Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 23 Aug 2014 02:25

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 2394 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 60  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 24 Jun 2009 23:24 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 37975
Katare, I think Tawang is important for them now as the current Dalai Lama was incarnated there. In '62 they thought he would become irrelevant and also the idea was to show down India. So they fear that the new DL will be identified outside their control.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2009 00:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51
Posts: 2351
China will never risk losing face in the mountains. There will be no war in the Himalayas unless India wants one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2009 00:36 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31
Posts: 13084
sanjaykumar wrote:
This is what needs to be kept under wraps until India has a $trillion defence establishment. No need for the fox to alarm the chickens.


It should be kept in wraps. There is no point in bursting the Chinese glass castle.

Quote:


Let's start by making the assumption, made by most world leaders, that current events won't lead to WWIII, where everyone loses.

Now think about conflict and instability in cynical economic terms. Both China and India want to export to the West and Japan. And in that current economy, both of them are going to have a lot of trouble making those exports. Suppose for a second, that a major wedge was driven between one of the powers of mainland Asia and a major importer, Europe, Japan or the US. Not enough to start war, but enough to disrupt trade. It's not hard to imagine that the one nation's lost trade is the other nations economic boom.

I think, the PR spinning of a hypothetical conflict between India and China would be far more tense and ugly then a military conflict which would most likely be low key. Because the economic fallout from appearing the "bad guy" could be far worse then any military consequences.

I think that India has the upper hand in this PR battle. Both Chinese and Indian immigrants are seen in a generally positive light in the US and Europe. Their governments are another matter entirely. A Chinese immigrant who comes to the west is in some sense leaving behind an authoritarian regime. An Indian immigrant is immigrating from one democracy to another. So it's easier to disassociate Chinese immigrants with the Chinese government.

Then there's the traditional close ties India has with the West. China might be the primary trade partner these days, but India has been building goodwill since before independence. The British commonwealth is certainly going to have a charitable view of a country which bears the unmistakable stamp of commonwealth influence. The US relationship is VERY tricky (Pakistan for one thing...) but India does receive US military hardware. And citizens of all democracies are going to be kindly disposed to the nation of Gandhi.

China isn't exactly doing itself any favors either. Getting in pissing matches with the US navy doesn't please anyone. The never ending standoff with Taiwan means Taiwan could chose to declare independence in the middle of the war, putting China in a whole new set of problems. Sure, everyone liked the Olympics, but all those nagging complaints will be brought to the forefront if China suddenly looks like a bully. And think about how many people in the US associate "made in China" with unemployment? Tibet might be the worst possible battlefield for China, and inevitable crackdown on Tibet will just look bad for China. And finally there's the ever nagging fact that China is a very hard nation for outsiders to understand and practices a unique, and confusing, brand of diplomacy.

I have no clue how such a conflict would play out in Japan, Korea, Pakistan and the Middle East. But in North America and Europe, India would be well positioned to portray itself as the defender of freedom and China as the big bad wolf. And if China lost the ability to export to US and European markets, the Chinese juggernaut might not look so dominating, they need those exports to keep their economy, and their country, running. If Chinese exports fall and India picks up the slack, I don't think it would take long until the observers conclude that China's rising sun has been eclipsed. Suddenly, we'll be saying that India is the future, the next superpower in the making and it's time to teach your kid the language.

Maybe I'm crazy cynical here. But there's reasons to be in competition and the economy is in trouble. In such an atmosphere, stranger things have happened.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2009 00:42 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31
Posts: 13084
Katare wrote:
In 62 they have attacked, won and occupied NE and than gave it back to India. The million dollar question is why would they attack, try to win and hold on to that area now when they didn't/couldn't do that In 62?

Terrain was unsustainable in 1962
Quote:
Obviously it would be a lot more difficult for China to forcibly occupy Arunachal Pradesh now, than it was in 1962.

What changes?

Their infrastructure, PLAAF support and long term planning and diversion potential with Pakistan makes them more confident.

Quote:
What is the motive?

Without expansion a large flabby nation as big as China starts imploding.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2009 00:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31
Posts: 1621
We need to do things openly but without making it a hyper-media event. Just like Chinese built their military infrastructure on their side of the border openly but without political/media statements.

Indian govt has only sanctioned raising two new mountain divisions, it'll take years before those can be raised, equipped, trained and deployed in the border region but every mediawallah is reporting that we have already deployed 60K additional troops and 2 squads of MKIs against China. While only 4 MKI's have just landed as a replacement for mig squadron in that base.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2009 01:19 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Mar 2009 02:08
Posts: 630
I agree with all the views here. Do it fast and good, but keep it low-key.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2009 01:24 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 14006
Location: General Error : Bhery Phamous General !
X-post.
regarding the string of pearls business.

Quote:
but in all this, there's an unspoken angle. the string of pearls moves by PRC is an outcome to their nervousness that in case of a hostility, India can blockade a large part of china's maritime trade especially its oil supply.
India can cut-off (or make economically unviable) virtually all of china's maritime links with europe africa and west asia if it wants to, with IN's current force level and with the current force level PLAN can't break through the blockade.

Think why, only a small part of PLAN fleet is battle-worthy(merely sea-worthy won't do) on the high seas. and given the naval prowess of china's neighbours (JMSDF, ROKN, ROCN not to mention the USN) PLAN has no other option but to retain a considerable part of its capital assets in the home fleet.
The balance, which PLAN can commit in an expeditionary role would be too little to force IN to lift a blockade.
This status-quo would continue for another 10-15 years at least given the current rate of expansion of PLAN, IN and PRC's adversarial navies.

At most PLAN would be able to use its subs, both conventional and nuclear to harass Indian Naval assets in a sea-denial role but that is unlikely to be succedsful in terms of objectives, namely lifting a blockade.

To put it simply, by virtue of her geographical location, India has a considerable strategic leverage over the PRC and the PRC has no alternative but to pro-actively attempt to negate India's advantage.

Hence all this hoopla with the string of pearls !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2009 02:12 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25
Posts: 377
ramana wrote:
Katare, I think Tawang is important for them now as the current Dalai Lama was incarnated there. In '62 they thought he would become irrelevant and also the idea was to show down India. So they fear that the new DL will be identified outside their control.


The present Dalai Lama was incarnated in a region near the China-Tibet border, not at Tawang.

Tawang is an important seat of Tibetan Buddhism. The monastery there has traditionally been home to the Panchen Lama, the second most important post after the dalai lama in Tibetan Buddhism.

Edited Later: Some googling revealed that Panchen Lama is not at Tawang, but even so, Tawang is an important seat of Tibetan Buddhism.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2009 03:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10707
Location: Illini Nation
Tawang is an important Buddhist city in the region.

THE reason it has caught the attention of the Chinese (now) is that the Dalai Lama is feared to reincarnate in a region outside Tibet (google - IIRC he stated that he would be a pain for the Chinese in the next incarnation - outside this thread for sure) - thus outside the control of the Chinese communist government.

"the region outside Tibet" essentially constitutes the sections bordering Arunachal Pradesh - give or take some - but Tawang seems to be the best among all these(?).

The Chinese would burst a vein if it were to be Tawang (where the NEXT DL reincarnates). The theory is that it would be so serious that the Chinese would be willing to go to war to take Tawang (and therefore AP).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2009 03:04 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10707
Location: Illini Nation
Will India be a passenger driven by China, Russia in new group?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2009 03:06 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10707
Location: Illini Nation
Krishna 'Raag'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2009 03:09 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10707
Location: Illini Nation
Catching up with China on fast growth track


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2009 03:12 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10707
Location: Illini Nation
Not entirely Indo-China, but ......... FYI ............

