what is the need to interfere in this things. fight for kashir - oppose for tibet , we have such a huge size nation already, why not just make sure we have it better first, whats the big deal in being georaphically big, see the countries in Europe, they are small, but still happy and content, we shud think abut developing what we have, no need to spend time and money on new land acquization wasting strength on useless places like kashmir ...
China had no intention to solve the boundary issue by force, which was proved by the fact that as soon as the PLA won the war, it returned to its original posts. But how did the Nehru government explain the event to the Indian public? It had no courage to admit its mistakes and tell the truth, but adopted dishonest and irrational means to blame it on China, saying China conducted an "unprovoked aggression" against India, and China "betrayed India".
This frame-up produced two kinds of negative and malignant consequences: first, China was turned into a devil in the mind of the Indian public; second, it led to a long-term confrontation between the two countries and caused a huge waste of manpower and material resources on both sides. These negative and malignant consequences really made those who were keen to maintain Sino-Indian friendship distressed.
Though such was the case, we have no reason to be crestfallen. As the saying goes, misfortune might be a blessing in disguise. If the successors can learn the real lessons from the mistakes of their predecessors and turn them into lasting action, it will allow the people of both nations to own an invaluable precious wealth
In the following year, it ordered the 'Forward Policy', under which the Indian Army relentlessly attacked the People's Liberation Army's posts along the entire border and killed many Chinese soldiers in an attempt to extrude them out of all the Chinese territory it claimed.
This aggressive and provocative policy not only interrupted the status quo, but also breached the peace and tranquillity along the entire border. In October 1962, Nehru ordered the army to take the offensive and made a statement about it on the 12th of the same month. His statement shocked the whole world. The New York Herald Tribune published an editorial entitled 'Nehru Declares A War Against China' the following day.
All honest and sober-minded people could see that the 1962 war was imposed on China by the Nehru government. China had no other way out but to launch a counter-attack and take preventive action. The purposes were:
To defend peace and tranquillity along the entire border; To bring the Nehru government back to the negotiating table.
RE:TRUE
by murli nair on Mar 26, 2008 03:29 PM Permalink
you are a fool living in a fool's paradise. What happened are dead ashes. Analyse and react to the realities today. China still claims indian land, it help india's enemies to develop nuclear weapons, it has encircled india with posts in coco islands, observations posts in bangladesh etc. we have tried to win over our neighbours, it has not worked.
As for the genesis of the 1962 war, since many eminent scholars across the world, such as Neville Maxwell, Karunakar Gupta, and Steven Hoffmann, have made in-depth studies, it is not pertinent for me to dwell on it here. But it should be noted that the Nehru government not only took over the legacy of British imperialist strategic perceptions of security and interfered many times with the Tibet affairs of China, it also demonstrated more arrogance and irrationality on boundary issues than the Raj. The British imperialists did draw an illegal McMahon Line, but they dared not occupy in reality the territories of China to the south of that line. But the Nehru government did just that. Evidence indicates that in the early years after independence, Jawaharlal Nehru himself privately instructed B N Mullick, head of the Intelligence Bureau, to count China as an enemy. It was under his approval that armed Indian border guards drove away the Tibetan administrators and occupied Sela by force in 1948, and Tawang and other Chinese territories to the south of the McMahon Line in 1952. But Nehru's government did not stop here; it sought to decide for itself where India's borders with China should lie and then impose the alignments it had chosen on China. In 1960, the Nehru government not only refused publicly to negotiate with Premier Zhou Enlai who made a special trip to New Delhi to seek a friendly settlement of boundary issue, but rejected any standstill agreement. In the follow
After the demise of Lal Bahadur and Indira the Congress and it's political cacus can beyond any doubt be termed as Congreggation of Impotant political gut and character.Kudos to Utter Pseudo Poltical Alligance governance. Not only policy towards Chaina exhibit this character of UPA greats but also the issues lke Talisma ouster, Nuclear Power agreement (plain surrender) with US are also best examples. When we have such shameless, only self centered (Is) rule the nation India will remain buckled under external ( which from all human morale angle)redicule.After all how can the Indian citizen for gutful behaviour from present system of governance when we do not have a personality who has been ruling (and ruining) the country as the person do not belong to the category of natural Birth political right but belong to Acquired and forced political right.
Since the begning of the civilsation Tibet was an udependent part of the in the Himalayn region received social and cultraul values from India as well as from China.Nieghter the India nor China can raise the question regarding the soverginity of Tibet.So free Tibet.Peacefull China will be only existed by free Tibet. Narayan Chandrakant Rajeev Panditjee
Exposse can't believe any country is better than Arabistan, that is fine by us. All the Buddhist statues were destroyed in Afganistan lest people recall their past and reconnect with it. Same was done in Indonesia and Malaysia. This is how oppressive and brutal are some religion in anhilating others in name of religion. For us, we indo-Aryans cannot be humiliated just because we fitted ourselves in Caste system when it was not rigid. There could have be flip side where we could have forced Sanskritic language and Aryan norms on ABSOLUTE basis as certain religions do. We could have imposed stiff norms and food habits such as Halal/Haram/etc. Strict punishment, etc. Or make people come for Sunday morning church congregation, etc. So a lot is preserved of natives belief that can be good or bad. Our advise, drop the bad and take the good. WE INDO-ARYANS AS usual will not impose if you stick to bad.
NEHRU was the only reason FOR indo-china war at 1962.
see the full details in the book of IndiaS China War by Neville Maxwell............... which was banned in India ......................................................
The question here is not one of caste but the liberty of Tibetan people whose territory was annexed by brute force and stabbing of India in the back by China by playing Hindi-Chini bai bai. India is now strong enough to take on Chinese on all fronts be economic or militarily. We should stop succumbing to pressure tactics by China for the sake of economic gains which is illusory. China will always do what they feel right by might if it goes against their interest and have territorial ambition to expand and become superpower. It is time to stop them in their track right now even if force is required other wise they will use their dummies here readily available to rule us ruthlessly. so let India be beware of the danger from an expansionist China and their bidders living in India in the name of communists whatever symbol they carry. S.Subramanian
RE:should India be proactive?
by D S on Mar 20, 2008 08:23 AM Permalink
U are correct, India need to take the right stance. We know the repercussion would be more funding to Pakistan, NE terrorist and FAKE CURRENCY FROM NE, PAKISTAN AND NEPAL. Not to forget the funds to misguided Naxal, Maoist who should be actually fighting for democratic reforms to remove parliamentary system to be able to elect PM and CM directly by Indian people.
