docile as most Indians and westerns like to think.