Jura The idiot
General
now
CPC expected to convene 19th National Congress on Oct. 18 Xinhua| 2017-08-31 21:26:19
India incursion and Chinese standoff at Dolam, Bhutan
- Thread starter Hendrik_2000
- Start date
- Status
CPC expected to convene 19th National Congress on Oct. 18 Xinhua| 2017-08-31 21:26:19
Dizasta1
Senior Member
The "Doklam Incident" was india's debacle in international politics. It revealed how India truly treats it's allies and serves as a reliable reference point for international partner nations when it comes to reliability. Of course the move also proves that India doesn't put much thought into what the ramifications of its actions would be. And now that india has backed down from its I'll advised, foolishly thought out move. It is time for it to bow before China who holds the moral high ground on this matter. I guess India's planners haven't fully understood the concept of negotiating from a "position of strength". If India truly wants to turn a leaf over and start anew. Then it needs to start understanding the ground realities of the Continent it inhabits. As for India to really prosper and progress, it "must" establish peaceful relations with China and Pakistan. For when it does do that, India will find far greater scope and opportunities working together with these two neighbors, than working "for" countries who don't have common borders with it, nor it's interests at heart.
A "meaningful" with China, would go a long way for India. Mending it's border disputes with both Pakistan and China would create the right environment for SCO member states to truly bond together and collectively plan ahead for their respective economic plans to be realized. SCO trade has enormous benefits for all member states. A cohesive working environment would enable member states to build and complete all the necessary infrastructure for trading to function effectively and efficiently. And with common economic policies, it would only be natural for military alliances within the SCO to be created. Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan.
But for that to happen, India has to come forward with a genuine willingness to resolve disputes with China and Pakistan. The benefits outweigh the stubborn approach they have held so far. Imagine flourishing trade that would increase with time! Picture the significance of the rise of SCO as a true counter-weight to NATO. Visualize SCO economic initiatives that can bring a truly international free-trade, between the continent's of Asia, Africa and South America. That's what ought to be the objectives of the Asian giants such as China, Russia and India.
A "meaningful" with China, would go a long way for India. Mending it's border disputes with both Pakistan and China would create the right environment for SCO member states to truly bond together and collectively plan ahead for their respective economic plans to be realized. SCO trade has enormous benefits for all member states. A cohesive working environment would enable member states to build and complete all the necessary infrastructure for trading to function effectively and efficiently. And with common economic policies, it would only be natural for military alliances within the SCO to be created. Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan.
But for that to happen, India has to come forward with a genuine willingness to resolve disputes with China and Pakistan. The benefits outweigh the stubborn approach they have held so far. Imagine flourishing trade that would increase with time! Picture the significance of the rise of SCO as a true counter-weight to NATO. Visualize SCO economic initiatives that can bring a truly international free-trade, between the continent's of Asia, Africa and South America. That's what ought to be the objectives of the Asian giants such as China, Russia and India.
The international community is too engrossed in this nonsense of "Indian mysticism and spirituality". They've been brainwashed to think poorly of EVERYTHING China does and think highly of the piss drinking mysticism of India. This is surely a force of evil. If only everyone truly understood the evils of India. Men committing atrocious acts on women at a massive scale, people slaughtering others daily on the streets because someone allegedly ate beef. People defecating everywhere and anywhere they see fit (even China's worst state of affairs didn't come to that). The continuous mistreatment of "dalits". Mob justice..... the list can go on and does.
Indian planners are elected. Not tested. Elected. Hence they are likely easily corrupted morons. They have demonstrated this not only on this occasion but countless others. The only thoughtful one I can think of is Shashi Tharoor. Only one with a working brain.
India is both the most corrupt and polluted (by a wide margin) but about 99% of the world's population will think those titles belong to China. Such is the power of western and Indian media.
Just a starter from an unreliable source. The reality is worse. Indian air in many "cities" are actually unbreathable. They don't even have the decency to warn their own citizens unlike Chinese news. China at least provides cheap filters and masks available and gives its citizens warning. Typical Indian denialism and arrogance.
