Surya 1 and 2 : India's ICBM's

whats the indian claim to Arunachal Pradesh. ???

do you even know when india took it over.

As for your comment about why china moved out. during this time 1911-1949. china didn't have a effective government. the ROC didn't even admisiter a lot of the regions. they had pacts with local warlords to keep the peace.

does anyone know what tibet was like before 1951???
it was a shiet hole

with your claim. india shouldn't even have a history seeing how britian owned it before.

Tibet is part of China for more than 700 years

(You may have heard a lot about Chinese invasion of Tibet or sympathetic about Tibet Independent movement in Western media. Do you know that China has 56 nationalities and is never a racist country in history. Do you know that Tibetan immigrated to Tibet several thousand years ago from other part of China? Do you know that when Red Army entered Tibet in 1951, they also recovered other part of China (Chinese army invaded China????). Do you know that before 1951, the feudal lords in Tibet who constituted only five percent of the population possessed 95 percent of the means of production. Do you know that Buddhism was brought into Tibet from China Proper before being developed into the current state? Read the Tibet history before passing your judgment about a nation you have been misled in centuries.)

British and America working hard to separate Tibet from China since 19th century.

During the 19th century, Chinese Qing government control weakened, and prosperity diminished. China suffered massive social strife, economic stagnation, explosive population growth, and Western penetration and influence. Britain's desire to continue its illegal opium trade with China collided with imperial edicts prohibiting the addictive drug, and the First Opium War erupted in 1840. China lost the war; subsequently, Britain and other Western powers, including the United States, forcibly occupied "concessions" and gained special commercial privileges. Hong Kong was ceded to Britain in 1842 under the Treaty of Nanjing, and in 1898, when the Opium Wars finally ended, Britain executed a 99-year lease of the New Territories, significantly expanding the size of the Hong Kong colony.

British aggressors invaded China's Tibet twice in 1888 and 1903. The Tibetan army and civilians rose to resist but were defeated. In the second aggressive war against Tibet, the British army occupied Lhasa, and the 13th Dalai Lama was forced to flee from the city. The invaders compelled the Tibetan local government officials to sign the Lhasa Convention. But because the Ministry of External Affairs of the Qing government believed the Lhasa Convention would do damage to national sovereignty, the high commissioner stationed in Tibet by the Qing government refused to sign it, leaving it ineffectual.

Britain took advantage of the political chaos in China after the collapse of the Qing Dynasty and the new birth of the Republic of China in 1901, and put before the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs a five-point demand, indicating the denial of China's sovereignty over Tibet. Chinese government rejected the brutal demand.

In 1913 the British government inveigled the Tibetan authorities into declaring independence with the supervision and full support by British. Simply the British would like to turn Tibet into British colony like India. Once again British failed.

In the summer of 1942, the Tibetan local government, with the support of the British representative, announced the establishment of a "foreign affairs bureau," and openly carried out "Tibetan independence" activities. These actions were made public and condemned unanimously by the Chinese people. The national government also issued a stern warning. Under this pressure, the Tibetan local government had no choice but to withdraw its decision and reported the change to the national government.

In 1949, America announced in a US newspaper: " The United States is ready to recognize Tibet as an independent and free country."

In 1950, a load of American weaponry was shipped into Tibet through Calcutta in order to help resist the China army entry into Tibet. In the same year, US Secretary of State Dean Acheson openly slandered China's liberation of its own territory of Tibet as "invasion." In the same month the United States prodded some other countries to propose a motion at the United Nations for intervention in China's Tibet. The scheme was unsuccessful in face of the stern stand of the Chinese government and the opposition of some countries.

Former US President George Bush once declared that the coastal areas of China, plus Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia, would split. The US' CIA, with an investment of US$245,000, entrusted the University of Hawaii to research whether the tense situations in ethnic areas in China will lead to a split of the country. The research results disappointed them.