New study finds India’s Gen X and Y have lowest risk appetite in Asia-Pacific as both consumers and business leaders.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2009 03:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10707
Location: Illini Nation
Not entirely Indo-China, but ......... FYI ............

Why India Is No China


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2009 06:30 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Posts: 1710
Chinese media on India-bashing spree


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2009 06:42 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10707
Location: Illini Nation
I had read some time back - and I do subscribe to this theory - that there are two camps within China. One camp prefers a softer approach with emphasis on economic growth, and, the other is more of the militaristic camp, one that knows that the world cannot do without the Chinese and their economy and therefore is more inclined to be more assertive. It is said that it is the latter that is in control of the People's Daily (Global Times being the English version of the PD). It is said that the PLA is in the latter camp - for what it is worth.

Global Times wrote:
And while China wishes to coexist peacefully with India, this desire isn't born out of fear


Which neighboring country lives in peace with China?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2009 07:48 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14719
Location: Chennai
India-China border peaceful - Gen J.J.Singh
Quote:
At a media interaction on the margins of the Water Leaders Summit organised by the Singapore government and public utilities (as part of the Singapore International Water Week), General (Retd.) Singh said, “We hope the resolution of the [India-China] boundary issue will take place in due course of time.”

Unrelated to these comments, Tommy Koh, Chairmanperson of the Asia-Pacific Water Forum Governing Council and the Water Leaders Summit, told The Hindu that there was “no problem” at the meeting. Mr. Koh was asked whether any participant from China had voiced dissent over India being represented by the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh at the “ministerial forum” of the conference.


It is a good move by GoI to send the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh to such international meets where the Chinese also participate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2009 08:00 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10707
Location: Illini Nation
Singapore had to give Gen JJS a visa on his Indian passport too!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2009 08:41 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29
Posts: 1926
Can India run ahead of China?
Quote:
India seems to be on a stronger wicket right now, thanks to its higher dependence on domestic demand, its vibrant entrepreneurial culture and a young population. But that should not mean that catching up or overtaking China is inevitable.
The joker in the pack is the quality of national leadership. India needs to do several things if it has to realistically overtake China in the next decade: economic reforms, better infrastructure, less bureaucracy and intensive skill development, for example.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2009 08:52 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29
Posts: 1926
Catching up with China on fast growth track

The tortoise and the hare


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2009 08:58 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Posts: 638
What's with the Chinese? First they oppose India at NSG. They oppose ADB loan to India. They are not making progress on resolving the border dispute. They continue to arm Pakistan.

And when India puts some troops in AP to defend herself, these guys go ballistic. They start heaping insults by saying how they are so great blah blah. Well, if they are so great and a superpower then why are they getting so riled up by their poor backward neighbor.

It seems they expect to be treated as an emperor because they feel they are becoming a superpower. It frustrates them when India does not seem to care too much for their airs.

GoI has shown a lot of spine by sending JJ Singh to the conference. JJ Singh and GoI are showing no signs of appeasement by trying to retract what JJS said earlier. In fact JJS said that they will raise Arunachal scout which will give the people of Arunachal a chance to defend themselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2009 09:17 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29
Posts: 1926
Chasing ghosts
Quote:
...whenever Banyan prodded a military man from India or China, out leapt a Mahanite.For China’s strategic planners, securing sea lanes against hostile powers has become perhaps the chief preoccupation. For India’s, it is the growth of China’s presence in its backyard, in and around the Indian Ocean. In both countries Mahan is pressed into service in one planning paper after the next.

Quote:
That Asia should be looking to the sea makes sense. Threats to the two biggest countries historically came from their Central Asian hinterlands. But in terms of the spread of commerce, culture, religion and empire, Asia’s is a largely maritime history, carried on the monsoon winds.

Quote:
For Japanese imperialists (also Mahan fans), the Korean peninsula was a dagger at Japan’s heart; for Chinese strategists it is a threatening “bridgehead”. As for the Indian subcontinent, it is, in this Chinese analysis, “akin to a massive triangle reaching into the heart of the Indian Ocean” or, like Japan and Taiwan, “a giant and never-sinking aircraft-carrier”. India, in turn, espouses its own “Monroe doctrine”, demanding that outsiders keep out of its backyard. So it decries China’s “string of pearls” (roads, pipelines and ports being built in friendly countries around the Indian Ocean) as a provocation. Rivalry is helping drive a build-up of naval arms: three new aircraft-carriers for India; new destroyers, submarines and hints of an aircraft-carrier programme for China.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2009 09:26 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29
Posts: 1926
India interested in Western Europe – Western China transport project


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2009 22:03 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 37975
Useful post...

By dhu in IF today.

Quote:
INDIA AND CHINA

The cultural relations between India and China can be traced back to very early times. There are numerous references to China in Sanskrit texts, but their chronology is sketchy. The Mahabharata refers to China several times, including a reference to presents brought by the Chinese at the Rajasuya Yajna of the Pandavas; also, the Arthasastra and the Manusmriti mention China. According to French art historian, Réné Grousset, the name China comes from “an ancient” Sanskrit name for the regions to the east, and not, as often supposed, from the name of the state of Ch’in, the first dynasty established by Shih Huang Ti in 221 BC. The Sanskrit name Cina for China could have been derived from the small state of that name in Chan-si in the northwest of China, which flourished in the fourth century BC. Scholars have pointed out that the Chinese word for lion, shih, used long before the Chin dynasty, was derived from the Sanskrit word, simha, and that the Greek word for China, Tzinista, used by some later writers, appears to be derivative of the Sanskrit Chinasthana. According to Terence Duke, martial arts went from India to China. Fighting without weapons was a specialty of the ancient kshatriya warriors of India. Both Arnold Toynbee and Sir L. Wooley speak of a ready made culture coming to China. That was the Vedic culture of India.
Until recently, India and China had coexisted peacefully for over two thousand years. This amicable relationship may have been nurtured by the close historical and religious ties of Buddhism, introduced to China by Indian monks at a very early stage of their respective histories, although there are fragmentary records of contacts anterior to the introduction of Buddhism.
Gerolamo Emilio Gerini (1860 -1913) has said: «During the three or four centuries, preceding the Christian era, we find Hindu dynasties established by adventurers, claiming descent from the kshatriya potentates of northern India, ruling in upper Burma, in Siam and Laos, in Yunnan and Tonkin, and even in most parts of southeastern China». The Chinese literature of the third century is full of geographic and mythological elements derived from India. «I see no reason to doubt, — comments Arthur Waley in his book, The Way and its Power, — that the ‘holy mountain-men’ (sheng-hsien) described by Lieh Tzu are Indian rishi; and when we read in Chuang Tzu of certain Taoists who practiced movements very similar to the asanas of Hindu yoga, it is at least a possibility that some knowledge of the yoga technique which these rishi used had also drifted into China».

Chinese early religion was based on nature and had many things in common with Vedic Hinduism, with a pantheon of deities.
«Never before had China seen a religion so rich in imagery, so beautiful and captivating in ritualism and so bold in cosmological and metaphysical speculations. Like a poor beggar suddenly halting before a magnificent storehouse of precious stones of dazzling brilliancy and splendor, China was overwhelmed, baffled and overjoyed. She begged and borrowed freely from this munificent giver. The first borrowings were chiefly from the religious life of India, in which China’s indebtedness to India can never be fully told». (D. P. Singhal, India and World Civilization).