Just a starter from an unreliable source. The reality is worse. Indian air in many "cities" are actually unbreathable. They don't even have the decency to warn their own citizens unlike Chinese news. China at least provides cheap filters and masks available and gives its citizens warning. Typical Indian denialism and arrogance.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
A good article by ambassador Bhadrakumar. I think it is a bad policy to antagonize China. India crave the wrong attention. Now they got it !
Indian posturing, post-Doklam, has a tragi-comic feel
By SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 10:41 AM
Why the standoff between India and China, near the Sikkim border, began at all, and how it ended, after 71 long and anxious days, on August 28, will likely never be fully known. The Indian foreign ministry maintains cryptically that “following diplomatic communications, expeditious disengagement of border personnel of India and China at the face-off site at Doklam,” took place last week.
New Delhi falls far short of making any claims about an agreement or understanding with Beijing regarding mutual withdrawal – leave alone about China stopping its road-building activities, which led to the standoff in the first instance.
Must-reads from across Asia - directly to your inbox
The Chinese Foreign Ministry has been more forthcoming. It put on record that:As a result of diplomatic representations and “effective countermeasures” at the military level, the Indian side “withdrew” all its personnel and equipment.
• As a result of diplomatic representations and “effective countermeasures” at the military level, the Indian side “withdrew” all its personnel and equipment.
• The Chinese personnel “onsite have verified” the fact of Indian withdrawal.
• The Chinese troops “continue with their patrolling and stationing” in the Doklam area.
• China will “adjust and deploy its military resources” in the area to meet the needs of guarding the border.
• China has long been undertaking road-building in the area and will in future “make proper building plans in light of the actual situation,” taking into account weather conditions.
New Delhi hasn’t disagreed with China’s contentions. Instead, a series of unattributed, self-serving media leaks have appeared, portraying Indian officials as strong-willed men who stared the Chinese down. This is rather tragi-comic, given the geopolitical reality that the standoff is sure to be a watershed event in India-China relations and regional politics. The Chinese Defense Ministry warned New Delhi to learn its “lesson” from the standoff.
On balance, it appears that India won’t admit its unilateral withdrawal from Doklam, while the Chinese side is disinterested in triumphalism.
Clearly, with the brief summer season about to end in the region’s tangled mountains, India has managed to stall any road-building activity by China during this calendar year.
But the nagging question remains: What prompted India to unilaterally withdraw? To quote a prominent China expert in New Delhi, “In the face of mounting Chinese psychological pressure on asymmetries, combined with coercive diplomacy and deployment of lethal equipment, the Indian announcement of ‘disengagement’ at Doklam comes as no surprise.”
There had been reports – backed by video and photographic evidence –of China moving trainloads of advanced HQ-16 and HQ-17 missiles and other military equipment to Tibet. China was reinforcing its layered air defense systems to counter Indian air power, hinting at serious preparations for a military offensive.
Equally, two other critical factors would have influenced Indian thinking. One, India’s economic growth slowed to around 5.7% between April and June, the slowest quarterly rate in the three years of the present government. A war with China would cripple the economy. Secondly, no country voiced support for India, let alone criticized China. The North Korean issue preoccupied both Washington and Tokyo.
In retrospect, China showed that on issues of territorial sovereignty, there is no question of a compromise. But something may also have changed fundamentally in its attitude toward India. Harsh things have been said, betraying displeasure and anger, and a breakdown in trust and confidence.
A bumpy road lies ahead. Simply put, India is unable to come to terms with China’s rise, and the latter senses that it must now be on guard. Conceivably, Chinese diplomacy in the South Asian region may shift to adversarial mode. With tacit Chinese support, countries such as Nepal, Sri Lanka or the Maldives may be in a better position to withstand India’s overbearing presence.