In 1957 the CIA culled six young men from among Tibetans residing abroad and sent them to Guam of the United States to receive training in map-reading, radio transmission, shooting and parachuting. Subsequently, the United States trained 170 "Kamba guerrillas" in batches in Hale Camp, Colorado. The trained "Kamba guerrillas" were airdropped or sneaked into Tibet to execute CIA's plan activities. In May 1958, two agents trained by the Americans in the first batch brought a transceiver to the headquarter, which was set up by the rebel leader Anzhugcang Goinbo Zhaxi in Shannan, to make contact with the CIA. United States air-dropped arms and ammunition, including 20 sub-machine guns, two mortars, 100 rifles, 600 hand-grenades, 600 artillery shells and close to 40,000 bullets, to the rebels in the plateau called Chigu Lama Thang. During the same period, United States clandestinely shipped large amounts of arms and ammunition overland to the rebels entrenched in the Shannan area.

It was obvious that 1959 Tibet rebellion was all planned by American government

Form there on, America has been continuously backing the independent movement of Tibet all along. A movie "Seven Years in Tibet" produced by U.S. fooled the American with distorted historical facts. Funding was poured into foundations in U.S. to continue the anti-Chinese activities.

China's sovereignty on Tibet for over 700 years

Millions of files in both Chinese and Tibetan recording historical facts over more than seven centuries are being kept in the archives of Beijing, Nanjing and Lhasa. No government of any country in the world has ever recognized Tibet as an independent state.

British Foreign Secretary Lord Lansdowne, in a formal instruction he sent out in 1904, called Tibet "a province of the Chinese Empire."

In his speech at the Lok Sabba in 1954, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru said, "Over the past several hundred years, as far as I know, at no time has any foreign country denied China's sovereignty over Tibet."

In Lhasa, the capital of the Tibet Autonomous Region, a statue of the Tang Princess Wen Cheng, who married the Tubo tsampo, king of Tibet, in 641, is still enshrined and worshiped in the Potala Palace. The Tang-Tubo Alliance Monument erected in 823 still stands in the square in front of the Jokhang Monastery. The monument inscription reads in part, "The two sovereigns, uncle and nephew, having come to agreement that their territories be united as one, have signed this alliance of great peace to last for eternity! May God and humanity bear witness thereto so that it may be praised from generation to generation."

The following map (From "Historical Atlas" by William R. Shepherd,1923.) had shown Tibet part of Yuan Dynasty. No one can deny that Tibet is always a part of China. Tibet is never an independent country. None of the Chinese government has ever surrendered the sovereignty of Tibet to others.


Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368)

The Yuan emperor established the Xuanzheng Yuan or Ministry for the Spread of Governance to directly handle important military and political affairs of the Tibet region. Choice of its members lay with the emperor and its reports were submitted directly to the monarch.

The central government of the Yuan Dynasty sent officials into Tibet to set up post stations, whose size varied according to the local population, topography and resources. These post stations were linked up in a communication line extending from Tibet up to Dadu (present-day Beijing).

The central government of the Yuan Dynasty also dispatched officials into Tibet to conduct censuses, establish the number of corvee laborers in areas under various wanhu offices and decide the number of corvee laborers, provisions and animal transport the areas along the post route had to supply. Such censuses were conducted three times in Tibet, in 1268, 1287 and 1334..
Ming Dynasty (1368-1644)

In 1368 the Ming Dynasty replaced the Yuan Dynasty in China, and inherited the right to rule Tibet.

The central government of the Ming Dynasty retained most of the titles and ranks of official positions instituted during the Yuan Dynasty. In the central and eastern parts of present-day Tibet, the Dbus-Gtsang Itinerant High Commander and the Mdo-khams Itinerant High Commander were set up respectively. Equivalent to provincial-level military organs, they operated under the Shaanxi Itinerant High Commander and, at the same time, handled civil administration. In Ngari in west Tibet, the E-Li-Si Army-Civilian Marshal Office was instituted. Leading officials of these organs were all appointed by the central government.

The Dalai Lama and the Bainqen Lama are the two leading incarnation hierarchies of the Gelug Sect of Tibetan Buddhism. The Gelug Sect rose during the Ming Dynasty, and the 3rd Dalai Lama was the abbot of one of the sect's monasteries. The central government of the Ming Dynasty showed him special favor by allowing him to pay tribute. In 1587 he was granted the title of Dorjichang or Vajradhara Dalai Lama.

Any official of the Tibetan local government who offended the law was punished by the central government.
Qing Dynasty (1644-1911)

When the Qing Dynasty replaced the Ming Dynasty in 1644, it further strengthened administration over Tibet.