Arnold Hermann Ludwig Heeren (1760-1842) an Egyptologist and author of Historical researches into the politics, intercourse, and trade of the Carthaginians, Ethiopians, and Egyptians observes that «the name China is of Hindu origin and came to us from India».

«M. de Guigues says that Magadha was known to the Chinese by the name Mo-kiato, and its capital was recognized by both its Hindu name Kusumpura, for which the Chinese wrote Kia-so-mo-pon-lo and Pataliputra, out of which they made Patoli-tse by translating putra, which means son in Sanskrit, into their own corresponding word, tse. Such translation of names has thrown a veil of obscurity over many a name of Hindu origin. Hindu geography has suffered a great loss». (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Volume V).

Lin Yutang (1895-1976) author of The Wisdom of China and India wrote: «The contact with poets, forest saints and the best wits of the land, the glimpse into the first awakening of Ancient India’s mind as it searched, at times childishly and naively, at times with a deep intuition, but at all times earnestly and passionately, for the spiritual truths and the meaning of existence — this experience must be highly stimulating to anyone, particularly because the Hindu culture is so different and therefore so much to offer». Not until we see the richness of the Hindu mind and its essential spirituality can we understand India». «India was China’s teacher in religion and imaginative literature, and the world’s teacher in trignometry, quandratic equations, grammar, phonetics, Arabian Nights, animal fables, chess, as well as in philosophy, and that she inspired Boccaccio, Goethe, Herder, Schopenhauer, Emerson, and probably also old Aesop».

Sir William Jones (1746-1794) came to India as a judge of the Supreme Court at Calcutta. He pioneered Sanskrit studies. His admiration for Indian thought and culture was almost limitless. He says that the Chinese assert their Hindu origin.

Amaury de Reincourt (1918 - ) was born in Orleans, France. He received his B.A. from the Sorbonne and his M.A. from the University of Algiers. He is author of several books including The American empire and The Soul of India, he wrote: «The Chinese travelers’ description of life in India… reveals great admiration from all concerned for the remarkable civilization displayed under their eyes».
«India sent missionaries, China sending back pilgrims. It is a striking fact that in all relations between the two civilizations, the Chinese were always the recipient and the Indian the donor». «Indian influence prevailed over the Chinese, and for evident reasons: an undoubted cultural superiority owing to much greater philosophic and religious insight, and also to a far more flexible script» (Amaury de Riencourt, The Soul of India).

It is well known that in the Mahabharata the Cinas appear with the Kiratas among the armies of king Bhagadatta of Pragjyotisa or Assam. In the Sabhaparvan this king is described as surrounded by the Kiratas and the Cinas. In the Bhismaparvan, the corps of Bhagadatta, consisting of the Kirtas and the Cinas of yellow color, appeared like a forest of Karnikaras. It is significant that the Kiratas represented all the people living to the east of India in the estimation of the geographers of the Puranas. Even the dwellers of the islands of the Eastern Archipelago were treated as Kiratas in the Epics. The reference to their wealth of gold, silver, gems, sandal, aloewood, textiles and fabrics clearly demonstrates their association with the regions included in Suvarnadvipa. Thus, the connection of the Kiratas and Cinas is a sure indication of the fact that the Indians came to know of the Chinese through the eastern routes and considered them as an eastern people, having affinities to the Kiras, who were the Indo-Mongoloids, inhabiting the Tibeto-Burman regions and the Himalayan and East Indian territories, the word Kirata being a derivation from kiranti or kirati, the name of a group of people in eastern Nepal.

In early Indian literature China is invariably shown to be connected with India by a land-route across the country of the Kiratas in the mountainous regions of the north. In the Vanaparvan of the Mahabharata the Pandava brothers are said to have crossed the country of the Cinas in course of their trek through the Himalayan territory north of Badri and reached the realm of the Kirata king Subahu. The Cinas are brought into intimate relationship with the Himalayan people (Haimavatas) in the Sabhaparvan also. The land of the Haimavatas is undoubtedly the Himavantappadesa of the Pali texts, which has been identified with Tibet or Nepal. In the Sasanavamsa this region is stated to be Cinarattha. Thus, it is clear that China was known to the Indians as lying across the Himalayas and was accordingly included in the Himalayan territories. In the Nagarjunikonda inscription of Virapurusdatta, China (Cina) is said to be lying in the Himalayas beyond Cilata or Kirata. These references to the proximity of China to the Himalayan regions, inhabited by the Kiratas, show that there were regular routes through the Tibeto-Burman territories, along which the Indians could reach China.
Some such land-route is implied in the remark of the Harsacarita of Banabhatta that Arjuna conquered the Hemakuta region after passing through Cina. Of course, the route across Central Asia is perhaps alluded to in the itinerary of Carudatta from the Indus Delta to China across the country of the Hunas and the Khasas, described in the Vasudevakindi, and there is probably a reference to the sea-route, passing through Vanga, Takkola and Suvarnadvipa, in the Milindapanho. But there is no doubt that in a large number of ancient Indian texts China is mentioned near the eastern Himalayan regions, through which regular routes, connecting this country with India, passed from fairly early times. It was along these routes that India came into contact with China for the first time and developed commercial relations with her, that are referred to by Chan K’ien in the second century BC.
In Yunnan there is a large number of old pagodas. Some of them are the oldest and most beautiful in China. Their cornices and corner decoration, showing rows of pitchers (mangala ghata), betray unmistakable Indian influence. Many bricks of these pagodas bear Sanskrit inscriptions, containing Buddhist mantras and formulae in a script, which is identical with that current in Nalanda and Kamarupa in the 9th century. The beautiful bronze statue of Avalokitesvara from the pagoda of Ch’ung Sheng Ssu near Ta-li is an index to the high standard of culture and craftsmanship attained by the Buddhists of Yunan.
In earlier times, the people of the east, Magadha and Videha, were in contact with Yunan, as the traditions of Purvavideha show. The two names, Purvavideha and Gandhara, seem to represent these two successive eastern and western streams of Indian colonial and cultural expansion in this region.
Henry Rudolph Davies says that Besides Buddhism, Shaivism was also popular in Yunan as is manifest from the prevalence of the cult of Mahakala there. This ancient Indian colony in the south of China was the cradle of Sino-Indian cultural relationship for a long time.

It was an important outpost of Indian cultural expansion along the eastern land-routes, which Colonel Gerolamo Emilio Gerini (1860 -1913) author of Researches on Ptolemy’s geography of eastern Asia (further India and Indo-Malay archipelago) has described as follows: «During the three or four centuries, preceding the Christian era, we find Indu (Hindu) dynasties established by adventurers, claiming descent from the kshatriya potentates of northern India, ruling in upper Burma, in Siam and Laos, in Yunnan and Tonkin, and even in most parts of southeastern China. From the Brahmaputra and Manipur to the Tonkin Gulf we can trace a continuous string of petty states, ruled by those scion of the kshatriya race, using the Sanskrit or Pali language in official documents or inscriptions; building temples and other monuments after the Indu (Hindu) style and employing Brahmana priests for the propitiatory ceremonies, connected with the court and state. Among such Indu (Hindu) monarchies (Theinni) in Burma, of Muang Hang, C’hieng Rung, Muang Khwan and Dasarna (Luang P’hrah Bang) in the Lau country; and of Agranagara (Hanoi) and Campa in Tonkin and Annan». «The names of peoples and cities, recorded by Ptolemy in that region, however few and imperfectly preserved, are sufficiently significant to prove the presence of the Indu (Hindu) ruling and civilizing element in these countries, undoubtedly not so barbarous as the Chinese would make them appear». «It is evident through the medium of those barbarians that China received part of her civilization through India».
Among these colonies Tagong and upper Pugan were called Mayura; Prome was Sriksetra; Sen-wi (Theinni) was Sivirastra; Muang Hang, Chieng Rung and Muang Khwan were the three divisions of Ching Rung kingdom, which the prince of Yong, named Sunandakumara, united under Mahiyagananagara; Luang P’hrah Bang was Dasarna; Hanoi was Agranagara; Tagaung was Brahmadesa (P’o-o-men), where a Sanskrit inscription, dated in Gupta era 108 – 426 A.D. refers to Hastinapura, situated in that country; and, of course, Yunana was Purvavideha or Gandhara. Thus, from Arakan, where the Mrohaung inscriptions attest the efflorescence of Indian culture, language and literature, to Yunnan, whose history we have traced above, Indian culture made a triumphant advance in ancient time.

