India and Bangladesh

Grubbiz wrote:
Sep 17th 2011 1:20 GMT

---------------------------------------------------------
@Grubbiz

I thought only the Pakistanis, Kashmiris, or the Chinese would have a grudge against the Indians. You seem to say there are others who are anti-Indian such as this author. You are saying that this author had written a fictional novel disguised as documentary book which described in details of the events leading up to the Annexation of Sikkim. HA! HA! All I see is an Indian who tried to derail a legitimate account of the scheming Indians who had "Smash and Grab" another country. For Indian to claim freedom and democracy, India should not ban this book and allow its own citizens to be the judge of the events surrounding its past history. Admit it as you admit the annexation of Goa. Don't be shy. Admit the Indian Democracy is run like the Mafia's election of their leader "the Godfather". The show of hands up are sufficient for the voting process and if hands are not shown, they will be cut off.

Beware of the Indians! Wake up, Bangladeshis!

@Bill8888

You keep saying India banned a book on the so-called 'smash and grab' annexation of Sikkim, and this is your reason for stating that India is an aggresive expansive hegemon. Did you consider the possibility that the book may be nothing but a conspiracy theory? If you keep reading books written by anti-Indian authors, you will ofcourse have an anti-Indian view.

Off topic: Here's something that might interest all bloggers on any forums.

http://imgur.com/r/pics/OGt9y#.TnKVhP1ucvM

My request to all bloggers - Lets stick to the top level.

dark lord wrote:
Sep 13th 2011 9:22 GMT

- The two links showed that the two governments are making censorship and inquires into the affairs of its citizens. So, why did not the two countries withhold freedom of expression and infringing on individual's right to privacy? Talk about democracy and human rights violations, that is just "a priest caught coming out from a whore house after a whole night of fun".

A) It is not censorship. The government in India and Britain wish to track delinquents/terrorists who are using blackberry to communicate with each other. Also note, it is not a crackdown on free speech. It is your actions or intent to a action that will get you arrested.
b) JFK never said the above. What he said was "People are saying, the preacher has been caught coming out of the brothel".

I seriously doubt if we are making any headway with this debate. You have stated what you believe and what you have interpreted and I have said the same. Other than restating what we have said, there is really nothing much moving this debate forward. So its a goodbye from my end.
----------------------------------------------
@dark lord

A)When UK and India censor its citizen, you claim they do for security reasons and that is not censorship. When China does the same thing, you claim it is censorship of its people. You are just plain biased out of hatred for others. If you is India, then India is hegemonic.

B.)I had quoted the exact wording as you have written. I guess you are right: preacher may not be priest. OK. I will paraphrase it as "People are saying, the preacher has been caught coming out of the whore house." Brothel is a whore house.

dark lord wrote:
Sep 11th 2011 3:10 GMT

6." Since South Tibet is part of Tibet, then it belongs to China."

Typical Chinese though process. Tibet belongs to China not Tibet is part of China. Results of such mentality include CCCP dictating who should be the lama.

---Most non-Chinese people have a lack of understanding of Chinese history. There is a misunderstanding that China only represent Hanese. In fact, for the last two hundred years, China composed of five racial groups and had a multi-cultural policy. Tibet is part of the racial family. So, Tibet belongs to China or is part of China are actually connotes the same logic and means the same thing.

7. "It seemed that your friend "Dark Lord" had a way of ascertaining how many secrets a country has."

It seems Bill88888888 has ability to read minds.

---It started when you claimed that you did not know India had contemplated to set up military bases in Mongolia. I answered you that India had not announced it to its public, thus like keeping a secret from its citizens. Then you claimed China has more secret than India. I answered that you must have a way to ascertain which country has more secrets. If you don't have a way to do it, don't make such claim that China has more secrets. Every country has classified documents, like secrets, but which country has more? I do not know.

8. "Mountbatten-The Official Autobiograph, it seemed that the last Viceroy had intended Kashmir to joint Pakistan."

Moutbatten was the one who insisted on the Kashmir acceding to India before sending the Indian army to Kashmir.

---I quote from page 451 of Mountbatten-The Official Biography as below:
Wheb Mountbatten saw Malcolm MacDonald and Arthur Henderson at the beginning of the year he told them that he believed that the partition of Kashmir was the only answer. 'He had not personally been able to advocate this, because he would have been hounded out of India immediately.'(33)

9. "India built roads in Arunachal/South Tibet because the territory was administered by India, regardless of it being in a conflict."

Sorry, you are not getting the point. India cannot possibly expect to build a road through PoK (a disputed territory under the control of Pakistan) and expect Pakistan not to react. China did the same with India resulting in India trying to establish bases in China (foolish and stupid, which I agree) resulting in India-china war of 1962. India, even now, is willing to accept current line of control as international border will all its neighbouring countries.