In 1653 and 1713, the Qing emperors granted honorific titles to the 5th Dalai Lama and the 5th Bainqen Lama, henceforth officially establishing the titles of the Dalai Lama and the Bainqen Erdeni and their political and religious status in Tibet.

The Qing emperor made a young Living Buddha of the Xikang area the 7th Dalai Lama and had him escorted into Tibet, and appointed four Tibetan officials renowned for meritorious service "Galoins" to handle Tibet's political affairs.

In order to perfect Tibet's administrative organizations, the Qing Dynasty on many occasions enacted "regulations" to rectify and reform old systems and establish new ones. The Authorized Regulations for the Better Governing of Tibet, promulgated in 1793, had 29 articles. Their major purport was:

The Qing government holds the power to confirm the reincarnation of all deceased high Living Buddhas of Tibet including the Dalai Lama and the Bainqen Erdeni.

The high commissioners will supervise the handling of Tibetan affairs on behalf of the central government, enjoying the equal standing with the Dalai Lama and the Bainqen Erdeni. All the Galoins and those below them are subordinates.

Tibet before the Chinese Revolution

Before the Chinese revolution Tibet was a feudal medieval relic. Even by the standards of pre-revolutionary China, Tibet was backward politically, economically and socially.

The backwardness was such that even the wheel was not in use in Tibet. There was no plumbing, even in the houses of the rich, and in 1957 Alan Winnington noted "the question of whether the world is flat or whether it moves round the sun is just as full of politics in present-day Tibet as it was in Galileo’s Europe." Moreover, Tibet at the time of the Chinese revolution had no schools or hospitals. The rich either had tutors at home for their children or sent them to school in India, a practice started during the 1920s when British imperialism controlled Tibet. There were no roads, so little communication with the outside world. Such transport of exports and imports as there was was effected by peasants forced to perform this ula service for their masters, who had to provide their own animals for the purpose.

What social system could succeed in keeping this area of 1,200,000 inhabitants and 1,200,000 square miles so very backward and detached from the modern world? The distinction of having condemned the area to such exceptional backwardness goes to the Tibetan feudal system, the vicious and cruel class rule of the 5% of the population that constituted the feudal nobility, backed up by theocratic Lamaism. Like the Catholic church of medieval Europe, the monasteries of Tibet were themselves large feudal landlords. They also exploited the peasantry through usury.

If 5% of the population consisted of the nobility and their administrators, the rest was made up of 60% peasants, 20% herdsmen and 15% lamas. The peasants were serfs, and these fell into three categories. 45% of them were chapas (or tsaibas), another 45% tuichings (duichins), and the remaining 10% langshengs (natsams).

The chapas were the highest stratum of serf, whose families had been attached to the same manor for generations. Despite their relatively high status – among serfs, that is – 70% of them lived in poverty. The tuichings were ‘black’ people who had themselves left their masters (or whose parents or remoter ancestors had), but had been forced to place themselves at the disposal of another master because there was no place in Tibetan society for someone born a serf to be without a master. It was illegal to leave a master, and could lead to cruel punishment for a serf who was caught. The tuichings, however, by putting themselves at the disposal of another master, sometimes managed to free themselves from the original one. Their status with the new master, however, was even lower than the chapas, and they tended to be still poorer. In addition to being obliged like the chapas to work from two-thirds to three-quarters of their time on their masters’ land, they were required to hand over by way of rent part of the crops they grew on the small parcel of land allocated to them to their master. The lengshengs were simply slaves. They worked for their masters without payment of any kind. Even their children did not belong to them but to their masters.

In these circumstances, it was very hard for peasants to produce sufficient to feed themselves and still have enough seed for the following year’s sowing. 80% of serfs were in debt to the monasteries, the aristocracy or the local government in respect of loans that they had been forced to incur, some of them totally incapable of repayment. Interest at extremely high rates was exacted from them in addition to all the other forms of exploitation.

With the heavy burden of the feudal nobility and the monasteries on their backs, the peasants were never able to improve agricultural methods, even if they had been allowed to do so. Production methods were unbelievably primitive. Ploughs were wooden. Farm machinery did not exist anywhere in the region.

The compliance of the serf masses was secured by means of force and religion.