China, like Southeast Asia too, was colonized to some extent by the ancient Hindus. The religion and culture of China are undoubtedly of Hindu origin. According to the Hindu theory of emigration, Kshatriyas from India went and established colonies in China. India was known as T'ien-chu to the Chinese.
Colonel James Tod (1782-1835) author of Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan: or the Central and Western Rajput States of India has written: «The genealogies of China and Tartary declare themselves to be the descendents of ‘Awar’, son of the Hindu King ‘Pururawa’.
According to the traditions noted in the Schuking, the ancestors of the Chinese, conducted by Fohe, come to the plains of China 2,900 years before Christ, from the high mountains Land which lies to the west of that country. This shows that the settlers into China were originally inhabitants of Kashmir, Ladakh, Little Tibet and the Punjab, which were parts of Ancient India».
Kakuzo Okakura, speaking of the missionary activity of Indian Buddhists in China, says that at one time in the single province of Lo-yang there were more than 3,000 Indian monks and 10,000 Indian families to impress their national religion and art on Chinese soil.
Hu Shih, (1891-1962), Chinese philosopher in Republican China. He was ambassador to the U.S. (1938-42) and chancellor of Peking University (1946-48). He said: «India conquered and dominated China culturally for two thousand years without ever having to send a single soldier across her border».
Court Bjornstjerna (1779-1847) author of The Theogony of the Hindoos with their systems of Philosophy and Cosmogony says: «what may be said with certainty is that the religion of China came from India».
Chinese authors, too, according to Mountstuart Elphinstone (1779-1859) noted Indian ambassadors to the court of China.

How China was part of the Indian Vedic empire is explained by Professor G. Phillips on page 585 in the 1965 edition of the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. He remarks, «The maritime intercourse of India and China dates from a much earlier period, from about 680 B.C. when the sea traders of the Indian Ocean whose chiefs were Hindus founded a colony called Lang-ga, after the Indian named Lanka of Ceylon, about the present gulf of Kias-Tehoa, where they arrived in vessels having prows shaped like the heads of birds or animals after the pattern specified in the Yukti Kalpataru (an ancient Sanskrit technological text) and exemplified in the ships and boats of old Indian arts».
Chinese historian Dr. Li-Chi also discovered an astonishing resemblance between the Chinese clay pottery and the pottery discovered at Mohenja daro on the Indian continent. Yuag Xianji, member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, speaking at the C. P. Ramaswamy Aiyar Foundation, Madras, March 27, 1984 said, «Recent discoveries of ruins of Hindu temples in Southeast China provided further evidence of Hinduism in China. Both Buddhism and Hinduism were patronized by the rulers. In the 6th century A.D. the royal family was Hindu for two generations. The following Tang dynasty (7th to the 9th century A.D.) also patronized both Hinduism and Buddhism because the latter was but a branch of Hinduism. Religious wars were unknown in ancient China. There was extensive maritime trade and religious exchanges between India and China at this period (Ad 1-600) and the massive expansion of Indian influence into southern China through Jih-nan and Chiao-chih, in what is now northern Vietnam.
Albert Etienne Terrien de Lacouperie, author of Western Origins of Chinese Civilization states that the maritime intercourse of India with China dates from about 680 B.C. when the sea traders of the Indian ocean whose “Chiefs were Hindus” founded a colony, called Lang-ga, after the Indian name Lanka, about the present gulf of Kiaotchoa… And throughout this period the monopoly of the sea borne trade of China was in their hands».

India had contact with China from the early period through three routes. One was through the Central Asian region, the second was through Yunan and Burma. The third was by sea to the South Indian ports. The Arthasastra, the Mahabharata, and the Manu-Smriti show knowledge of China. Through all these routes trade and Hindu culture passed to China. Indian arts and sciences were carried to China along with Buddhism. Images, rock-cut caves and the fresco paintings show distinctly Indian influence on the Chinese art. Indian astronomy, mathematics and medicine were spread in China by the scholars who visited it. Several Sanskrit works on these sciences were translated into Chinese.
Chushu-King, a Chinese monk started for India in 260 A.D. But he returned from Khotan. Fa-hien, the first Chinese pilgrim to India stayed here during the Gupta period for some years. Che-mong another monk accompanied by a few others spent 20 years (404-424) in the pilgrimage of India. Hieun Tsang and I-Tsing during the 7th century are well-known. On his return to China, Hiuen Tsang was given a great national welcome by his emperor and the people as well.

The famous Shao-lin style of boxing is also attributed to Indian influence. Bodhidharma, (8th century AD) who believed in a sound mind in a sound body, taught the monks in the Shao-lin temple this style of boxing for self-defense for rejuvenating the body after exacting meditation and mental concentration.
According to the History channel martial arts were introduced in China by an Indian named Bodhidharma, who taught it to the monks so that they could defend their monasteries. He was also said to have introduced the concept of vital energy or chi (prana corresponds to this). This concept is the basis acupuncture.

The University of Nalanda built in the 4th century BCE was one of the greatest achievements of ancient India in the field of education. The Chinese scholar and traveler Hiuen Tsang (600-654 AD) stayed at the Nalanda University in the 7th century, and has left an elaborate description of the excellence, and purity of monastic life practiced here. He found Indians “high-minded, upright and honorable”.
China received Mahayanic Buddhism and Sanskrit texts from the Central-Asian provinces of India in 67 A.D. After that China became Hinduized not only in theology and metaphysics, but in every department of thought and activity. Thousands of Hindus lived in Chinese cities, eg. at Changan in the N.W. and at Canton on the sea, as priests, teachers, merchants, physicians, sculptors and "interpreters." The name of Chinese tourists, students, philosophers, and translators, also, in India is legion. The Chinese founded their drama on Hindu precedents, imported musical instruments (stringed) from India, and introduced even some of the acrobatic feats, dances and sports prevalent among the Hindus.
During his Indian tour the great Itsing (634-712) mastered Hindu medicine at the University of Nalanda. Hindu mathematics and logic were cultivated among the intellectuals of China; Sanskrit treatises on painting and art criticism, eg. Sadamga (six limbs of painting) in Vatsayana's Kamasutra (erotics), Chitralaksana (marks of painting), etc. furnished the canons of the Chinese art during its greatest epoch (Tang and Sung Dynasties 600-1250); and the traditional Confucianism had to be reinterpreted, eg. by Chu-Hsi (1130-1200) in the light of the imported Hindu philosophy. China became a part of “Greater India” in poetry, aesthetics, folk-festivals, morals, manners, and sentiments. The “Augustan Age” of Chinese culture, the age of the mighty Tangs and brillant Sungs, was the direct outcome of the ‘holy alliance’ for centuries between India and China.

