India's army - Page 12

View Poll Results :how is India's army
world top 0 0%
secondary miliary power 13 30.23%
so-so 20 46.51%
still backward 6 13.95%
stone-age 4 9.30%
Voters: 43. You may not vote on this poll

January 17th, 2005  
As a Chinese, putting a western author’s view of the war here, I think, at least, I tried hard to be fair. Although I also have different opinions with what he documented, I still take his view as fear reasonable point. Actually I was quite surprised that according his book, China fired the first shot. After a small research on the internet, I have to say, Neville Maxwell’s view in the book is shared quite well around the world, make a search on Google, you will get the rough idea, although, I do find out that his book has long been banned in India.

Let's say there are a judge, an accuser, and the defendant, if you can only ask one of them to get the full story, who's statements do you think will be fear and worth hearing? I mean, what's the point to spend hours to read one side’s perspective? They just simply don't make up the whole story. I don't even care to read Chinese side perspective, why would I care to read and believe the Indian side story? If you have sources that make better neutral view points, I will be happy to discuss it, otherwise, let’s don’t waste time here.
January 18th, 2005  
but u have to agree, some westerns writing are so funny to read.

for example, the article rajkhalsa put on is biased definetly, but some parts of it is wrong too.

76mm-120mm mortars... first of all, there werent any 76mm mortars in the world, if there were, certaintly not in the chinese army.

second, the chinese artillery barrage had d-3, d-1 122mm and 152mm heavy howtizers in action as well as light artillery. the chinese attacked with flanking , not direct on.

many believe that the indian gain in ground during their attack first during the clash was successful and truly a victory.

yet it really was to give the indian troops over confidence and allow a encirclement to happen
January 18th, 2005  
Originally Posted by paratroopa
but u have to agree, some westerns writing are so funny to read.
for example, the article rajkhalsa put on is biased definetly, but some parts of it is wrong too.
You could ask for the author's name of that article, I don't think he/she is a westerner at all, or, there is an author for that article. The site he gave is very politically motivated, or, to say, extreme. Even on the first page, you can taste the political sense, a linked picture to the “Tibet government on exile”; even the English Government at that time could not publicly confirm legal stats of that so called "Government". Getting truth from a political motivated article is like getting a politician tells the truth. Just like I said before, if you really want the truth, you don’t lean on either side.
January 19th, 2005  
ya, its like the jap info on world war 2:

we won every battle but lost the other ones because savage americans used a bombs

we owned china and the chiense welcomed up and we gave them hope and dreams

we took over islands and made it a better place

chiense, koreans are subhuman
January 19th, 2005  
A Can of Man
As for sources, I mostly trust Western sources. Why? Because a lot of these guys take their jobs seriously. And that statement isn't to be taken lightly. I've read and heard some serious garbage from everyone but I always felt the top articles, in terms of neutrality, came from the West.
This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to history that doesn't involve their own country, and even if it did, they are critical when they have to be. Heck I don't even trust Korean sources too much either. That's why when I read something in Korean and it's important enough, I'll go to a non-Korean source (usually American or British) and see if I can double check on it.

The Tibet government in exile, is a government in exile. That territory does not belong to you in the eyes of everyone except yourselves. Tibet is an occupied state that no one can seem to help.
January 19th, 2005  
First, the issue isn't really about what a government on exile is, or it's right or wrong, but only shows the website is political motivated, or has a certain background, unless the U.N list it as a country called Tibet and most of the members also have the country name " Tibet" in their list. in this situation, i say this websites content will have a "side", just like the post person said, it's india's perspective. have i said anything wrong about it?

then let's see the second part, which i have wrote under the other topic, it's long, but i hope you read it:
My god, you just cant’ take the story as a whole didn’t you? Have you really read the article for the first part, like 300 lines? It gave you a idea to put your question "Why Tibet", but the answer is right there in the article.