Religion, as it always does, holds out glowing promises of justice, freedom and equality, but delivered only subjugation and misery. Lamaism reconciles its adherents to the dire hardship and glaring injustice of their lives by telling them that they are paying for ‘sins’ in earlier lives (disobedience and rebellion) and promising them a good life in their next incarnation if they meekly submitted to their fate. While preaching the non-violence that is supposedly the hallmark of Buddhism, however, Lamaism is an integral part of a system designed to hold down the oppressed masses by utmost brutality. It is not simply that other-wordly monks looked the other way while the nobility dished out the necessary cruelty. The monks themselves dispensed these cruelties too.

The same monks who preached that it is unforgivable to kill a fly, a louse or even bacteria, thought nothing of administering floggings to peasants and fellow monks of serf class for the slightest infraction of a million arbitrary regulations. Serious offences did not normally lead to death sentences, after all Buddhists aren’t suppose to kill living creatures, but they did lead to floggings from which the victims could not but die.

Anna Louise Strong spoke to a young lama of duichin background at Jokhan monastery. She noted that he had "markings left on hands and hips from many floggings." The lama himself claimed it had been over 1000. She asked him:

"Did anyone in the monastery show you any kindness? … Buddha teaches kindness and compassion to all living creatures. Didn’t anyone follow this teaching". She continues:

"The young lama replied that he had heard plenty of talk in the scripture halls about ‘kindness to all living creatures’, but had ‘never seen any kindness shown by an upper stratum lama to a poor lama. If any upper class lama refrains from beating you, that is already very good. In never saw an upper lama give food to a poor lama who was hungry. They treated the laymen who were believers just as badly or even worse" (When the Serfs Stood up in Tibet, New World Press, Peking, 1960, p.120).

She also wrote, in connection with the system of government in Tibet:

"The complicated mechanism of government handled only the affairs of the upper class. Commoners were ruled directly by their masters. Every manor house and monastery had its jail, usually a rough stone cell in a cellar with little air or light and no toilet facilities expect the floor. Manors and monasteries had their own whips for flogging, their own torture implements. A master had the right to cut off the hand or foot or gouge out the eyes of a disobedient or runaway serf. There were special instruments for these punishments, and also for ham-stringing or slicing off the heel or otherwise crippling a serf."

Following the Chinese revolution, there were attempts by British and US imperialism to detach Tibet from China, using their influence with the Dalai Lama’s advisers. Opinion within the Tibetan ruling circles as to their best course of action was divided, however, and no immediate steps were taken. The British and Americans were reputedly proffering contradictory advice, with the Americans suggesting the Dalai Lama flee to India, from where he would be financed by them to mount an anti-communist holy war, while the British were telling him that to retain any influence he would need to stay in Tibet. In the meantime, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army took steps to secure Tibet against the encroachment of foreign imperialism into Chinese national territory. There was, moreover, a certain amount of warlord conflict between Tibetan nationality and Han nationality warlords which needed to be quelled. When the PLA moved towards Tibet, it found itself confronted by the Tibetan army at Chamdo. As might be expected, the fighting forces of such a backward region as Tibet could not amount to much and indeed, they were defeated in a 2-day battle, during which part of the Tibetan army simply went over to the PLA.

Apei, the Commander-in-Chief of the Tibetan forces, expected at this point to be put to death. Instead he was mobilised to convince the Dalai Lama of the advantages of co-operating with China, of which Tibet had been an integral part since the 13th century. Even when the British mounted an aggression to take possession of Tibet under Younghusband in the 1920s, they recognised Chinese sovereignty in the area by sending the Chinese government the bill for their armed aggression. Apei was successful in convincing the Tibetan nobility that, for the time being at least, they should not oppose Chinese sovereignty – the alternative clearly being to become themselves vassals of US and/or British imperialism, a fate that most did not relish. As a result agreement was reached in March 1951 for Tibet to retain its autonomy within the People’s Republic of China and to be allowed to progress towards socialism at its own slow pace.

In this agreement Peking agreed "not to abolish the existing political structure" and "not to use compulsion for reform", to allow the governmental powers of Tibet’s two spiritual leaders, the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Erdeni, to continue, as well as rule by the clique of nobility known as the Kasha. The Kasha, in turn, agreed to make some progress towards reform in its own time, in consultation with the people to ascertain their desires. In addition, the clan warfare that had beset Tibet for centuries was halted, ula was undermined by the PLA’s practice of paying peasants for the services which they had hitherto had to perform free for their masters.