In conclusion, it can be said that China was more influenced by India than India by China. Whilst Chinese monks came to acquire knowledge and take it back, the Indian monks went to China on specific religious missions to impart knowledge. There is hardly any evidence that the Chinese monks brought with them any work which was translated into an Indian language. It seems that during this period of Sino-Indian contact, the psychological atmosphere was one in which India was naturally accepted as the giver and China as the taker. Whilst the best in Indian thought was carefully studied and carried back to China, Chinese ideas filtered through India whether they represented the best of their culture or not.
According to Jawaharlal Nehru in his book The Discovery of India
«The most famous of the Chinese travelers to India was Hsuang Tsang who came in the seventh century when the great T'sang dynasty flourished in China and King Harshavardhana ruled over in North India. Hsuang-Tsang took a degree of Master of the Law at Nalanda University and finally became vice-principal of the university».
His book the Si-Yu-Ki or the Record of the Western Kingdom (meaning India), makes fascinating reading. He tells us of the system of the university where the five branches of knowledge were taught. 1. Grammar 2. Science of Arts and Crafts 3. Medicine 4. Logic and 5. Philosophy. Hsuan-Tsang was particularly struck by the love of learning of the Indian people. Many Indian classics have been preserved in Chinese translation relating not only to Buddhism but also to Hinduism, astronomy, mathematics, medicine, etc. There are supposed to be 8,00 such works in the Sung-pao collection in China. Tibet is also full of them. There used to be frequent co-operation between Indian, Chinese and Tibetan scholars. A notable instance of this co-operation, still extant, is a Sanskrit-Tibetan-Chinese dictionary of Buddhist technical terms. This dates from the ninth century and is named the ‘Mahavyutpatti.’
Soon after Hsuan-Tsang's death in China, yet another famous pilgrim made the journey to India — I-tsing (or Yi-tsing). He also studied at Nalanda University for a long time and carried back several hundred Sanskrit texts. He refers to India as the West (Si-fang), but he tells us that it was known as Aryadesha — arya means noble, and desha region — the noble region. It is so called because men of noble character appear there successively, and people all praise the land by that name. It is also called the Madhyadesha - the middle land, for it is in the center of a hundred myriads of countries.
Yet Chinese culture had some influence on India. The gabled roofs of houses on the western coast of India show a Chinese influence, as do the temples and houses in the Himalayan regions. Some Chinese influence is noted on Gupta coins. The use of a certain kind of silk (china-msuka) in India, different kinds of fruits including pears (cinaraja-putra), peaches (cinani), and lichis, the technique of fishing in the backwaters, and the porcelain industry all owe something to Chinese influence. Indians also learned the art of papermaking from China.



A lot of info to think over. Wonder if Mao Tse Tung's Cultural Revolution was to de-Indianise the Chinese?

We need to study more of our Eastern neighbors hisotry and links with India.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2009 22:19 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31
Posts: 13084
ramana wrote:

A lot of inof to think over. Wonder if Mao Tse Tung's Cultural Revolution was to de-Indianise the Chinese?


It is


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Jun 2009 07:56 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Posts: 1525
Location: Gora Paki
Wow...I must say this is one of those gold threads where reading is an absolute pleasure as there is minimum vomiting. Good Work guys keep it up!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Jun 2009 08:31 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Posts: 542
Location: MERCED, California
NRao wrote:
I had read some time back - and I do subscribe to this theory - that there are two camps within China. One camp prefers a softer approach with emphasis on economic growth, and, the other is more of the militaristic camp.

Birather,
There is another angle to this. Remember, the Great Genaral Feldmarschall, who had the genius of combined Rommell and Zukov in his humble self, attacked India as he thought if he waited too long, India would become too strong. In the case of China, the policy of one child per family will not only cause a shortage of blue collar workers, it will also mean less young men to fight a war with India. The best fighters are 18-25 year olds, and China has sent young soldiers in wave after wave to overwhelm Indian positions. Can she do this again in 15 to 20 years?
Gautam


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Jun 2009 20:42 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Nov 2007 00:51
Posts: 1117
Location: Jeering sekular forces bhile Furiously malishing my mijjile @ Led Lips Mijjile Malish Palish Parloul
^^^
This fact is not highlighted often, but China is aging fast. Their median age is already 32+ which is quite high for a developing country. India, in contrast has a median age of 26. So, if the Chinese are to wait for another few decades, not only will the sex ratio hurt their demographics, but also the IA will be facing peoples' glampas' liberation almy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Jun 2009 21:55 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10707
Location: Illini Nation
While a true statement, please do not discount importing people for the armed forces.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Jun 2009 06:04 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10707
Location: Illini Nation
Is China The real Threat To India?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Jun 2009 07:41 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2488
I have a query, how much can the recent maoist bravado be attributed to the Chinese ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Jun 2009 09:12 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Feb 2009 13:30
Posts: 420
derkonig wrote:
^^^
This fact is not highlighted often, but China is aging fast. Their median age is already 32+ which is quite high for a developing country. India, in contrast has a median age of 26. So, if the Chinese are to wait for another few decades, not only will the sex ratio hurt their demographics, but also the IA will be facing peoples' glampas' liberation almy.


While this is one angle to look at it, but remember that China wouldn't have had this one child policy for no good reason. Technology can offset the disadvantage of lesser human resource to certain extent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Jun 2009 20:34 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Apr 2009 00:08
Posts: 2066
Old Article. MUST READ.
---------
"Towards a new cold war China - USA".
23/03/2001
http://www.strategicsinternational.com/3engfouchet.htm
By Gérald Fouchet. Gérald Fouchet is a political analyst, a writer and a journalist.


Increasing geostrategic rivalry between the United States and China for the ownership of the Pacific establishes a line of very worrisome world fracture and anticipates from a "new cold war" more dangerous than the first.

China rearms. Why ?

Facts, at first, merciless : the People's Republic of China is the country in the world which increases its military budget in the most considerable proportions : on March 6, Peking announced an increase of military spending of 17,7 % in 2001, what brings them to 141 billion yuans, either 19 billion euro or 120 billion francs. The Occidental experts estimate that the real military expenditures are "two in three times as high that figures officially admitted" ("Le Monde", 07/03/2001). This rough progress is strongly observed for twenty years, and it constitutes the thirteenth consecutive increase, which exceeds 10 %. Contrary to Europe which disarms and cuts down on the military budgets, China makes so an effort of rearmament and massive military increase of its power, superior to what Germany made between 1933 and 1940 and to the military budget of the USA after Pearl-Harbor.

Why ?