“In the sixteenth century, it became a tributary state of the Mongol Empire”, that’s 600 years ago until nineteen century! that's about 500 years under China control. Then, the author mentioned “it was regarded as part of Tibet again.” but the author spent the next 200 lines to explain it! At that time, china was at the weakest point! Everyone was cutting China’s land, the English, as part of it, “viewed China as a passive or almost neutral element in its diplomacy” and they were trying to make Tibet a buffer with Russia! What English was doing at that time was grabbing land overseas, and the it was just part of plan which India really isn’t have anything to do with it! (but has everthing to do English people!)

“But in the first decade of the twentieth century, (yeah, even the chinese is under occupying and constent wars)as the Manchu dynasty ended, Chinese policy changed sharply in Tibet. Military presence was extended through central Tibet, and more modern institutions replaced the theocratic and ancient machinery of administration, which reducing the role of the Dalai Lama and the power of the monastic orders. By 1910, China had established effective power in Tibet, and the buffer for India to keep Russia away was lost.” why? Because Chinese people see Tibet as part of china still, the strength was to prevent English’s plan to separate Tibet! “In 1911-12, the Chinese power in Tibet suddenly collapsed. The British decided that it was in their strategic and political interest to exclude effective Chinese power from Tibet.”
how clear it was? China has power over Tibet, and English was doing the dirty work!

And then what really happened? Please, read it yourself: “In 1911-12, the Chinese power in Tibet suddenly collapsed. The British decided that it was in their strategic and political interest to exclude effective Chinese power from Tibet. In 1913, British convoked a conference at Simla which was aimed at making Tibet a buffer state between Britain and China, like the buffer effect to keep the Russians away. McMahon, the Foreign Secretary of the Indian government, led the British delegation to attend the Simla Conference. The British made open effort to make China accept a division of Tibet into Inner and Outer Tibet, as the agreement made by China and Russia in the case of Mongolia. China would have suzerainty over the whole of Tibet, but would have no administrative rights in Outer Tibet, thereby keeping back from the borders of India. The coercive diplomatic methods of Britain brought the weak and unwilling China to the conference. The Chinese representatives stressed the paramount importance of Tibet and resisted its zonal division, keenly aware of the British effort to separate Tibet or at least a great part of it from China. In April 1914, McMahon induced the Chinese official, Ivan Chen, to initiate a draft treaty, but the Chinese government repudiated the unauthorized compliance immediately. McMahon presented the draft to the British, which plainly cancelled its validity. In July, the conference was closed without Chinese signing the convention. London had instructed McMahon all along not to sign bilaterally with Tibetans if China refused, but McMahon proceeded to sign with the Tibetan representative while Ivan Chen was sent to the next room. Chen was not told of what was being signed and the declaration was kept as secret for many years. Although all this provided much fertile ground for international lawyers, the results of the conference were clear, and was accepted as such by the British Government at the time: the Simla Conference produced no agreement to which the government of China was a party. McMahon admitted this himself: "It is with great regret that I leave India without have secured the formal adherence of the Chinese Government to a Tripartite Agreement." China had emphatically and repeatedly denied that Tibet enjoyed sovereign identity and that China would not recognize any bilateral agreement between Tibet and Britain.”

How clear it is? was Tibet considered part of China during this time? and what was English trying to do? Was McMahon line ever been an official?

“A covert byproduct of the Simla Conference was the McMahon Line. It came as a result of the secret discussions, without the Chinese participation or knowledge, which took place in Delhi between the British and the Tibetans in February and March of 1914. These meetings breached not only the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906, in which Britain was to "engage not to annex Tibetan territory," but also of the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, in which Britain was to engage "not to enter into negotiations with Tibet except through the intermediary of the Chinese Government." The British moved the line progressively to the north of Tawang, which was still short of the goal proposed by the Chief of the General Staff to annex some two thousand square miles of Tibetan territory. McMahon Line essentially pushed the boundary northward about sixty miles, and moved it from the foothills to the crest line of the Assam Himalayas. In doing so, McMahon accomplished for British India what other officials attempted twenty years ago on the Afghan frontier, and brought the tribal no-man land under nominal British sovereignty. China forcefully repudiated the convention and denied the validity of the map, and the Tibetans in practice ignored the Line. In 1919, the British tried once more to induce China to resume the tripartite negotiations. After China refused, the British began providing military aid to Tibetans, including arms, ammunitions, and training in their use. When the British relinquished the Indian Empire in 1947, they started to translate the McMahon Line from the maps as the effective northwest boundary of India, despite that the Line appeared on its maps only ten years before. As the British departed, the new Indian government assured that they would complete their work: "If anything, they intended to pursue an even more forward policy than had the British."