Although the agreement did not by any means clear out the rotten Tibetan social system, improvements did begin to be made in peasants’ lives. The Chinese, for instance, provided interest free seed loans, with a view to improving the quality of the crops in the region. They distributed 380,000 iron farm tools to replace the traditional wooden ploughs. They also introduced better quality livestock. Three great roads were built, schools and hospitals were introduced.

Even these small reforms, together with the opening up of contacts with the rest of China, shook the foundations of the old society to such an extent that the feudal nobility realised that the old society could not survive the winds of change. These sections of society, with the high-class lamas who controlled the monasteries, were soon plotting with foreign powers with a view to organising secession.

Their rebellion and its consequences will be dealt with in the next issue of Lalkar.

Why cant you just put the links instead of copy-pasting such huge articles. They're a pain to the eye.

Originally posted by chinawhite


whats the indian claim to Arunachal Pradesh. ???

do you even know when india took it over.

Are you contesting my knowledge in that dept?
Because the tone in which you posted indicates that you think I don't know much abt arunachal's history..And so Im getting your point of view clear before you go backtracking again..

I repeat my question..
What is China's claim to Arunachal?
The fact that you counter-questioned me on India's claim to the region shows that YOU don't know the reasons behind china's claim..

And India doesn't claim Arunachal..It IS Indian territory..there's no need to claim what you own!

[edit on 25-5-2005 by Daedalus3]

A good read: www.rediff.com...

[edit on 25-5-2005 by Daedalus3]

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by chinawhite


whats the indian claim to Arunachal Pradesh. ???

do you even know when india took it over.

Are you contesting my knowledge in that dept?
Because the tone in which you posted indicates that you think I don't know much abt arunachal's history..And so Im getting your point of view clear before you go backtracking again..

I repeat my question..
What is China's claim to Arunachal?
The fact that you counter-questioned me on India's claim to the region shows that YOU don't know the reasons behind china's claim..

And India doesn't claim Arunachal..It IS Indian territory..there's no need to claim what you own!

[edit on 25-5-2005 by Daedalus3]

yeah indian terrioty. if we talk about LAC

it only got named Arunachal Pradesh in 1972

In 1913-14, the British administrator, Sir Henry McMahon, drew up the 550-mile McMahon Line as the border between India and China in Shimla, during a conference which also discussed the Tibetan and Chinese borders. This border was later rejected by the Chinese government in 1947, saying that the claim was never approved and pointing to a map in the Encyclopædia Britannica of 1929 which showed the Indo-Chinese border stretching right up to the border of the Assamese plains. Following this dispute, the Chinese troops crossed the McMahon Line on the August 26, 1959, and captured an Indian outpost at Longju, a few miles south of the line. They abandoned this in 1961 but in October 1962 crossed the line once again, this time in force, beginning the Sino-Indian War. After striking toward the Tanglha ridge and Tawang, which is near the Bhutan border, the Chinese later extended their attack across the whole frontier. Deep inroads were made at a number of points. However, the Chinese agreed to withdraw back to the McMahon Line and returned Indian prisoners of war in 1963. The Indian government attributes this to the preparedness of India to defend the plains of Assam, the superiority of the Indian Air Force, and Chinese logistical problems; the Chinese government maintains that political considerations were the only factor in their retreat. The McMahon Line was the border claimed by Britain as the official border between British India and Tibet. ... Shimla Shimla (शिमला) is the capital of Himachal Pradesh and a hill station in North India. ... 1913 advertisement for the 11th edition, with the slogan When in doubt - look it up in the Encyclopædia Britannica The Encyclopædia Britannica (properly spelt with æ, the ae-ligature) is the oldest English-language general encyclopedia. ... The McMahon Line was the border claimed by Britain as the official border between British India and Tibet. ... The Sino-Indian war was a short border war between India and the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), the worlds two most populous countries, which took place in late 1962. ... The Tawang district is located at the north-west of the state of Arunachal Pradesh in India. ... The McMahon Line was the border claimed by Britain as the official border between British India and Tibet. ... The Indian Air Force was established on October 8, 1932 as the Royal Indian Air Force, dropping its Royal prefix after India became a Republic in 1950. ...