For a long time, one knows that a country that rearms obeys two hypotheses : either it feels threatened and wants to protect itself, or it wants to attack. Whom China does it want to attack ? Taiwan, to re-conquer it ? No, because it would not need to rearm so strongly to re-conquer the island ; and the strategy is the one of the "persuasion" : China wants to get back Taiwan gently ; a war would ruin juicy economy of the lost province of which is needed by China. It envisages Taiwan, as an intended "autonomous region", just like Hong-Kong according to the famous proverb "a single country, two economic systems". General Régis de Marsan, suggested (in "le Soir" 28/02/2001) "that it is necessary to put in parallel the Chinese military budget with the depopulation of Russia". Would it be so Russia that China wants to attack ? One knows that China could claim a part of the Eastern Siberia, where infiltrate her migrants. One remembers Chinese, Russian fights on the Amour of the 60s. There is not nevertheless geopolitical Chinese preoccupation ; the Empire of the middle does not feel at all threatened by Russia more than by India (especially since the Russians always supply her with weapons, notably the hunters, bombers Sukhoï). China has interest to maintain good relations with these two continental powers. For which reasons then does China rearm ? Because the Chinese have a presentiment of the possibility of a major conflict, in the 21-th century, with the big thalassocratic superpower : the United States. China, a nation (as France) at the same moment maritime and continental understood that the Pacific, at present under American control, was going to become a major place of friction. Let us not forget also that two military superpowers from 2015 will be the United States and China. This last one foresees a situation similar to that of "cold war" Western block-USSR of the years 1947-1991. And, within the framework of this rearmament, it is necessary to know that China does not increase at all its actual ground (what would be the case in the hypothesis of continental inhabitants conflict of the border zone) but, as accidentally ; 1) China develops the strength its open sea fleet and submarine - Peking plans the launching of aircraft carrier - and its aviation ; 2) she improves the ballistic and nuclear capacities, preparing also military spy satellites ; 3) she revalues all the pays, to motivate the army. The Chinese get well ready for a conflict of "postmodern" type, centered on the electronic war, the missiles, the planes, the submarines and the satellites, a conflict which would have inevitably a nuclear aspect. The Pentagon perfectly realized it.

The true reasons of the American anti-missiles shield (NMD).

In defiance of the agreements of nuclear disarmament SALT - and in formal discord with China, Russia and France - M.G.W. Bush wants to endow his country of interceptors shield anti-missiles (NMD) capable of shooting down in flight possible nuclear warheads launched against the American territory (1). He breaks there "balance of terror", which avoided any atomic war due to the "mutual assured destruction" (MAD, mutual assured destruction) ; this last relaying on an implicit pact between nuclear powers, according to which the aggressor, by being certain to be struck by an atomic riposte, is dissuaded from launching his A-bombs or H. But, if a country, in this particular case the USA, possesses a shield anti-missiles, it can allow himself any war type against a nuclear power without being afraid of serious retort.

The commentators of world press assert that the Americans want to protect themselves against possible atomic ballistic striking "from rogue States", that is North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc. The press relations departments of the White House confirm obviously this version. Nevertheless, it is little credible. The above-mentioned countries are not mad or with suicidal tendencies. They know that they are not world major powers. In the hypothesis (highly improbable) where they could endow of nuclear missiles with long reach capable of reaching the USA, they would not take the stupid risk of an aggression that would provoke on their ground a devastating retort. Really, everything indicates that the Pentagon envisages a major confrontation with China in twenty years, and wants to give itself the means to knock (not necessarily with nuclear annihilation moreover) without risk of nuclear counter-offensive on the American territory. In brief, the thesis, which we propose, is the following one : the NMD, the shield anti-missiles American, is probably intended to protect the USA of an atomic Chinese threat. The logic of the nuclear deterrence is similar at the same moment to the game of chess, and also, to the game of go : the American leaders know very well (and we shall there speak in a more low voice) that China, considering the 1,25 billion inhabitants, is afraid much less than them of nuclear striking. The protection is its demography. This American project of defense anti-ballistic missiles (NMD) defended by the administration Bush, is considered in China as an aggressive measure, almost a casus belli. Traditionally, contrary to the Occidentals, the Chinese use a very diplomatic language and mask any hostility of language. When this last one appears, it is that the things are serious. Sha Zukang, the Chinese negotiator on the disarmament, could declare: "The United States will have a position at the same moment defensive and offensive. I do not believe that the other nuclear powers would tolerate a superiority and a security absolved by Americans, while they would feel in a situation of absolute insecurity". He said it again in these terms during a press conference in Canada : "I hate the NMD, produced by an American mentality of cold war, people who look themselves for new enemies, China maybe...". And then, he had this sentence, very calculated, but heavy of threats : "China is too big so that the Americans send it on the Moon. The Chinese are on the earth for 5 000 years and will stay there forever". Finally, sign also disturbing, the influent Teng Jianqun, chief editor of the official World Military Review wrote at once, always about the NMD, the American spatial shield anti-nuclear missiles, that this last one was in fact intended to prepare a war against China ; he noted : "when a country prepares a confrontation with China in the space, we have to pay to it serious attention".

Let us not forget a central fact that the American thalassocracy, in spite of the ultra-pacifist official speech and humanitarian, is an "imperial nation" based on war and military function. The USA need war ("just war", crusade against the miserable, obviously), not only for economic reasons - the industry of armament is a technical-industrial and financial locomotive - but to maintain their "defenders - rulers" world status of the world. Since 1941, the USA is the country in the world, which led the biggest number of military operations and bombardments outside its borders. However, without being ever afraid for the integrity of the territory. There, things change : they have not to deal any more with small countries, Vietnam, Panama, Serbia, etc. However, with enormous China, terrifying challenger, which, with the 1,25 billion inhabitants, can support heavy losses of nuclear striking, and which endows at present time, missiles of long reach ! Perspective is much worse than in front of the deceased the USSR. Breaking radically with the politics of Clinton, the President Bush junior declared, at the beginning of March, what press little raised, but who is nevertheless major : "China is a rival and not a strategic partner". A war will have maybe for theater and central stake the Pacific and will set possibly the USA and China, by 2010. Which will be the excuse of it, on which disputes will it burst ? At the moment, nobody knows it. But, contrary to nearsighted and improvident European politicians who "have no more enemies", who do not feel more threatened by nobody, who disarm, for whom military function is only a force of police for humanitarian interposition, the American strategists read Clausewitz ; they argue in the long run and know that war is always possible, tomorrow, between two major powers even though, today, one does not know the exact excuses of it. It said, the global stake in such confrontation, we guess it easily : it is the dominion of Pacific Ocean.

Analyze forms of a rising conflict.

Therefore, a major conflict for the ascendancy between China and the United States is likely, but not certain, for 21-th century. In any cases, a constant rivalry during 21-th century is absolutely evident. It will take either the forms of opened conflicts, or a permanent tension, with always the risk of nuclear striking. All the question is to know which camp will choose the European Union, Russia, India and the Moslem States. Anyway, a new cold war begins. China appears as the appearance in the history of a future hyper-power such as the humanity has ever seen yet. Regretted Alain Peyrefitte in his book "When China will wake up" had predicted it : China will be in the 21-th century a 1/5-th representing unified State of the humanity. Never a similar case had occurred.