---In 1962, India has occupied the North Eastern Frontier (South Tibet) and China has occupied Aksai Chin. If India could build roads in the then North Eastern Frontier, why would India be provoked to enter into Chinese territories when China had built a highway through Aksai Chin?

dark lord wrote:
Sep 11th 2011 2:42 GMT

3. Regarding how India was formed:
India has been existing from the time of Indus valley civilization. Over a period of time, it has experienced a united central rule as well as times wherein it was ruled by a large number of smaller kingdoms. The British who along with Portuguese,french and other European powers set up trading posts initially and later expanded in the Indian sub-continent between 15th and 17th century, out of whom British turned out to be the dominant player and shut out other European powers except for small pockets such as Goa, Pondicherry, Yanem, etc. India's first revolt in 1857 was led by various princely states along with Indian soldiers in British army and was a failure. From 1900 onwards, ... The 3 are Jaungadh, Kashmir and Hyderabad. Jaungadh and Hyderabad were primarily hindu subjects under muslim rule which foreclosed joining Pakistan. Kashmir on the other hand was a majority muslim subjects under a Hindu prince. The prince's idea was to be the Swiss of South Asia between China, Pakistan and India. Pakistan screwed the idea by invading Kashmir. Goa was a colony of Portugal. Unless the Chinese have a love for colonialism, Goa should not really be discussed. As an interesting view, would suggest Chinese official position is to "support the people of Asia, Africa and Latin America against Imperialist Colonialism".

---I had said that the Indus civilization existed since a long time ago. However, the independent India had only existed since 1947. The British had annexed many area to form British India. Now, you claimed that "India has been existing from the time of Indus valley civilization.". I supposed you have meant that "existing from the beginning of Indus Valley Civilization"; since the Indus Civilization still exist. You also claim "Over a period of time, it has experienced a united central rule as well as times wherein it was ruled by a large number of smaller kingdoms.". You seem to invented history. Can you nourish us of your vast life experience and scholarly reading, how India had been united and centrally ruled at the same land area or bigger in the pre-British time?

---You have claimed that "The [Kashmiri] prince's idea was to be the Swiss of South Asia between China, Pakistan and India. Pakistan screwed the idea by invading Kashmir." I think you got the order wrong. Kashmiris was forced to joint India by its Prince so Pakistan had to intervene. India had forced the Kashmiri Prince to accede to India even though the Kashmiri Prince had a dream of his own to be an independent country.

---The Chinese are against colonialism as you had said it above. However, it is not the prerogative of India to annex Goa. Portugal at a later time might make Goa to be a Province. Also, there was no need for unilateral force on the part of India; it could be negotiated. This shows India is hegemonic. India had no legal right to do so and therefore, India is an expansionistic country.

4. "Whether you believe it or not, the Kashmiri hated the Indian authorities. Just count the number of stones throw at the Indian Army in Kashmir and India then you realized the Kashmiri position. Also, count the number of articles which described the situation in The Economist."

You also see the number of articles international publications have about Tibet. People of Kashmir vote in amazing large numbers for both local as well as national elections. By the way, stone throwing was in 2009-10, Kashmir acceded to India in 1947.

---The Chinese blame the CIA and India for meddling in its affairs in Tibet for separation, thus it caused the numbers of articles appear in The Economist. However, China had never support India's Kashmir from separation from India. The Kashmiri wants to separate from India by its own decision. How can it be concluded that Kashmir want to separate from India, then just compare how many riots and stone throwing acts on both sides of the Kashmir. Tibet has less riots than India's Kashmir whom aspired for separation.

5. "I think you should stop smoking cow dung."
I think you state this repeatedly as a your response to 'What have been smoking?' To give a little background, the answer is weed as it causes hallucinations.

---I will give you a little background. Smelling or smoking too much cow dung will cause temporary short of breath and clouds the judgment and memory of a person. I think it had done it to you: no medical evidence had shown that "weed", (grass, pot) or rather Cannabis, also known as marijuana, can cause hallucination. It certainly can cause a person to feel "high" but not usually have hallucination. Some countries had legalized it and some are contemplating legalization.

- The two links showed that the two governments are making censorship and inquires into the affairs of its citizens. So, why did not the two countries withhold freedom of expression and infringing on individual's right to privacy? Talk about democracy and human rights violations, that is just "a priest caught coming out from a whore house after a whole night of fun".

A) It is not censorship. The government in India and Britain wish to track delinquents/terrorists who are using blackberry to communicate with each other. Also note, it is not a crackdown on free speech. It is your actions or intent to a action that will get you arrested.
b) JFK never said the above. What he said was "People are saying, the preacher has been caught coming out of the brothel".

I seriously doubt if we are making any headway with this debate. You have stated what you believe and what you have interpreted and I have said the same. Other than restating what we have said, there is really nothing much moving this debate forward. So its a goodbye from my end.

dark lord wrote:
Sep 11th 2011 2:42 GMT

@Bill88888888

1. "For example, if the Chinese military sets up listening posts without personnel to operate radar equipment in Nepal, would the Indian take as civilian installation? I don't believe so. I am sure the Indian will demonstrate against it as they usually do. How can you not know this? How old are you? You must be smoking cow dung lately."

If India protests, will Chinese withdraw. Or will they stick around like they do in PoK. By the way, I believe I said communication equipment not radars. I suppose Melamine-tainted milk does tend to effect reading comprehension.