India’s future relations with Bhutan, the friend on whose behalf it stuck out its neck but which kept a Delphian silence, are almost certain to become more delicate. Prof. Taylor Fravel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who is regarded as an authority on China’s borders, wrote last week that China might well revisit its road-building plans in the disputed territory with Bhutan. To quote Fravel,
“Before the standoff in June, China’s permanent presence in the area had been quite limited. China had maintained a road in the area for several decades, but did not garrison any forces. In contrast, India has maintained and developed a forward post at Doka La adjacent to Doklam… China may well seek to rectify this tactical imbalance of forces. In fact, the Chinese spokesperson suggested a move in this direction… If China does this, it would likely build facilities farther away from India’s position at Doka La, making it more challenging for India to intervene and block China next time… India may be faced with the uncomfortable choice of deciding whether to risk much more to deny China a greater presence farther inside Doklam or to accept it.”
The real lesson, therefore, that India should learn from the Doklam standoff is that it shouldn’t draw wrong conclusions. The BRICS Summit in Xiamen is not to be mistaken as a “kiss-and-make-up” moment.
Deep down, India has a choice to make and China is watching closely. Should the Modi government go further down the road of trespassing into China’s core interests in the South China Sea, raking up Tibet-related issues and identifying with the United States’ containment strategy against China?
Such a journey risks military confrontation with China. How far is India prepared to take that risk? The Modi government’s accent could have been on diplomacy in the crucial three-week period after the Chinese notified New Delhi, in late May, of their intention to commence road-building work at Doklam. But instead of activating its diplomatic levers, India resorted to force, confident in the knowledge that in that particular sector of the border it is strongly placed.
The dismal picture that has emerged over the past week is of the Indian officials responsible for that fateful decision counting trees and trying to convince domestic opinion that India “won” and China “lost”. The great danger is that their core constituency of ultra-nationalists will – to take the sports analogy further – now expect them to raise the bar.
Indian posturing, post-Doklam, has a tragi-comic feel
By SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 10:41 AM
Why the standoff between India and China, near the Sikkim border, began at all, and how it ended, after 71 long and anxious days, on August 28, will likely never be fully known. The Indian foreign ministry maintains cryptically that “following diplomatic communications, expeditious disengagement of border personnel of India and China at the face-off site at Doklam,” took place last week.
New Delhi falls far short of making any claims about an agreement or understanding with Beijing regarding mutual withdrawal – leave alone about China stopping its road-building activities, which led to the standoff in the first instance.
Must-reads from across Asia - directly to your inbox
The Chinese Foreign Ministry has been more forthcoming. It put on record that:As a result of diplomatic representations and “effective countermeasures” at the military level, the Indian side “withdrew” all its personnel and equipment.
• As a result of diplomatic representations and “effective countermeasures” at the military level, the Indian side “withdrew” all its personnel and equipment.
• The Chinese personnel “onsite have verified” the fact of Indian withdrawal.
• The Chinese troops “continue with their patrolling and stationing” in the Doklam area.
• China will “adjust and deploy its military resources” in the area to meet the needs of guarding the border.
• China has long been undertaking road-building in the area and will in future “make proper building plans in light of the actual situation,” taking into account weather conditions.
New Delhi hasn’t disagreed with China’s contentions. Instead, a series of unattributed, self-serving media leaks have appeared, portraying Indian officials as strong-willed men who stared the Chinese down. This is rather tragi-comic, given the geopolitical reality that the standoff is sure to be a watershed event in India-China relations and regional politics. The Chinese Defense Ministry warned New Delhi to learn its “lesson” from the standoff.
On balance, it appears that India won’t admit its unilateral withdrawal from Doklam, while the Chinese side is disinterested in triumphalism.
Clearly, with the brief summer season about to end in the region’s tangled mountains, India has managed to stall any road-building activity by China during this calendar year.