What are relations between Peking and the new republican administration and why do they degrade ? Much more than of the time of Clinton, the circle of acquaintances of Bush dreads the ascent in military power of the Empire of middle. Quian Qichen, Vice Prime Minister, diplomatic councilor of the Head of State and the Chinese CP, went to the White House on March 22. China not being any more, according to the statements of Mr. Bush, a "strategic partner" but a "strategic competitor", Peking tries to defuse American distrust, according to the technique of the game of go : to put to sleep then to suffocate the opponent rather than to provoke it ; traditional practice in China since the Emperors Ming, where according to Lao-Tseu's rule, resumed by Mao, it is always necessary "to smile to his most dangerous enemy and to show teeth to smaller enemy". China tries therefore to calm the fears of the big American rival, but is not ashamed to cover Taiwan of invectives. Nevertheless, an internal document in the Chinese CP of March, 2001, posterior to the election of Mr. Bush, reveals that the geostrategic purpose of China is "to counter the development of the hegemonies and the law of the strongest". What means this sibylline formula ? The Chinese have time, they calculate always in the long run. Their objective is, at first, not only to get back Taiwan, the rebel island, for reasons as economic as political, but also, in a second time, to distend defender links between the USA and their two main Asiatic allies : South Korea and Japan. In a third time, China attends resuming the mastery of peaceful, commercial and military - including on Australia where it encourages a Chinese immigration - by trying hard, notably to close American bases as the one from Okinawa. China gives itself about twenty years to reach this objective. Now this last one is as unacceptable for the USA as a geostrategic alliance, outside the NATO, between peninsular Europe and Russia ("Euro-Siberia "). The double nightmare of the Pentagon, it is that the American thalassocracy sees itself eliminated from the Pacific by China, and from the Euro-Russian continent by an ascent in power of Russia, allied to an European Union breaking with the NATO. However, nothing will be able to divert China of its aim on the Pacific where it wants to substitute itself from the American defender. China knows that economically and geo-strategically the Pacific - all around on which will live in 2020 the two thirds of the humanity - will be in the 21-th century what were the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean for the other centuries. China would obviously prefer to obtain the hegemony, which would dedicate it as superpower without conflict with the USA. However, a conflict does not frighten the Empire of middle.

New American position is the following one : if China, ambitions of that seem disproportionate, breaks the pax Americana in the Pacific, it will be a casus belli. Administration Bush understands that China stays an "intermediate power", as India or Japan. Now, the Americans began to pass in the offensive : one remembers the "accidental" bombardment of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, which was intended to test the level of riposte of Peking, according to the Italian secret services. More recently, they accuse China for helping technologically it "Rogue State" that constitutes Iraq, what is probably a lawful charge. They intend to sell to Taiwan frigates anti-missiles provided with radar Aegis system, (following the sale by France of frigates La Fayette), as well as missiles (to counter the recent rockets M9 and M11 pointed by China on its Southern coast), which would make difficult an attack against the island ; they block the membership of China in the World trade organization, for fear of being submerged by the subsidized Chinese farm produces. And, in end of March, 2001, the United States decided to sponsor a resolution in front of the commission of human rights from the UNO, which sat in Geneva for "to condemn serious violations of human rights in China".

Another litigious, rather explosive matter, deserves to be mentioned : the major question of the reunification of two Koreas, inevitable at long-term, because of disaster provoked by Pyongyang's regime. At the moment, Peking supports to the end Kim Jong Il's regime. The objective is the creation of Korea reunited under the Chinese crook, with a system "authoritarian capitalist" as in Hong-Kong. American objective is apparently close, but inverse : the creation of unique Korea, the consequent economic and military power, under American hegemony. The purpose of the USA is clear : to intimidate China and to contain it by three "guns" and competitors aimed against it, Japan, Korea and Taiwan. Peking, toward these States tries to play the argument of the "ethnic solidarity" of the Asiatic against Occidentals.

One other friction is Vietnam. Washington lost the first game, because, due to the Chinese help to North Vietnam imposed on the Uncle Sam the first military defeat of its history. But the USA want to take their revenge, a "peaceful" revenge, but which arouses the exasperation of the Chinese CP : to help Vietnam to "de-communized", to make a capitalist country of it which returns in the American lap. Economic incompetence and financial necessities of the regime of Hanoi go to the direction of the American strategy, especially since the Vietnamese are historically very suspicious toward the Chinese, with whom they knew sporadic military confrontations (victorious for the Vietnamese) on the north border, after the reunification.

Towards a Chinese capitalist national capitalism.

The main thing is to understand that, in all the history of the humanity, the cause of conflicts and wars was never mainly ideological, but nationalist. Cold war between the West and the communism has never degenerated into warm war, because at the bottom, conflict was at first ideological, between the communism and the capitalism. On the other hand, Second world war began, one forget it too often, not by a fight between the German National Socialism, the Italian fascism, the Occidental democracies and the communism, but on a nationalist and geopolitical rivalry of the European countries : Germany, Russia, France, United Kingdom, etc. Ideology intervenes only as excuse, as "by-product" would have said the sociologist Pareto. Also today, what is very disturbing in the rising rivalry between China and the USA, it is that it is not any more about an ideological conflict between the Chinese communism and the American, logical capitalism totally exceeded, but by the return in a classic geopolitical rivalry of powers. China does not look any more at all, as of the time of Mao, to defend communist messianism, to export its model in Far East, or to take the head of a crusade of the poor countries against the Occidental capitalism. China exchanged communism for the nationalism. The objective, very cunning, is double 1) To preserve an authoritarian regime with unique party, militarist, with the aim of becoming first world power by 2020. 2) For more efficiency, the Chinese CP decided, under Jiang Zemin's presidency, to pass gradually in a capitalist economy (in two speeds, note), what worries the Pentagon, because the USA eventually understood that an opponent within market economy was more successful and dangerous than an opponent for the communism to be paralyzed. At this level, the Americans are taken in the net of a painful dilemma : in atavistic storekeepers, they can not make otherwise that to invest in the Chinese market, which is called to become colossal (the USA are the first foreign investor) but, by this making, they strengthen regime and contribute to modernize the giant, to increase the wealth (and therefore the techno-military capacities) and to make a dreadful commercial competitor, capable of pulling Japan in its orbit.

One of the American trump cards is that Peking is at the moment badly seen by its Asiatic neighbors ; they prefer by far an American hegemony to a Chinese hegemony, which would be much rougher. That is why, the Chinese CP does not stop multiplying statements of good intentions to all the countries of the region, beginning with Japan, to which is opening the doors to investments in South China.

The worsening of Chinese - American relations.

The most crucial and the most dangerous dispute concerns the Chinese capacity to endow nuclear missiles of long reach. China proceeded, since 1990, to a constant increase of its spatial performances from rockets "Long March" (inspired by the soviet technology), capable of putting into orbit several tons. It means simply that China tests also there, its intercontinental vectors ICBM, simple or "mirvés" (2), capable of affecting the USA. The military ballistic technique appeals, indeed, to the same resources and the knowledge as the programs of orbiting.
Chinese - American relations still deteriorated in March 23, 2001 by the desertion in the USA of a superior officer, a colonel of the popular Army of liberation ( APL). Worse still : his wife found refuge in the USA by the intervention of the American embassy in Peking, what the Chinese consider as a humiliation and a "serious incident". And as for Qian Qichen's visit, Chinese Vice Prime Minister, in the White House, on March 22, what we evoked higher, it was a considerable failure because the Chinese did not obtain American renunciation of the sale to Taiwan of a shield anti-missiles Aegis (3). This point was nevertheless crucial for Peking. Mr. Bush and his State Secretary, the "falcon" Colin Powel, big artisan of the War of the Bay, attend applying literally the Treaty of Taiwan's protection signed in 1979 (4), while Mr. Clinton was ready to negotiate a possible reunification gently, according to a "process in Hong-Kong".