---Since India is seeking a military installation in Mongolia, if China protests, will India withdraw its military bases? I don't think so. However, this is an example given to show that India or any country considered a military installation with or without people stationed is a military base. Now you seem to loose sight of the question ask. Whether you will use those equipment or refrain from using the equipment, be it of communication or radar, other than civilian equipment, but if the right have been granted to use those equipment for military purposes, than India is intended the base or space to be an military base. On the other hand, if it is a place where an India retail company purchases radios and walky-talky from USA and sell to the Mongolians, don't even ask for negotiation with the Mongolian Prime Minister. If the India does that, the Mongolian Prime Minister will laugh at the Indian's face and he would ask the Indian to make an application to the Business or Company Registration at the Provincial government level and not at the federal level. So my claim that India intended to install a listening posts is having a military base in Mongolian. Even the Mongolian News has "Military Base" as the title.

2. "Do you know that USA has classified documents? Let me tell you, the web WkikLeak has leaked many secrets out by showing them on the web. They are usually release after 30 to 50 years. On the other hand, Indian Parliament's investigation into Nehru's forward policy into China's Tibet has not been released in full even under the "Release of Information Act". How pity for Indians to be kept a secret! Moreover, there are as many books banned in India as in China. Wake Up! You had been smell cow dung lately: you don't know what you are saying."

Seriously if you insist on comparing freedom and transparency in China with US, I see no point of debate on this topic. How many people died during Mao's great cultural leap? How much Information is censored by CCCP in the newspapers (Even recently, the events in Libya, Egypt were not covered properly in Chinese media (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/world/asia/01beijing.html)?

---You have talked about censorship and statistics of death due to the cultural leap. However, I don't know what a cultural leap is. I only know of Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward for Economic Output. I assume you are not ignorant but actually meant the Great Leap Forward. Anyhow, I think you have to distinguish between secrets and lack of information. There are many estimates on the number of deaths during the period of Great Leap Forward, however, as far as I know, there is no census or counts on the number of deaths due to the events in the Great Leap Forward alone. So it is not a secret kept by the government and not released to the public. The information is simply not there. On the other hand, India government has censored the book and banned the selling of the book "Smash and Grab" discussing the annexation of Sikkim. Why? Also, investigation into Nehru's forward policy prior to the 1962 War and during the War has not been released in full as requested based on the "Access To Information Act". Why censored it? Why did India threaten Black Berry so as to obtain the computer code for interpreting messages send through Black Berry. Is that censorship? India is as much a democracy as the Mafia in choosing its Godfather. India is no better than China in keeping secret from its populace.

http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?ID=459073
http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/encryption/231300484

The two links showed that the two governments are making censorship and inquires into the affairs of its citizens. So, why did not the two countries withhold freedom of expression and infringing on individual's right to privacy? Talk about democracy and human rights violations, that is just "a priest caught coming out from a whore house after a whole night of fun".

- Since South Tibet is part of Tibet, then it belongs to China.

Typical Chinese though process. Tibet belongs to China not Tibet is part of China. Results of such mentality include CCCP dictating who should be the lama.

- It seemed that your friend "Dark Lord" had a way of ascertaining how many secrets a country has.

It seems Bill88888888 has ability to read minds.

-Mountbatten-The Official Autobiograph, it seemed that the last Viceroy had intended Kashmir to joint Pakistan.
Moutbatten was the one who insisted on the Kashmir acceding to India before sending the Indian army to Kashmir.

-India built roads in Arunachal/South Tibet because the territory was administered by India, regardless of it being in a conflict.
Sorry, you are not getting the point. India cannot possibly expect to build a road through PoK (a disputed territory under the control of Pakistan) and expect Pakistan not to react. China did the same with India resulting in India trying to establish bases in China (foolish and stupid, which I agree) resulting in India-china war of 1962. India, even now, is willing to accept current line of control as international border will all its neighboring countries.

@Bill88888888

"For example, if the Chinese military sets up listening posts without personnel to operate radar equipment in Nepal, would the Indian take as civilian installation? I don't believe so. I am sure the Indian will demonstrate against it as they usually do. How can you not know this? How old are you? You must be smoking cow dung lately."

If India protests, will Chinese withdraw. Or will they stick around like they do in PoK. By the way, I believe I said communication equipment not radars. I suppose Melamine-tainted milk does tend to effect reading comprehension.

"Do you know that USA has classified documents? Let me tell you, the web WkikLeak has leaked many secrets out by showing them on the web. They are usually release after 30 to 50 years. On the other hand, Indian Parliament's investigation into Nehru's forward policy into China's Tibet has not been released in full even under the "Release of Information Act". How pity for Indians to be kept a secret! Moreover, there are as many books banned in India as in China. Wake Up! You had been smell cow dung lately: you don't know what you are saying."

Seriously if you insist on comparing freedom and transparency in China with US, I see no point of debate on this topic. How many people died during Mao's great cultural leap? How much Information is censored by CCCP in the newspapers (Even recently, the events in Libya, Egypt were not covered properly in Chinese media (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/world/asia/01beijing.html)?