Following that, the entire area changed its name from North East Frontier Agency and became part of Assam. Arunachal Pradesh gained statehood in 1987 after taking into consideration the security consideration in the east and Sino-Indian tensions but was not recognized by China.

chinawhite,
Provide a link(s) [when applicable] to your source(s) when quoting them and knock off the excessive quoting.

Thank you.





seekerof

[edit on 25-5-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
chinawhite,
Provide a link(s) [when applicable] to your source(s) when quoting them and knock of the excessive quoting.

Thank you.





seekerof

ok

But the Chinese were rapidly changing their maps.

Tensions grew when India welcomed Dalai Lama in March 1959 after he crossed over to India along with 20,000 followers. Mao felt humiliated.

The Chinese claim of NEFA (now Arunachal Pradesh) was the aftermath of the 1959 Tibetan revolt.
source

Arunachal pradesh is a great place, go visit www.arunachaltourism.com...

Here is a hi res map :
www.lib.utexas.edu...

Infact China withdrew from Arunachal Pradesh, soon after capturing it. Care to explain why ?

Here are some other images of tibet : www.raize.ch...

Originally posted by chinawhite
the reason china didn't take mongolia is because it had protection of the USSR.

what about now ?? or in the middle 1990's . There was no soviet union then.

So china pics on unprepared soft targets like India (in 1962)

This might be the real reason :

The war was Mao's attempt to demolish India as an alternative democratic model and geopolitical rival to communist China by heaping humiliation on it when it was militarily incapable and least expected to be attacked.

In Sun Tsu style, Mao painted his actions as defensive and India as the provoker with its 'forward policy'. When the People's Liberation Army marched hundreds of miles south to annex Tibet and nibble at Indian areas, it was supposedly not expansionist or forward policy. But when the Indian Army belatedly sought to set up posts along its unmanned frontier to try and stop further Chinese land grabs, this was christened 'forward policy' and dubbed provocative!

Mao needed no Indian provocation. He was provoked by his own logic to defeat the alternative model that India represented and the ideas and principles that Nehru symbolized.

India has distinguished itself by reposing faith in adversaries and then crying foul when they deceive it. One such betrayal, Mao's India war, finished Jawaharlal Nehru, who had believed that a nation could get peace if it genuinely desired peace.

In the style recommended by ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tsu, who authored the treatise The Art of War, Mao chose an exquisite time for taking on India. The attack, spread over two separate rounds, coincided with a major international crisis that brought the United States and the Soviet Union within a whisper of nuclear war over the stealthy deployment of Soviet medium-range ballistic missiles in Cuba.

The aims of Mao's India war were mainly political. The military objectives had largely been achieved in the earlier years through furtive Chinese encroachments on Indian territories after China's 1950 occupation of Tibet --- a historical buffer --- brought Chinese forces to India's frontiers for the first time in history. By quietly seizing Indian territory on the basis of Tibet's putative historical links, China had built a land corridor to close ally Pakistan.

Mao had been determined to cut India to size and undermine what it represented --- a pluralistic, democratic model for the developing world that seemingly threatened China's totalitarian political system. His premier, Zhou Enlai, readily admitted that the war was intended "to teach India a lesson".

source

[edit on 25-5-2005 by Stealth Spy]

China's aggression was encouraged by its perception of India as a "weak" target. After all, Nehru had taken no action in 1951 when China invaded and occupied Tibet, eliminating the traditional buffer between the two; and, except to grant asylum to the Dalai Lama, he, again, did nothing in 1959, when China ruthlessly put down the uprising in Tibet.

Then there was Nehru's doctrine of Panchshila (Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence). The basis of the 1954 Sino-Indian treaty over Tibet, it was taken by the Chinese as a statement of Indian pacifism.

As conceived by Nehru, Panchshila was based upon mutual respect among nations, peaceful coexistence, and non-interference in the internal affairs of others. He had offered it to the Afro-Asian Solidarity Movement and Non-Aligned Movement at the Bandung Conference in 1955 as the guiding philosophy for an emerging Third World power bloc, an alternative to Moscow and Washington.

