Comments on: It’s Time India Resolved Border Disputes With China For Good /region/central_south_asia/time-india-resolved-border-disputes-china-good/ Fact-based, well-reasoned perspectives from around the world Tue, 21 Oct 2014 05:38:07 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 By: Prateek /region/central_south_asia/time-india-resolved-border-disputes-china-good/#comment-28981 Tue, 21 Oct 2014 05:38:07 +0000 #comment-28981 Also, since the author seems to be interested in research, a little effort would show the duplicity of the Chinese who have used every single occasion of bilateral dialogue between India and China to flex their muscles, except may be the visit of Rajiv Gandhi in the eighties, which in any case a visit by a top Indian leader was taking place for the first time after the ’62 war, so they probably did not want to rock the boat. Otherwise every single occasion of bilateral meetings between India and China has been used by the Chinese to flex their muscle, and to show India who the boss in the region is. Is that behaviour consistent with good neighbourly intentions? If the author really has to write such an article, she should address the Chinese, telling them that it is not in their interest to pursue this duplicitous policy towards India. Otherwise, all the major Chinese cities are under the aim of nuclear tipped Indian missiles. And this is not jingoism, but plain realism. Since the author is an Indian, I would advise her to stop being so obsequious towards the Chinese.

]]> By: Prateek /region/central_south_asia/time-india-resolved-border-disputes-china-good/#comment-28979 Tue, 21 Oct 2014 05:26:59 +0000 #comment-28979 This is a laughable travesty of a scholarly article, where frankly the author does not know what position to take, except to browbeat India. “India’s failure to recognise the legitimacy of interests other than its own” – seriously? Since the author is more interested in calling India names, probably the acceptance and public declaration of Tibet being part of China according to the author would be capitulation, and would not fall in the category of recognising China’s interests. If India in its own interest decided to persist with the McMohon line, which China does not recognise, how does that mean that India does not recognise China’s interest, or does not have the propensity to do so? On the other hand, in fact, the author’s phrase, “failure to recognise the legitimacy of interests other than its own” is actually more apt for China. We just have to see the history of border disputes that China has with practically all its neighbours, and those that are settled are ones where China has pretty much arm twisted the neighbour to accept the solution which was acceptable to China, and not mutually acceptable in reality. So who consistently fails to “to recognise the legitimacy of interests other than its own”. It is China, and not India. The fact of the matter is, the Han Chinese are still smarting, after several generations for all the humiliations they suffered at the hands of the West, and it is not acceptable to them that the Middle Kingdom suffered thus. To accept it as a historical fact and move on is something that the Han Chinese, suffering from a nationalist egotism, will never accept. So they, led by the CCP and PLA which are jingoism and revanchism concentrated several times over, will keep working towards the reality of actuating the Middle Kingdom once again. All this trade etc. is just aimed towards creation of that hegemony, never mind if millions of artisans and workers in the third world whose cause the Chinese claim to champion, are losing their livelihoods.
As far as India is concerned, in the present NDA government, we have for the first time a dispensation that is standing up to the bullying of the Chinese.
I also see the author trying in vain to hyphenate India and Pakistan. The fact of the matter is, Pakistan is loose change as far as India is concerned, it is the increasingly aggressive Chinese that we have to work at.

Really wonder what the interest of this author is – is it just the love of the Chinese, or something else, in writing this article.

]]>