--Regarding how India was formed:
India has been existing from the time of Indus valley civilization. Over a period of time, it has experienced a united central rule as well as times wherein it was ruled by a large number of smaller kingdoms. The British who along with Portuguese,french and other European powers set up trading posts initially and later expanded in the Indian sub-continent between 15th and 17th century, out of whom British turned out to be the dominant player and shut out other European powers except for small pockets such as Goa, Pondicherry, Yanem, etc. India's first revolt in 1857 was led by various princely states along with Indian soldiers in British army and was a failure. From 1900 onwards, Indians had taken a struggle for independence from British resulting in British agree to it post WWII. However, Muslim League felt that Hindus will dominate Muslims in a representative system and demand a separate nation - Pakistan, a country exclusive for muslims of the Indian sub-continent (by implication, a land only for muslims whereas India is for people of religions). No one in India or Pakistan disputes this stuff. However, there were around 550 -600 princely states within the British territory which gave fealty to British. Upon partition most of these states except 3 agreed to be part of India or Pakistan without any dispute. The 3 are Jaungadh, Kashmir and Hyderabad. Jaungadh and Hyderabad were primarily hindu subjects under muslim rule which foreclosed joining Pakistan. Kashmir on the other had was a majority muslim subjects under a Hindu prince. The prince's idea was to be the Swiss of South Asia between China, Pakistan and India. Pakistan screwed the idea by invading Kashmir. Goa was a colony of Portugal. Unless the Chinese have a love for colonialism, Goa should not really be discussed. As an interesting view, would suggest Chinese official position is to "support the people of Asia, Africa and Latin America against Imperialist Colonialism".

"Whether you believe it or not, the Kashmiri hated the Indian authorities. Just count the number of stones throw at the Indian Army in Kashmir and India then you realized the Kashmiri position. Also, count the number of articles which described the situation in The Economist."

You also see the number of articles international publications have about Tibet. People of Kashmir vote in amazing large numbers for both local as well as national elections. By the way, stone throwing was in 2009-10, Kashmir acceded to India in 1947.

"I think you should stop smoking cow dung."
I think you state this repeatedly as a your response to 'What have been smoking?' To give a little background, the answer is weed as it causes hallucinations.

Grubbiz wrote:
Sep 10th 2011 7:56 GMT

@Bill 88888

1. "---I know India has kept a lot of secrets from its citizens on the facts of past events and present events. India's "Access to Information Act" is just a farce."

Every government has secrets, for a good cause. It's a question of how many.

---It seemed that your friend "Dark Lord" had a way of ascertaining how many secrets a country has. I cannot imagined how that can be done by a mortal, unless he is in the position to do so. That is still impossible to ascertain another country. If you can show us how it can be done scientifically, I will retract that statement. Otherwise, he is just mumble jumble as an Dhalit.

2. >"I will like to remind you that India had built many roads in the South Tibet."

India built roads in Arunachal/South Tibet because the territory was administered by India, regardless of it being in a conflict. You can't expect the people of that region not to have transportation. Same thing with Kashmir. The Chinese simply cannot build highways on Indian administered territory (Remember that the disputed territories now are not the same as they used to be).

---I think you missed the earlier comments. Your friend "Dark Lord" seemed to claim that the India-China War was provoked by the Chinese who had been building a road through Aksai Chin. His reason was that the India's incursions into China's territories beyond the McMohan Line claimed by India was the result of the Chinese had built that road. You should read the earlier comments.

3. >"I am sure it was the Kashmirese who had invited the Pakistani to liberate them from the tyranny of the Kashmiri Hindu Prince."

Nope. Kashmir used to be a peaceful place. The prince was by no means a tyrant, just because he was a hindu and the majority of Kashimirs were muslims. It is the attitude of Pakistan to try and get anything 'muslim' from India, by any means necessary. So Pakistan sent its forces (army as well as terrorist) to occupy the land. What choice would the prince have in such a situation?

---If you read the book Mountbatten-The Official Autobiograph, it seemed that the last Viceroy had intended Kashmir to joint Pakistan. The Prince of Kashmir had imprisoned Nehru's friend, who had advocated Kashmir to partition with India. Thus, the Prince had prevented Mountbatten to talk to Nehru's friend. The rest is history.

4. Had Pakistan never claimed Kashmir, the hindus and muslims of that region may have coexisted in peace.

---I think it will be another Nagaland.

5. >"---I think you should study a little more of your own history."
>"---You know nothing about China and don't pretend you do."

So apparently the Chinese know all about India and the Indians know nothing of China?

---It seemed your friend "Dark Lord" has the opinion that India was formed not from the India Partition Act 1947, but from revolution. He is ignorant of India's history. You should read his comments.

Grubbiz wrote:
Sep 10th 2011 7:29 GMT

@Bill888888

1. I see contradicting statements here. You claim (from your comment to darklord)that India only came into existence after 1947. If so, seeing that India's territory remained pretty much the same since then, one cannot say that India is hegemonic. And yet you have said in your first comment that "From history, India is an aggressive and hegemonic nation."

---There is no contradiction from what I had said. Since independence in 1947, India had annexed Sikkim and Goa. Annexation of Sikkim through "Smash and Grab" method and annexation of Goa was by unilateral declaration and possession. Therefore, India had expanded and gained territories.

