Suraj wrote:RajeshA wrote:Now of course NaMo can laugh in their face for the favor! Nothing stopping him! But is that really how diplomacy works? Isn't there a saying about I scratch your back you scratch mines?!
Let's reverse the situation. India has in the past stated Tibet is an integral part of China etc. Big favour to the Chinese of course. A very diplomatic move. Naturally they should have scratched our back. However, from all I've seen so far, they've only tried to stab us in the back instead.
Tibet is for China their forward defense, where they have gobbled up a region almost as big as India, a buffer region between India and China, and started calling it their own. They have moved the whole conflict to a non-traditional non-Han region, and are hardly fighting on their home turf behind the Great Wall of China. Every little victory there they can enjoy and every little loss hardly makes much of a difference. Tibet is hardly their home turf!
They are not in occupation of Tibet because they were squeamish about it, but rather because they were very aggressive about it!
Any concession we make on Tibet is interpreted by them as a confirmation of their aggressiveness, and not as some favor. Favors are appreciated when one is in a defensive mode, when one is trying to protect something dear! Tibet is their realm of expansion and imperialism. It is not their heartland! Sure they want to consolidate their expansion, and any concessions from India they will gladly take. A bully however feels no gratitude if the other gives in to his demands!
It is a terribly wrong mentality if we think of our Tibetan guests in Dharamsala as some sort of lever we have over China. That would mean we have mentally accepted China's occupation of Tibet and consider it now their territory, where as we are left with some needles only to prick at them, and we call it Chanakian! We are in fact holding on to the last corner, last tree of a "no-man's" garden between us and our neighbor, and should we really consider it us doing a favor to them if we don't protest their taking over that garden?!!!
It is because we have let go of that garden that today the Chinese are sitting on land that is Constitutionally ours - "Aksai Chin" and now PoK!
These are not favors you give examples of, this is appeasement! And the Chinese bully would look upon them accordingly!
Suraj wrote:Why would NaMo be the fairplay award winner in comparison ? The guy's shown his mettle in a hostile political environment where his own party was unsure of his national viability, and his opponents saw him as a livewire to direct their motivated opposition at. He didn't get where he is without being shrewd and determined. We give him little credit by pointlessly portraying him as some naive bakra waiting to bend over for PRC in the future.RajeshA wrote:I am just pointing out a 'pattern of diplomacy' the Chinese use! Why is that talking them up? And if I have not made any commentary on our behavior at all, where does the talking us down come in?
Their actions are typical of them. Ascribing all sorts of could/woulds to NaMo is just CTgiri. Worse, it implies he doesn't have the brains to see through their behavior, and that he'll just play along fairly...
Sorry, but all this talk of NaMo being screwed is simply your spin on this discussion. My commentary had nothing to do with his proclivity to be taken in by the Chinese.
NaMo went there, talked to the Chinese and got Indians freed from Chinese captivity! Nothing wrong with that! It was the right thing to do!
You're understanding the word "obligation" in a very black-and-white way! Even giving the Chinese freer access to himself is obliging them. Even giving them a patient hearing for their proposals is obliging them. Even looking at their investment proposals in Gujarat is obliging them. Even facilitating some Chinese business proposal which has been stuck up due to some doubts is obliging them. "Obliging" can be understood in many ways. It need not mean doing something anti-national. It can be something as simple as giving them preference over others, or easing away some bureaucratic obstacles for them. In one word, it is giving them more favorable attention in the future!
That is all I wanted to say! It was completely your twist on it to give it more sinister tones than the issue deserved!