Have you got that? That’s two generations of Chinese government on the Tibet issue, which I really isn’t see much about India government!!! And, have you seen the problem here? The McMahon Line, which made secretly by English! That’s continuing. The probelm would have just stopped here, when India discarded the English rule, but why continuing their "Owner's" idea?

“With their independence on August 14, 1947, the status of the boundaries of India changed from the pawns for the British to play with their imperial rivals, to become the cell walls of a new national identity. The Indian government followed closely the footsteps of the British colonists. In 1949, India sent troops during an uprising in Sikkim and brought the state as a protectorate. In the same year, India signed a treaty to take over Britain’s rights to guide Bhutan in foreign affairs. In 1950, India increased its control over Nepal and consolidated the "chain of protectorates" in the Himalayan states. Towards Tibet, the new Indian Government followed the British mission in encouraging Tibetan separatism. In its strategic and geopolitical thinking inherited from the British, the Indian Government continued the exclusion of China’s authority from Tibet and attempted to increase the Indian influence. The Tibetans hoped that the transfer of British power to the Indians would give them an opportunity to regain the territory that British took from them a century before. In October 1947, they formally requested India to return their territory from Ladakh to Assam, and including Sikkim. The Indians in return simply asked Tibet to continue the relationship on the basis of the previous British Government.”
Three countries, former tributes of China, were gone, and who did it? India! that's called invation! Keep following their “Owner’s will, to claim a part of land that has nothing to do with their past history, get it?

“The Indian plan to continue with British policy was met with major challenges. The absence of the British power and emergence of a strong central authority with the establishment of the Communist China reversed the power balance.”

I don’t think anyone could discard 600 years of China’s control over Tibet, when every ganerations of chinese linked their life with Tibet for 600 years. Although the Dalai Lama feared that he could lose it all, the power, slaves, palaces, to the Chinese communist government, and become an equal man. Even feared the life could be taken by the former slaves’ class people. the Tibet before 1949 was not a place you want to live in, or a human want to live in, it's still slavery rules and a underdeveloped land. Anyway, The India's standing on this issue was so weak to make such claim, a government on exile in their country not means they have to rights to have Tibet, even those exile Tibetan will not support your claim! basicly, india will make that move to try to invade Tibet no matter chinese was there or not, don't you see all other three countries were gone? Today, Even Dalai Lama is giving up his separation view, and trying to have a talk with the chinese government so that he could return when he still can, and he never said that Tibet should be India’s! China communist government, like any Chinese governments in the past, has ever rights to have Tibet back as part of the Chinese territory when we lost it to those invading countries. Simple as that! Tibet was never been, or ever will be having anything to do with India, in history, in percent, and in the further!

I hope you still reading it. I really can’t think why you think things this way, and start attack especially when you don’t really know anything about this issue, or even what others really talking about. You can’t just cut other’s statement and hope it could be used to against then back. a fight isn’t worth anything but listening do. Why do we have to discuss something with that sense of anger? So peace, alright?
January 20th, 2005  
i really start to doubt india's own military industry start read this article..
January 20th, 2005  
A few (very) off-topic posts removed.

Topic reminder: India's army

Please stay on topic from now on!

January 20th, 2005  
india friends, how r u doing

who won in the sino-india war anyway>???
January 21st, 2005  
i disagree with u on that...

every nation needs a strong military to enlarge its influence in the region and world...more influence, more power on the negotiating table and bla bla bla..

ppl need something more than food to live in a country-----national pride...military is a good way to provide that feeling which can also to help to hold the nation together