2. You and i have different views on how Sikkim and Kashmir came into India so its a stalemate.

---I have written about how India annexed Sikkim and Kashmir. You have not given any reasons for its legitimacy. How can it be a stalemate? I guess India will never admit it had planned the annexations.

3. The people of Goa were part of the subcontinent for several centuries. The Portugese did not 'discover' Goa, they annexed it themselves. It is only fitting that Goa be taken back. You say Goa should have been left to the Portugese. By same logic you might as well be saying that India should have been left to the British.

---The area of Goa is not part of the subcontinent several centuries ago. It is part of the subcontinent since the dawn of time. However, so are many other areas formed part of the subcontinent, such as Pakistan and Bangladesh. Are there any reasons to annex Goa since Goa was a separate country before incorporated into India? Even the USA president had words on the annexation "India is like a priest caught coming out from a whore house." Portugal had never agreed to it.

4. About the Sino-Indian war, it's nobody's fault but the British, for poorly drawn out lines. Besides China did not recognise the border lines anyway. What's done is done. The border issues will be negotiated and settled soon.

---As I had written before, even the British admitted in 2008 that the Simla Accord was signed illegally and Tibet is part of China. Since South Tibet is part of Tibet, then it belongs to China. There is nothing about poorly drawn map lines. If that is the end of the story, then India will not be so frisky about it. If that is the end of the story, then India will not have to buy so many military hardware for the sole purpose of against Pakistan.

5. I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 to know what really happened. If there really was an invasion, and if as you say India is a hegemon, why is BD an independent country?

---India had originally aided the Awami League to the revolution to cause East Pakistan for secession from Pakistan. A lot of Bangladesh had thanked India for it. However, India had its motives in the operation and war. The Indira and Mujib Treaty 1972 for friendship with Bangladesh was never ratified by India and no preparation to extend it in 1997. The Indira and Mujib Treaty 1972 was a treaty for friendship and it was never reciprocated by India. So, India had a bad motive in the Bangladesh independent war.

6. You said it yourself. Nepalis were headed towards Bhutan, so it's fair to make way. It's Bhutan's concern if it didn't want Nepali refugees. Bangladeshis on the other hand were headed to India. That is obviously Indian concern. If the Nepalis wanted to come to India, same rules apply.

---India had violated the UN Refugee Convention of not allowing the Nepalese to stay in India and India forced the refugees to "headed toward" Bhutan. It is not a 5 minutes walk from Nepal to Bhutan and a good seat in a first class plane. No refugee contemplated if there was no coercion. Whereas in Bangladesh, there is an implementation of a "shoot to kill" policy over the border. And don't blind yourself to it, there is no such rule applied to the Nepalese and India border. It is a free of control border and it has no restriction implemented.

7. Same thing. Just because Goa didn't belong to the British doesn't mean it doesn't get to be part of India. On the other hand, saying that "India is in expansive mode" is just plain wrong. Like i said, since independence, India's territorial claims have not changed.

---Pakistan was part of British Empire, that doesn't mean India is free to annex it. India can only annex it if it is by victory in war. If it is not part of the British, India should not even think about it, but India had annexed illegally and by force.

8. "---Most of the events I provided above are based on India's relation with its neighbours on past events. The evidence speaks for itself."

I believe then, that you have incorrectly interpreted said 'evidence'. Apologies for my rudeness in previous post.

---Ha!Ha! I have delivered my evidence. Don't base your claim on flimsy tales. No apologies needed.

@Bill 88888

"---I know India has kept a lot of secrets from its citizens on the facts of past events and present events. India's "Access to Information Act" is just a farce."

Every government has secrets, for a good cause. It's a question of how many.

>"I will like to remind you that India had built many roads in the South Tibet."

India built roads in Arunachal/South Tibet because the territory was administered by India, regardless of it being in a conflict. You can't expect the people of that region not to have transportation. Same thing with Kashmir. The Chinese simply cannot build highways on Indian administered territory (Remember that the disputed territories now are not the same as they used to be).

>"I am sure it was the Kashmirese who had invited the Pakistani to liberate them from the tyranny of the Kashmiri Hindu Prince."

Nope. Kashmir used to be a peaceful place. The prince was by no means a tyrant, just because he was a hindu and the majority of Kashimirs were muslims. It is the attitude of Pakistan to try and get anything 'muslim' from India, by any means necessary. So Pakistan sent its forces (army as well as terrorist) to occupy the land. What choice would the prince have in such a situation?

Had Pakistan never claimed Kashmir, the hindus and muslims of that region may have coexisted in peace.

>"---I think you should study a little more of your own history."
>"---You know nothing about China and don't pretend you do."

So apparently the Chinese know all about India and the Indians know nothing of China?

@Bill888888

I see contradicting statements here. You claim (from your comment to darklord)that India only came into existence after 1947. If so, seeing that India's territory remained pretty much the same since then, one cannot say that India is hegemonic. And yet you have said in your first comment that "From history, India is an aggressive and hegemonic nation."

You and i have different views on how Sikkim and Kashmir came into India so its a stalemate.

The people of Goa were part of the subcontinent for several centuries. The Portugese did not 'discover' Goa, they annexed it themselves. It is only fitting that Goa be taken back. You say Goa should have been left to the Portugese. By same logic you might as well be saying that India should have been left to the British.

