my generation grew up being taught to put China and India in the same sentence lol. it was only after i begin to think "critically" did i realize how preposterous that is, also with a little help from India's own stagflation ofc. interesting when people talk about China rivaling the US, they use numbers to back up their claim, like GDP numbers etc. when speaking of India and China, I am suddenly seeing all these metaphysical stuff like "freedom" and "human rights". of course even in those areas China vastly outperforms India. even indians around me know better than to regurgitate this anachronism of ideological bias.
China and India relationship
- Thread starter antiterror13
- Start date
- Status
Doombreed
Junior Member
Spoken like a true chauvinist. There's a lot of parallels in the relationship between China and the US and India and China. I wonder how you would feel if an American said how preposterous China and the US should be spoken in the same sentence. And to be honest, as of right now, it is. India started her developement roughly 13 years behind China. If you chart India's progress, it roughly follows the same developement curve as China, but at a 13 year delay. To say there is something inherent about Indians that means they will never develop like China, or that the Chinese developement would not plateau like everyone else is the height of exceptionalism.
So you're saying that these Indians know their place? I keed, I keed.
shen
Senior Member
The only thing China really cares about is the safety of Xinjiang-Tibet highway. 50 years and a war later, the border is likely to return to the position before India initiated The Forward Policy.
Geographer
Junior Member
shen, how different is the pre-1962 border? I thought after China defeated Indian armies in 1962, they withdrew to the pre-war boundaries, thus today's borders are the pre-1962 position.
In the 1962 border skirmishes,
India: 10,000 men
China: 80,000 men
In context, the Maurya army in 326 BC was 100,000.
So, calling 10,000 men as Indian army is up to you.
Back you actual question, PLA entered Aksai Chin (part of Ladakh, not part of Tibet) in 1959, surreptitiously.
No territorial changes happened in 1962.
There was no treaty or acceptance of any ultimatum.
China withrew from invaded parts unilaterally.
lol i wouldnt feel a thing because i dont usually speak of US and China in the same sentence myself. but if I want to I can at least use math to argue that maybe China does merit a comparison with the US. India on the other hand...I just dont see it bro, and not only because India is growing at a much slower rate than China with a population that is increasing much faster (population will not work to your advantage if they are not educated and employed). Problem with India is that it has never really gone through the revolutionary cycle that is characteristic of any other societies' industrialization progress, stuff like the enclosure movement, dekulakization and so on...I personally do not see India as an industrialized country, 90% of it at least.
oh and yea, those Indians know their place. They love India and want everything good for the country, but they are not blindly dancing to the waltz of western media thinking they can vote their way to superpower status LMAO.
shen
Senior Member
basically China keeps Aksai Chin (necessary for security of Xinjiang-Tibet highway) while giving up claim to NEFA(South Tibet). It is basically the pre-1962 position.
Geographer
Junior Member
Shen, when you say NEFA (South Tibet) do you mean the Indian province of Arunachal Pradesh? Unpopulated land is easier to transfer than populated land. That's why Aksai Chin stands a chance of being transferred to India. But Arunachal Pradesh has nearly 1.4 million Indian citizens so I do not see how a territorial transfer from India to China would work for even a small part of the province. A century ago the demographics would not have mattered in international relations but now they matter a great deal.
shen
Senior Member
Yes, Arunachal Pradesh. After the 1962 war, although victorious, China withdraw 20km from the McMahon Line not the LOAC, even though it regard it as illegal. But in Aksai Chin, China only withdraw 20km from the LOAC. I think that's a clear demonstration of which China regard as more important. In the half century since the war, China maintained claim to AP as a bargaining chip, but if a final settlement is in sight, I think China would be willing to give up claim to AP.
I don't think numbers mattered, the Qin army was 550,000 men during the Qin-Zhao war, 262 BC, and that is only one state out of 7 in China. i.e. China was using a fraction of her strength as just the Indians are using a Fraction of theirs.
The truth is, 10K men is no small force; in modern terms, thats a division; and especially on the defensive, a Division like the Panzer Lehr Division and a few more held down a much larger commonwealth army in Normandy for a substantial time.
Ukraine currently is very concerned about the 2-3 russian divisions north of it's borders where itself have 6-7 divisions in the field.
Post WW2 a division is a lot of firepower,
- Status