1962 war:




 
--
Boots
 
April 26th, 2005  
MadeInChina
 

Topic: 1962 war:


i know alot people doesnt want to discuss this, yet some do, so here, letss discuss it


http://in.rediff.com/news/2002/dec/26chin.htm


Quote:
Forty years have elapsed since the 1962 war, but its shadow still influences Sino-India relations.

China and India, having a long history of friendly interaction and a fine tradition of learning from each other, both suffered from imperialist and colonialist aggression, oppression and exploitation.

After achieving their independence and liberation, respectively, in the late 1940s, they should have treated each other on an equal footing, supported each other, and learnt from each other in the reconstruction of their own countries, to enable the peoples of both countries to lead a happy life. But it was deplorable that due to the misperceptions and mistaken policies of a few leaders, the development of Sino-India relations took a winding path.

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 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.
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.

Thanks to the late Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi's historic visit to China in 1988, Sino-India relations have gradually regained normalcy. During Indian prime minister P V Narasimha Rao's visit to China in 1993, both sides signed the Agreement on Maintenance of Peace and Tranquillity along the Line of Actual Control in the China-India Border Areas.

In 1996, a further agreement on "confidence-building measures in the military field along the LAC" was signed during President Jiang Zemin's visit to India. All these demonstrated that the two governments had become far-sighted and mature. This is the very reason why Sino-India relations developed smoothly and quickly on the whole during the last more than 10 years, though it took an unexpected turn in 1998.

But we should not sit back. It should be noted that, in terms of populations, sizes, economic scales, and the roles played in the contemporary world by China and India, the co-operation between them is far from what it should be.

What has obstructed Sino-India relations from developing in depth and giving full play to the potential of both?

There are both objective and subjective factors. Judging from the present conditions, it seems that the subjective factors are prevailing, and the resistance is mainly from the Indian side.

Why am I saying so? Because on the Indian side there still are a considerable number of officials, soldiers and think tanks who have not walked out of the shadow of the 1962 war. Many of them adhere, consciously or unconsciously, to the strategic perception of security prevailing in old times, and count China as a threat or a potential adversary. Given such a psychology, how can they expect to further develop Sino-India relations?

But I don't complain about them, because the majority of them were also misled in the past. I believe that, with increasing mutual exchanges, the day will come when they will realise that China is a true friend and brother of India. Now the challenge facing us is, how effectively will far-sighted statesmen and those of insight make public the truth of the 1962 war?

Let that day come earlier. On the day when Sino-India misunderstanding is thoroughly dispersed, an era for in-depth Sino-India co-operation will come.

comments? ( prediction: propanganda)
April 29th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Dead giveaway that this is a propagandist crap.
Quote:
both suffered from imperialist and colonialist aggression, oppression and exploitation.
Check out all those favored buzzwords of the Communist media machines worldwide!! And they're just tossing them out there, even though both China and India have a history of being guilty of all of the above ... love that stuff.

Quote:
The British imperialists did draw an illegal McMahon Line
Illegal based on what?? International laws didn't really exist, for one thing. For another, the Qing Dynasty was an empire built by conquest of lands that were not her own. The British Empire was also an empire built by conquest. Neither empire had any other basis for claim any land even close to the current border of India and China nor any actual "right of ownership" to the disputed area. Technically, it ought to either be owned by an independent nation of Kashmir, or an independent nation of Tibet. Neither of the more legitimate claimants exist, so the rest is just pointless drivel.

Eh, enough already. The article needs to be reworked by an actual real-life journalist to filter out the fact from the fiction, notate their sources, and above all else tell it from an impartial viewpoint.