About the Sino-Indian war, it's nobody's fault but the British, for poorly drawn out lines. Besides China did not recognise the border lines anyway. What's done is done. The border issues will be negotiated and settled soon.

I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 to know what really happened. If there really was an invasion, and if as you say India is a hegemon, why is BD an independent country?

>"---Then why the difference in border policy comparing Bangladesh and Nepal. India has a "shoot to kill policy" for the Bangladesh border and a "free of control policy" for the Nepal border. Why did India let the Nepalese refugee ventured into Bhutan? Remember Nepal and Bhutan are separated by India territory. Why India had not accepted the Nepalese refugee but send them to Bhutan through India?"

You said it yourself. Nepalis were headed towards Bhutan, so it's fair to make way. It's Bhutan's concern if it didn't want Nepali refugees. Bangladeshis on the other hand were headed to India. That is obviously Indian concern. If the Nepalis wanted to come to India, same rules apply.

"---Goa was not part of the territory inherited legitimately from the British. That is not expansion of territories?"

Same thing. Just because Goa didn't belong to the British doesn't mean it doesn't get to be part of India. On the other hand, saying that "India is in expansive mode" is just plain wrong. Like i said, since independence, India's territorial claims have not changed.

"---Most of the events I provided above are based on India's relation with its neighbours on past events. The evidence speaks for itself."

I believe then, that you have incorrectly interpreted said 'evidence'. Apologies for my rudeness in previous post.

dark lord wrote:
Sep 9th 2011 1:22 GMT

3. Supplementary comments...

For the Panchsheel agreement, you should read the link below:
http://ignca.nic.in/ks_41062.htm

I quote from the article in the link "Popularly known as the Panchsheel Agreement, this was basically a trade pact between China and India streamlining their bilateral trade operations in Tibet and, therefore, at the time of signing it was not visualised as a CSBM agreement". It is a general trade agreement. It is not an agreement for land dispute. What have you been smoking again?

dark lord wrote:
Sep 9th 2011 1:22 GMT

4.
It seems to whom? unless you are suggesting that Kashmiris had a misogynistic streak and invited people to raid their lands, its seems like nothing to me.

---I think the Pakistanis had a misogynistic streak for the Hindu in Kashmir so they had to save the Muslim.

Really? tyranny of the Kashmiri Hindu Prince? To set up a 'Azad Kashmir' which is ruled not by Karhmiri elected representatives but by PM of Pakistan. I think you should get you nose out of Pakistan ass.

---Whether you believe it or not, the Kashmiri hated the Indian authorities. Just count the number of stones throw at the Indian Army in Kashmir and India then you realized the Kashmiri position. Also, count the number of articles which described the situation in The Economist. I think you should stop smoking cow dung.

dark lord wrote:
Sep 9th 2011 1:22 GMT

1.
You are interpreting it as military base. A military base is used to house military. On one hand, you state that India has hegemonic designs as it is setting up military bases with armaments in Mongolia whereas for all practical purposes the so-called base will hold 5-20 personnel with communication technology. Just stop misleading (alternatively stop working for CCCP)!

---That is very interesting how you tried to make the definition as a case in point. However, even the Mongolian called it a "base" for the purpose of military activities. Do the Indians need the permission in the national level to set up facilities if it were selling radios or TVs. Of course not. In the case of military activities, then the Mongolian Sovereign needed to grant permission on its land. Military bases are area or space for the housing or the performance of military activities with or without human operators. So, even the housing of remote equipment for the purpose of military activities are considered to be military bases. For example, if the Chinese military sets up listening posts without personnel to operate radar equipment in Nepal, would the Indian take as civilian installation? I don't believe so. I am sure the Indian will demonstrate against it as they usually do. How can you not know this? How old are you? You must be smoking cow dung lately.

You do have an amazing sense of Humor. Comparing freedom in China with USA? Really, what have you been smoking. It must be CCCP propaganda as anything else will get you shot. How many books are banned in China? How many sites are not accessible? Do you guys now have access to Gmail or is it still blocked?

---Do you know that USA has classified documents? Let me tell you, the web WkikLeak has leaked many secrets out by showing them on the web. They are usually release after 30 to 50 years. On the other hand, Indian Parliament's investigation into Nehru's forward policy into China's Tibet has not been released in full even under the "Release of Information Act". How pity for Indians to be kept a secret! Moreover, there are as many books banned in India as in China. Wake Up! You had been smell cow dung lately: you don't know what you are saying.

2.
India is not inherited from British India. British colonized India. If only south India was colonized, does not mean Independent India would only consist of South India.

---I think you should study a little more of your own history. For your information, India was created out of the British India and was partitioned accordingly to the Indian Independence Act 1947. And thus, the British Indian Empire was distinguished. Unlike the USA, independent was obtained by war with the British Empire and it had expanded by war with Mexico and Spain, etc. Don't you know that? Have you been smoking cow dung again?

Typical Chinese Imperialist mentality. Own territory like in China owns Tibet. The people are of little concern. Some Manchurian dynasty ruled Tibet and we are the inheritors.