It was also at this conference that Nehru introduced the newly independent Chinese leaders to the world. He assumed that as former colonies they shared a sense of solidarity, as expressed in the phrase 'Hindi-Chini bhai bhai' (Indians and Chinese are brothers).

But much to China's chagrin, Nehru and India, as heir apparent to the British Empire in Asia, assumed the mantle of leadership of the movement. Mao was infuriated. His sense of cultural superiority and unquestioned revolutionary credentials dictated that China was the rightful leader.

This made the subsequent border issue more than territorial; it was an opportunity to assert China's pre-eminence as an Asian power and to humiliate India.

Unfortunately, Nehru never understood this aspect of the equation. He was dedicated to the ideals of brotherhood and solidarity among Third World nations, while China was dedicated to a vision of itself as the hegemon of Asia.

In the intervening years, China has taken every opportunity to contain India. It supports Pakistan economically and militarily. Not only has India fought three wars with Pakistan since Partition, it also maintains one million men in arms on the border. All of which drains India's resources, politically and economically.

China has also encroached on India's traditional spheres of influence in Nepal, Bhutan, and Burma, by establishing trade and military relations; and China has increased its presence in the Indian Ocean with bases in Burma and Pakistan, challenging India in its own backyard.


source

[edit on 25-5-2005 by Stealth Spy]

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

But the Chinese were rapidly changing their maps.

Tensions grew when India welcomed Dalai Lama in March 1959 after he crossed over to India along with 20,000 followers. Mao felt humiliated.

The Chinese claim of NEFA (now Arunachal Pradesh) was the aftermath of the 1959 Tibetan revolt.
source

Arunachal pradesh is a great place, go visit www.arunachaltourism.com...

Here is a hi res map :
www.lib.utexas.edu...

Infact China withdrew from Arunachal Pradesh, soon after capturing it. Care to explain why ?

Here are some other images of tibet : www.raize.ch...

china doesn't even want that are. we were willing to swap that for indian reconigtion of askin chin

yeah chinawhite.. Give the link.. esp.. If you're omitting important parts of the entire article as to WHY china retreated from arunachal.. I read the article from which you took those quotes, and I KNOW what's missing from the quotes..

Also the British who owned Arunachal at the time of the colonial empire considered it to be part of India and hence gave it to India while leaving..
If the chinese had a problem with that, then should have dealt with the british..
But at the time the chinese were just happy enough to get China back from the japanese..

Originally posted by Stealth Spy


what about now ?? or in the middle 1990's . There was no soviet union then.

So china pics on unprepared soft targets like India (in 1962)

[edit on 25-5-2005 by Stealth Spy]

We dont want mogolia. how about that.

china has very good relations with mongolia now


India asked for her ass kicked with a foriegn policy like that...

foward military deployment

Originally posted by chinawhite
We dont want mogolia. how about that.

That is yet another example to show China's fickle minded baseless, meritless foreign policy which only involves making silly claims of territory.

India asked for her asskicked with a foriegn policy like that...
foward military deployment

When the People's Liberation Army marched hundreds of miles south to annex Tibet and nibble at Indian areas, it was supposedly not expansionist or forward policy. But when the Indian Army belatedly sought to set up posts along its unmanned frontier to try and stop further Chinese land grabs, this was christened 'forward policy' and dubbed provocative!

Supposedly the Higher IQ

But China got her smelly a$$ whipped by the international community and literally every nation condemned China as the aggressor and is still looked at with contempt and is still not considered trustworthy.

[edit on 25-5-2005 by Stealth Spy]

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

Originally posted by chinawhite
We dont want mogolia. how about that.

That is yet another example to show China's fickle minded baseless, meritless foreign policy which only involves making silly claims of territory.

India asked for her asskicked with a foriegn policy like that...
foward military deployment

When the People's Liberation Army marched hundreds of miles south to annex Tibet and nibble at Indian areas, it was supposedly not expansionist or forward policy. But when the Indian Army belatedly sought to set up posts along its unmanned frontier to try and stop further Chinese land grabs, this was christened 'forward policy' and dubbed provocative!

Supposedly the Higher IQ

But China got her smelly a$$ whipped

by the international community and literally every nation condemned China as the aggressor and is still looked at with contempt and is still not considered trustworthy.