But the nagging question remains: What prompted India to unilaterally withdraw? To quote a prominent China expert in New Delhi, “In the face of mounting Chinese psychological pressure on asymmetries, combined with coercive diplomacy and deployment of lethal equipment, the Indian announcement of ‘disengagement’ at Doklam comes as no surprise.”
There had been reports – backed by video and photographic evidence –of China moving trainloads of advanced HQ-16 and HQ-17 missiles and other military equipment to Tibet. China was reinforcing its layered air defense systems to counter Indian air power, hinting at serious preparations for a military offensive.
Equally, two other critical factors would have influenced Indian thinking. One, India’s economic growth slowed to around 5.7% between April and June, the slowest quarterly rate in the three years of the present government. A war with China would cripple the economy. Secondly, no country voiced support for India, let alone criticized China. The North Korean issue preoccupied both Washington and Tokyo.
In retrospect, China showed that on issues of territorial sovereignty, there is no question of a compromise. But something may also have changed fundamentally in its attitude toward India. Harsh things have been said, betraying displeasure and anger, and a breakdown in trust and confidence.
A bumpy road lies ahead. Simply put, India is unable to come to terms with China’s rise, and the latter senses that it must now be on guard. Conceivably, Chinese diplomacy in the South Asian region may shift to adversarial mode. With tacit Chinese support, countries such as Nepal, Sri Lanka or the Maldives may be in a better position to withstand India’s overbearing presence.
India’s future relations with Bhutan, the friend on whose behalf it stuck out its neck but which kept a Delphian silence, are almost certain to become more delicate. Prof. Taylor Fravel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who is regarded as an authority on China’s borders, wrote last week that China might well revisit its road-building plans in the disputed territory with Bhutan. To quote Fravel,
“Before the standoff in June, China’s permanent presence in the area had been quite limited. China had maintained a road in the area for several decades, but did not garrison any forces. In contrast, India has maintained and developed a forward post at Doka La adjacent to Doklam… China may well seek to rectify this tactical imbalance of forces. In fact, the Chinese spokesperson suggested a move in this direction… If China does this, it would likely build facilities farther away from India’s position at Doka La, making it more challenging for India to intervene and block China next time… India may be faced with the uncomfortable choice of deciding whether to risk much more to deny China a greater presence farther inside Doklam or to accept it.”
The real lesson, therefore, that India should learn from the Doklam standoff is that it shouldn’t draw wrong conclusions. The BRICS Summit in Xiamen is not to be mistaken as a “kiss-and-make-up” moment.
Deep down, India has a choice to make and China is watching closely. Should the Modi government go further down the road of trespassing into China’s core interests in the South China Sea, raking up Tibet-related issues and identifying with the United States’ containment strategy against China?
Such a journey risks military confrontation with China. How far is India prepared to take that risk? The Modi government’s accent could have been on diplomacy in the crucial three-week period after the Chinese notified New Delhi, in late May, of their intention to commence road-building work at Doklam. But instead of activating its diplomatic levers, India resorted to force, confident in the knowledge that in that particular sector of the border it is strongly placed.
The dismal picture that has emerged over the past week is of the Indian officials responsible for that fateful decision counting trees and trying to convince domestic opinion that India “won” and China “lost”. The great danger is that their core constituency of ultra-nationalists will – to take the sports analogy further – now expect them to raise the bar.
Let's be real here for a moment. India has certainly gotten more attention from China now but nothing serious will be done about it unfortunately. India is more like a pesky child to China, who has a very dangerous neighbour. Chinese leaders will not take any serious posturing against India apart from maybe diverting slightly more military hardware to its borders and nothing further. Any problem will be resolved diplomatically. China can crush India with half its pinky but cannot take on the US or its Arab (Saudi) and Israeli masters, the real problem.
PiSigma
"the engineer"
Lol, exactly like I said would happen. China build bunkers then they will build the road. And there is nothing India can do about it other than complain. Normally armies try to have as little fronts as possible, India seems to want to open as many as possible.
- Status