---You know nothing about China and don't pretend you do. China was formed as a multi-racial country with five main races: Manchurian, Mongolian, Tibetan, Hanese, and Uyghur. This racial family unity policy had been carried down from the Qing Dynasty. All contracts of the previous Qing Empire were honoured.

Indus civilization died a long time ago (1900 BC). Post that there have been Guptas, Mauryas, Cholas, sultanate, mughals, vijaynagara, marathas and sikhs. We do not really claim inheritance as formation for our country. The entire length and breath of India has multiple languages,races, religions and cultures. We formed our nation through common struggle primarily against British.

---You have been contradicting yourself here. If India was not created out of inheritance from a previous India state, then how was it formed? By war? Then why did India need to have this India Partition Act 1947? Another question, why did the East Pakistan went its own way in 1947? If the 1947 Act was of no effect, then Pakistan can claim more territories in Punjab.

3.
Do you deny that China without provocation built a road (1956 if I am not wrong at around the same time your chairman was signing off on Panchsheel agreement)in the disputed territory?
Also a typical Chinese logic. Others are motivated by ulterior motives whereas the Chinese were forced by circumstances/situation.

---Ha!Ha! What you have said is very funny. The Chinese should build roads only if provoked. There are many roads in China. Do you think the roads were built as a consequence of provocations from other countries? You are very funny. There are many roads in India. Were they built as a results of Chinese provocations? Get real!

@Bill88888888

- I think it is you who should re-read the article. I quote from the title "India seeks Mongolian bases to monitor Chinese military build-up". It specified bases, ie , military bases. You wouldn't misunderstand those bases to be baseball bases. I further quote "...it set the foundation for creating listening posts for India to monitor the Chinese military."

You are interpreting it as military base. A military base is used to house military. On one hand, you state that India has hegemonic designs as it is setting up military bases with armaments in Mongolia whereas for all practical purposes the so-called base will hold 5-20 personnel with communication technology. Just stop misleading (alternatively stop working for CCCP)!

-China certainly has secrets from its citizens, just like the USA has. Usually they are released after 30 to 50 years.
You do have an amazing sense of Humor. Comparing freedom in China with USA? Really, what have you been smoking. It must be CCCP propaganda as anything else will get you shot. How many books are banned in China? How many sites are not accessible? Do you guys now have access to Gmail or is it still blocked?

-I did not remember that Gao was a part of the British India. Where did you get the idea? If India was inherited from the British, it certainly did not include Goa.
India is not inherited from British India. British colonized India. If only south India was colonized, does not mean Independent India would only consist of South India.

-The Portuguese owned the territory before the British had formed India.
Typical Chinese Imperialist mentality. Own territory like in China owns Tibet. The people are of little concern. Some Manchurian dynasty ruled Tibet and we are the inheritors.

-Before the British, Indus civilization existed as many small Prince states and small countries. Indus civilization had not been united at the present form of India.
Indus civilization died a long time ago (1900 BC). Post that there have been Guptas, Mauryas, Cholas, sultanate, mughals, vijaynagara, marathas and sikhs. We do not really claim inheritance as formation for our country. The entire length and breath of India has multiple languages,races, religions and cultures. We formed our nation through common struggle primarily against British.

- Regarding India China war of 1962
Do you deny that China without provocation built a road (1956 if I am not wrong at around the same time your chairman was signing off on Panchsheel agreement)in the disputed territory?
Also a typical Chinese logic. Others are motivated by ulterior motives whereas the Chinese were forced by circumstances/situation.

-So much for self-determination which had been proposed by many of Indian readers in TE. It seemed the Kashmir Hindu Prince did not follow the wish of its people who occupied that territories.
It seems to whom? unless you are suggesting that Kashmiris had a misogynistic streak and invited people to raid their lands, its seems like nothing to me.

-I am sure it was the Kashmirese who had invited the Pakistani to liberate them from the tyranny of the Kashmiri Hindu Prince.
Really? tyranny of the Kashmiri Hindu Prince? To set up a 'Azad Kashmir' which is ruled not by Karhmiri elected representatives but by PM of Pakistan. I think you should get you nose out of Pakistan ass.

dark lord wrote:
Sep 8th 2011 10:18 GMT

@Bill88888888

1. Please carefully read Mongolian article. There is no mention of any military bases (unlike Chinese who have a presence on Bay of Bengal and Pakistan occupied Kashmir). By the way, Chinese accusing other countries of hiding secrets from its citizens when their own media never reports anything negative on China unless it has to is a bit difficult to digest.

---I think it is you who should re-read the article. I quote from the title "India seeks Mongolian bases to monitor Chinese military build-up". It specified bases, ie , military bases. You wouldn't misunderstand those bases to be baseball bases. I further quote "...it set the foundation for creating listening posts for India to monitor the Chinese military.". How can you miss them? Wake up! Have you been smelling cow dung lately?

China certainly has secrets from its citizens, just like the USA has. Usually they are released after 30 to 50 years. Further regarding secrecy from its own citizens, remember the "Smash and Grab" book which is banned in India? Who is keeping secret from Indians? The answer is its own government.