Another serious dispute between Peking and Washington, little known by the public and little evoked by the European press, concerns the suspension by the CP of freedom of religion, and notably the discreet suppression of Christianity. In September, 2000, a campaign of destruction of churches by dynamiting would have begun. Several thousand buildings were destroyed, claim the Americans ; what deny obviously the Chinese leaders. It is one of the reasons for which administration Bush has just accused China in front of the committee of the human rights of UNO, gathered in Geneva (for seeing higher). For the Chinese leaders, this American instigation on "human rights" in their own country, this constant criticism of the "dictatorial" and "repressive" character of their regime establishes, according to the usual term, the "unbearable intervention", the humiliation, which reminds the semi-colonial time of the "uneven treaties" and the "territorial concessions" of the beginning of 20-th century. The Chinese were extremely hurt by the following statement of Mr. Bush (during the visit, quoted in this article, during Mr. Qian) : "Our guests will not be surprised if I say that I believe in the freedom of religion and that it would be doubtless much easier to forge ahead in a constructive way in our relations if our interlocutors honored freedoms of religion inside their borders" (5). For the Chinese, it is a question there, not only intervention, but also moral imperialism. Do they require that, the United States and the West, apply the Chinese cultural rules ? Let us underline there, moreover, a fundamental philosophic and ideological difference between China and West - more particularly the USA. One knows that, in the history, philosophic breaks between civilizations, the "breaks of vision of the world", according to the statement of the political analyst Julien Freund feed hostilities, and instigate geostrategic conflicts. This difference does not concern at all the choice of a social economic system (of the type communism against capitalism), what the Chinese, in pragmatic checks, laugh at. It concerns the universalistic ethics of human rights and democracy to the Occidental that the Chinese leaders take absolutely as issue. In followers of Confucius and Lao-Tseu, much more than Marx, the Chinese laud relativism and not universals. For them, the notion of democracy and the philosophy of human rights are not applicable only to the West, not in the other areas cultural identity. Furthermore, they dispute the aptness of these notions, deducing that the United States themselves - donors of lessons - do not respect their own hypocritical principles, for example by bombarding Serbia or the embassy of China in Belgrade.

In conclusion.

Let us not forget that China and the United States had been already in military confrontation in 1951, during the war of Korea, and indirectly, during the war of Vietnam. One will notice that never the United States and the former USSR had directly been in confrontation.
The two main lines of fracture and risks of conflicts of 21-th century will concern a confrontation Islam-Europe and Islam-India on one hand, and China - USA on the other hand (Islam West China the USA).

As demonstrated it by Alexandre Del Valle in two of the recent works, and in some of goods articles of American foreign policy aims to neutralize the European and Russian rivals by playing the card of the Islam, as the war of Serbia demonstrated by it. However, the USA has a more serious preoccupation on their western side : to neutralize China. They feel as a thalassocratic island surrounded, obliged to control the Big threatening Continent. There is a constant in the history of wars, which obeys to a strange paradox, which geopolitical appoints "the paradox of the Trojan War". It can formulate as : opened wars burst between two powers or two coalitions on particular and unpredictable excuses, which are never fundamental because ; these last ones are a global, strategic, economic, ethnic rivalry, etc. which looks only for a spark, at the bottom secondary, to degenerate into opened conflict. First-rate Trojan War immortalized by Homer, set in fact the young cities Greek-achenian against the city, State of Troy, installed near Bosphorus, and commercially formidable and military rival. The pointless excuse of the release of hostilities and expedition of Agamemnon was a loving jealousy (the removal of beautiful Hélène by Trojans). However, the real cause of the conflict was the geostrategic will of the Greeks to eliminate their oriental competitors and to appropriate the Aegean Sea.

Many wars can analyze according to this railing, which distinguishes the excuses of essential causes, backcloths. Now, in the case of the potential conflict China - USA, we can track down a structural backcloth extremely loaded in hostility : rivalry for the hegemony on the Pacific ; fear that the USA, become unique superpower, to see re-appearing a competitor otherwise more dangerous than the deceased USSR, because much more populated, and because at the same moment continental and maritime power, what is not Russia ; America been also afraid of the world economic and technological competition of the Empire of Middle and its tremendous demographic mass ; flourish of Chinese nationalism which becomes aware of its immense power and which has a debt to be adjusted, a revenge to be set against the West which would have humbled it since the beginning of 20-th century with the "uneven treaties", etc.

In brief, the conflicting "backcloth" is particularly dangerous. The dispute China - USA is much heavier than former contentious the USA - USSR, because it is geostrategic and either ideological, and also because it is similar, as being showed by Samuel Huntington, in a shock of civilizations.

That is why, as the French-German wars of 19-th and 20-th centuries, which could burst under any excuse, one can not say that "Taiwan's problem" will be inevitably cause of a confrontation. Quite other excuse can appear. The future is always opened, everything is possible. As for 2020, Chinese - American rivalry will make only increase, as a powder keg, which does not stop filling. Nevertheless, we do not know the name of the lock, which will blow up it. To summarize this analysis, we shall say that a global confrontation between North America and China constitutes one of major risks in the 21-th century, without we can know the excuse of its explosion, or the shape, which it will take. Anyway, a philosophic spirit could notice that we are going to assist during 21-th century in the confrontation of the most ancient civilization of the world (China), an alive and homogeneous long-alive people, according to the statement of Raymond Ruyer, and of the most recent (America), which is moreover more a society than a historic civilization, a diverse and short-alive people.


Last edited by shravan on 27 Jun 2009 23:29, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Jun 2009 21:24 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Posts: 1242
Location: Pindi
Quote:
Unrelated to these comments, Tommy Koh, Chairmanperson of the Asia-Pacific Water Forum Governing Council and the Water Leaders Summit, told The Hindu that there was “no problem” at the meeting. Mr. Koh was asked whether any participant from China had voiced dissent over India being represented by the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh at the “ministerial forum” of the conference.


Why such question was asked?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Jun 2009 23:22 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10707
Location: Illini Nation
shravan ji,

A URL would have sufficed for this older article? Also, the article belongs to the "Understanding China" thread - this one really not having anything to do with Indo-China?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Jun 2009 23:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Apr 2009 00:08
Posts: 2066
NRao wrote:
shravan ji,

A URL would have sufficed for this older article? Also, the article belongs to the "Understanding China" thread - this one really not having anything to do with Indo-China?


NRao,

I will insert the URL. The article talks about India as well as Islam... :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Jun 2009 00:08 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10707
Location: Illini Nation
True.

But even Europe has moved on. There have been, in the past week, small commentaries in FT on this topic (today's is WRT Germany).

2009 is wildly different.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Jun 2009 00:48 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Apr 2009 00:08
Posts: 2066
NRao wrote:
True.



NRao Ji,

The reason why I posted the article was for the smaller details. Which gives a clear idea where we are heading.

Iraq & Islam is a classic example from the article.

Chinese Fiber-Optic Work Linked to Raided Iraqi Sites

February 21, 2001
Chinese workers were helping the Iraqi military build a fiber-optic network linked to radar stations and other targets attacked by American and British warplanes last week.
:twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Jun 2009 03:25 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10707
Location: Illini Nation
All that is very old news. That Iraqi stuff was posted on BR loooooong back!!

Remember: BR - where tomorrow comes today.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Jun 2009 06:54 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Posts: 2174
Location: Dark side of the moon
The following passage is ostensibly from Sun Tzu's classic The Art of War. Helps explain much of PRC actions w.r.t. India and others thus far.

Quote:
Bait them with the prospect of gain, bewilder and mystify them.
Use anger to disrupt them, humility to make them arrogant.
Tire them by running away, cause them to quarrel among themselves.
Attack them when they do not expect it, when they are least prepared.
Be so subtle that you are invisible.
Be so mysterious that you are intangible.
Then you will control your rivals' fate.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 2394 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 60  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anindya, debadutta, Google [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, Nandu, saip and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group