Its reminiscent of the workups done by Goerbels (sp?) for the Nazi press, justifying the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland ahead of time. He did a masterful job of aledging abuses to ethnic Germans, or that Poland had attacked first and Germany was simply retaliating. I think we need a better article, preferably written by neither India nor China.
April 30th, 2005  
MadeInChina
 
when i read it i thought it was propanganda too, but it turns out this guy is not a chinese communist, but a oversea nationlist
--
Boots
May 2nd, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Much of the information is real, but all of it is presented in such a way that its trying to convince you to adopt his point of view. Nothing in there is nonbiased. That does fit the definition of propaganda no matter where you live. To those that grew up with a free press, this article doesn't come across as a recounting of facts at all. It also offends one's sensibilities by trying to be educational since it pushes one desired point of view. Its an essay written to convince Chinese and Indian readers that:
1.) Technically, China had every right to attack India in 1962.
2.) The two nations need to mend the wounds of that conflict, and band together to overcome Western imperialists.
Both of these claims are nonsense if you actually know anything about the circumstances. The truth is very different. China's claim to the territory they were claiming ... well, the basis for that claim is in doubt because the validity of China's hostile takeover of Tibet is questionable to begin with, and laying that aside completely ... it belonged to India.

I'm willing to agree that Tibet is part of China simply because nobody is capable of doing anything to stop it. But at some point, the early PRC needs to be recognized as what it really was: An attempt at building an empire by conquest, "Peaceful China" be damned. The only nations sharing a border with China that did not get attacked by them were insignificant nations. All those worth anything saw confilict in some form. Korea, India, the USSR, Vietnam. All were cases of China launching an invasion, with Korea at least being a tad more complex. Tibet was invaded an annexed. All of those attacks on neighboring nations were in relatively rapid succession.

Admitting that this sort of behavior was wrong would go a long ways towards reassuring the nations bordering China that their claim that they are a peaceful nation now is true. An apology may be in order, but I have my doubts that China has the stomach for making apologies. I hope I'm wrong about that.

Rather than making excuses for the PRC's hostility back then, it would seem more mature to perhaps admit that it was wrong. The USA and its history teachers have owned up to the fact that we were very wrong to treat the Native Americans the way we did, and the USA didn't collapse because of that admission. Instead, we are now equipped to learn from our past. There are many other examples of this. For the student of history that actually cares to learn anything, there are many cases where they can find out where their great nation was behaving badly in its past.
May 3rd, 2005  
MadeInChina
 
look, work with china, comprimise with china, but never attack or anger china

thats so far the best goddamn theroem for other countries at this point of time
May 4th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
look, work with china, comprimise with china, but never attack or anger china
That could use some clarification. Not sure how this statement fits with the 1962 war.

MadeInChina, do you think that China's attack on India was valid and juistifiable or do you think it was wrong?
May 4th, 2005  
Xion
 
They are taught in China that India attacked them and China was just doing her duties by defending her subjects

All I want to tell you is that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru the then prime minister of India was so sure that China wouldn't ever attack India that even after getting intelligence reports that Chinese were starting massive troop movement and building transport routes near the border he didn't order the then Indian military to gear up...he was so damn sure of China's promises
India and China even signed the Pancsheel Pact....the 5 principles of peaceful co-existence in the 1950's.
Just a few days ago before the war broke out China's premier visited India and uttered the famous words India still remembers with much pain
"Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai" which mean "Indians and Chinese are brothers"

All these factors were convincing enough that China would not ever wage a war against India.
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru used to keep ill health after the war and he lost all his will and didn't show much interest in politics, he died soon after that.

One can go here for comprehensive information on this war:

http://sinoindianwar.50megs.com/
May 4th, 2005  
Big_Z
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadeInChina
look, work with china, comprimise with china, but never attack or anger china

thats so far the best goddamn theroem for other countries at this point of time
Lol.......
May 4th, 2005  
CABAL
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Z
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadeInChina
look, work with china, comprimise with china, but never attack or anger china

thats so far the best goddamn theroem for other countries at this point of time
Lol.......
He's right. Its right enough that I don't think its even funny.
May 4th, 2005  
Big_Z
 
 
The 7th fleet is sailing off their coast, the Chinese navy has no chance of defeating it and if they somehow did we have many in reserve. The US flies planes over their country and the Chinese simply send jets up to observe them. Are you starting to understand why that comment sounds so funny to me?