2. Goa - Goa has historically always been an Indian territory (unlike Tibet for China) and there can be no claim of the Portuguese. In fact, if we use the Chinese logic of historical claims for Tibet, Pakistan and Bangladesh should also be part of India (which Indians are not interested in).

---I did not remember that Gao was a part of the British India. Where did you get the idea? If India was inherited from the British, it certainly did not include Goa. The Portuguese owned the territory before the British had formed India. Before the British, Indus civilization existed as many small Prince states and small countries. Indus civilization had not been united at the present form of India. And Arunachal Pradesh (formerly as the North Eastern Frontier) was not even part of the Indus civilization. It was part of the Tibetan empire/Manchurian Empire. Tibet was inherited from the Dzungar Mongolian who invaded the Manchurian Empire and had been defeated by the Great Qing Emperor.

3. India-China war: The whole issue is squarely caused by the Chinese building a god damm highway through the disputed territory. Communists being hegemonic in nature decided to use this as an excuse and have occupied significant part of Indian territory.

---You should read the paper which was written by the USA Navy personnel. And from that Paper, I quote as below:
Indeed, General B. M. Kaul, then Chief of the General
Staff[Indian], had ordered the establishment of 24 posts along the McMahon Line. In June, local Indian commanders had estab-lished Dhola Post, in Tawang. The relevant issue was that Dhola Post was one mile north of the McMahon Line, in Chinese territory even by Indian standards. On August 4th, Peking accused India of violating the McMahon Line (at Dhola), and of aggression beyond its own claimed border--and therefore into Chinese territory.

I will like to remind you that India had built many roads in the South Tibet. The paper is very specific that India had invaded Chinese territories. Your government had not publish the investigation which had been done right after the war. To this day, the whole of the report was not published. (I guess part of it is being published by information access act)

4. Kashmir: i) Pakistan army along with tribals from NWFP (who indulged in mass scale looting)invaded the then independent state Kashmir. The then king of Kashmir ceded to the kingdom to India in order to drive out the Pakistan army which India did to some extent. ii) The UN resolution is clear that Pakistan has to move away from the Pakistan occupied Kashmir

---So much for self-determination which had been proposed by many of Indian readers in TE. It seemed the Kashmir Hindu Prince did not follow the wish of its people who occupied that territories. I am sure it was the Kashmirese who had invited the Pakistani to liberate them from the tyranny of the Kashmiri Hindu Prince.

@Bill88888888

Please carefully read Mongolian article. There is no mention of any military bases (unlike Chinese who have a presence on Bay of Bengal and Pakistan occupied Kashmir). By the way, Chinese accusing other countries of hiding secrets from its citizens when their own media never reports anything negative on China unless it has to is a bit difficult to digest.

a) Goa - Goa has historically always been an Indian territory (unlike Tibet for China) and there can be no claim of the Portuguese. In fact, if we use the Chinese logic of historical claims for Tibet, Pakistan and Bangladesh should also be part of India (which Indians are not interested in).

b) India-China war: The whole issue is squarely caused by the Chinese building a god damm highway through the disputed territory. Communists being hegemonic in nature decided to use this as an excuse and have occupied significant part of Indian territory.

c) Kashmir: i) Pakistan army along with tribals from NWFP (who indulged in mass scale looting)invaded the then independent state Kashmir. The then king of Kashmir ceded to the kingdom to India in order to drive out the Pakistan army which India did to some extent. ii) The UN resolution is clear that Pakistan has to move away from the Pakistan occupied Kashmir.

@ Midhirst,

The Chinese culture has three pillars: Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. As you can see, India contributed 1/3 of the culture to China. The major teachings of Buddhism are compassion, self-sacrifice and endurance. These values are totally different from Western values of “survival of the fittest”, “free competition (democracy, free-market, etc)”, “individualism (i.e. no self-sacrifice)”. Westerners have slaughtered and killed millions of people in the past centuries. This is because Western culture is basically pirate culture – killing, looting, and showing no mercy to weak countries and people.

If Indian culture were not polluted by Western culture, India would have sought ways to achieve win-win deals with its small neighbors rather than bullied and coerced them. Most of China’s neighbors are very friendly with China (e.g. Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea, Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia, Thailand, and Singapore). Even though China had spats with some of its neighbors (e.g. Japan, Vietnam, and South Korea), the Chinese people are still very friendly to people from these countries (Why? Please refer to values of Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism). Many Japanese, Vietnamese and Koreans enjoy living in China.

In contrast, India adopted Western culture but it does not have Western power, so its relationship with its neighbors is very bad. Its neighbors might pretend to be nice to India if India had military mighty similar to that of US but unfortunately India is not quite powerful.

Weak countries might pretend to show their respects to powerful Western countries but these respects are not from their hearts. In contrast, China may gain TRUE respects from weak countries because of Chinese values and Chinese culture. A Western country may kick its ally’s ass because of selfishness rooted in Western culture (just think of how US treated Japan by forcing it to sign the Plaza Accord). China often sacrifices its own interest for the benefit of its friends (China helped Africans to construct a railway connecting Zambia and Tanzania in the most difficult time of China). I met many Africans in the US. They always mention this railway and the true friendship between China and Africa.