[edit on 25-5-2005 by Stealth Spy]

It was indian foriegn policy go look it up

what international community????

china wasn't even in the UN back then. not a lot of countries had relations with china in the 1960's. every nation????
stealth spy give some proof of a neatural country condeming china?

How is the terrioty india was trying to take from china even indian???
India has not right to the terrioty.

encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...
read the cause of war

Various attempts were made to obliterate the traditional boundary line, carve up China's territory, and expand the territory of British India. At the Simla Conference in 1914, the British representative drew the notorious "McMahon Line" through a secret exchange of letters with the representative of the Tibetan local authorities, attempting thereby to annex 90,000 square kilometres of Chinese territory.

The British attempt to impose the McMahon Line on the Chinese and alter to its own wishes the traditional border in the western sector was promptly rebuffed by the then government of China and successive Chinese governments. Therefore, from 1865 to 1953 British and Indian maps either did not show any alignment of the boundary in the western sector, or showed it in an indistinct fashion and marked it as undefined. And it was only from 1936 onwards that the illegal McMahon Line in the eastern sector appeared on British and Indian maps, but up to 1953 it too was designated as undemarcated.

From 1950 to 1958, tranquillity prevailed along the Sino-Indian border because China adhered to the policy of seeking an amicable settlement of the boundary question. But when a rebellion of serf-owners broke out in Tibet, the Indian government not only aided and abetted it and connived at their anti-Chinese political activities in India, but also formally presented to the Chinese government a claim to large tracts of Chinese territory.

It not only asked Beijing to recognise as legal Indian occupation of Chinese territory in the eastern sector, but also to recognise as part of India the Aksai Chin area in the western sector, which India had never occupied.

The gravity of the situation lay not only in India's extensive claims to Chinese territory, but also in its subsequent use of force to unilaterally change the state of the boundary.

In August 1959, Indian armed forces crossed the McMahon Line in the eastern sector and invaded and occupied Longju and other areas north of the line; and in October 1959 Indian armed forces crossed the traditional boundary in the western sector as well. In the course of the invasion, Indian armed forces provoked sanguinary border clashes at Longju and Kongka Pass.

The Chinese government held that to avert new conflicts and prevent a deterioration of the situation, ways must be found to effect a disengagement of the armed forces of the two sides, and at the same time negotiations must be started quickly to seek a peaceful settlement of the boundary question.

On November 7, 1959, China's Premier Zhou Enlai wrote a letter to Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru proposing that both sides withdraw their armed forces 20 kilometres from the Line of Actual Control along the entire Sino-Indian border and halt patrols.

Indian troops adopted a "forward policy" by making repeated inroads into Chinese territory. They soon established a total of 43 outposts encroaching on Chinese territory in the western sector prior to the general outbreak of clashes. Some were set up only a few metres from Chinese posts, other even behind Chinese posts, cutting off their access to the rear.

yeah stealth spy read this. india repeatly invaded chinese terrioty.

What an absolute mess this forum has become.

The thread is way off topic, and the allegations are bordering on the absurd.

Any 3rd-party reading this will be bored to tears over the flamefest.

If anyone wishes to read a educational thread on the subject of the 1962 war, with both Indian and Chinese participants presenting their give and take on the matter, in an enviroment that doesn't tolerate spaming and BS, please view this thread, from the China-Defense.com forum
www.china-defense.com...

[edit on 27-5-2005 by rajkhalsa2004]

good read i read that i while back.

Good for you.

Though it is a pity you seem not to be able to understand the discussion therein, with its facts freely admitted by both parties that directly contradict your spam fest and vein-popping nationalistic diatribes in this thread, making your whole argument here even more absurd.

Originally posted by rajkhalsa2004
Good for you.

Though it is a pity you seem not to be able to understand the discussion therein, with its facts freely admitted by both parties that directly contradict your spam fest and vein-popping nationalistic diatribes in this thread, making your whole argument here even more absurd.

nope. whats wrong with a grument that india is claiming territoy was obtained illegaly by the british.

i wonder how your going to answer that

Lets keep this civil

OFF TOPIC



i wonder how this map would miss out the airbase on Hainan Island.

where the infamour event happened in 2001 where a chinese pilot collided with the american plane.


that scamble map shows only 50somthing airbases while globalsecruity shows 132 not including the airports mentioned