India's Best Friend

[sandeep]

7 hours ago, zen said:

That idiot is blocked by me .... back on topic:

 

Marching in to Tibet with Ind army’s presence (even in small numbers) is a different military and diplomatic proposition to marching in to Tibet with just the Tibetan army (less risk of other ramifications) .... China would have had to take the initiative to negotiate with Ind (and therefore potentially trigger international intervention).... Which is why the Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai Nehru’s policy worked for China

 

Appears as if you did not get the scope and scale of the “defence agreement”. You assumed it to be some kind of treaty on paper only! 

 

Efforts to safeguard the nation and its friends have to be made. Or we end up trying to discover and discuss who Ind’s best friend is

 

Anyways, continue to hype up China to shield Nehru, whose Hindi-China Bhai Bhai dreams, the “gamble” that you described, were shattered soon

Its not a question of 'hyping up' China.  China was economically struggling as bad as India back then.  But they were an ideologically governed autocracy.  One that didn't flinch in sacrificing the lives of thousands of soldiers or even civilians.  They weren't much stronger than India was, but they were orders of magnitude more determined, more invested, in grabbing Tibet.  How many soldiers do you think India would have been able to station in Tibet?  A few hundred?  If you think that the CCP would have hesitated in annexing Tibet due to the presence of a token force, you are deluding yourself.  And let's face reality, India absolutely could not muster more than a poorly equipped token force in Tibet.  

 

Any way you choose to slice it, a defence agreement or 'alliance' with Tibet would not have been enough to 'save' Tibet.  This is not to excuse Nehru's mistakes vis-a-vis China.  He made many of them, and Himalayan ones at that.  But let's call a spade a goddam spade, when talking about historical facts, instead of being blinded by personal biases.  

[zen]

2 hours ago, sandeep said:

Its not a question of 'hyping up' China.  China was economically struggling as bad as India back then.  But they were an ideologically governed autocracy.  One that didn't flinch in sacrificing the lives of thousands of soldiers or even civilians.  They weren't much stronger than India was, but they were orders of magnitude more determined, more invested, in grabbing Tibet.  How many soldiers do you think India would have been able to station in Tibet?  A few hundred?  If you think that the CCP would have hesitated in annexing Tibet due to the presence of a token force, you are deluding yourself.  And let's face reality, India absolutely could not muster more than a poorly equipped token force in Tibet.  

 

Any way you choose to slice it, a defence agreement or 'alliance' with Tibet would not have been enough to 'save' Tibet.  This is not to excuse Nehru's mistakes vis-a-vis China.  He made many of them, and Himalayan ones at that.  But let's call a spade a goddam spade, when talking about historical facts, instead of being blinded by personal biases.  

As I said, it is a different proposition (both from military and diplomatic pov) to march in to a territory with forces from multiple nations than just Tibet’s 

 

You are hung up on what China can do or not totally ignoring other possibilities that could have been created with certain actions and assuming that an event would have taken place no matter what. China wants Taiwan too. But unlike in Tibet, it would not march in to it because the conditions are different than in Tibet 

 

What Ind failed to do was not create different conditions that would have discouraged China. Please read the blogs posted throughly to also understand what is implied. The points being made are much deeper than “China could have done xyz no matter what” (similar to my exam paper comment) 

 

Ind has 100s of years of history with Tibet, which on international matters used to function primarily through India. We let a friend down and made no real effort to safeguards its and Ind’s interest 

 

From one of the blogs: 

 

This was not true, for in September 1949, more than a year before the Chinese invasion, Nehru himself had written: “Chinese communists are likely to invade Tibet.” The point to note is that Nehru, by sending mixed signals, showing more interest in Korea than in Tibet, had encouraged the Chinese invasion; the Chinese had made no secret of their desire to invade Tibet. In spite of this, Nehru’s main interest was to sponsor China as a member of the UN Security Council instead of safeguarding Indian interests in Tibet.

 

Because of this, when the Chinese were moving troops into Tibet, there was little concern in Indian official circles. Panikkar, the Indian Ambassador in Beijing, went so far as to pretend that there was ‘lack of confirmation’ of the presence of Chinese troops in Tibet and that to protest the Chinese invasion of Tibet would be an “interference to India’s efforts on behalf of China in the UN”.

 

So Panikkar was more interested in protecting Chinese interests in the UN than India’s own interests on the Tibetan border! Nehru agreed with his Ambassador. He wrote, “our primary consideration is maintenance of world peace… Recent developments in Korea have not strengthened China’s position, which will be further weakened by any aggressive action [by India] in Tibet.” So Nehru was ready to sacrifice India’s national security interests in Tibet so as not to weaken China’s case in the UN!

 

Edited August 1, 2018 by zen

[sandeep]

Instead of repeated parroting of certain quotes from blogs(!!) as if they were mantras, you'd be better off doing a bit of reading so you have a better understanding of the geopolitics and history of China, Tibet and India in the 1940s and 50s.  

 

For the umpteenth time, Nehru miscalculated and made mistakes in his policy choices regarding China - but even if he hadn't made those mistakes, Tibet was unlikely to stay out of Chinese clutches.  No amount of one-eyed pseudo-historian blogging can change those facts.  

 

Regarding Taiwan, again, you are broadcasting your lack of knowledge on the details of Taiwan-China.  Chiang Kai Shek and the 'nationalists' originally controlled large swathes of China, and were the de facto rulers.  Mao and the CCP routed them across the mainland and were unable to take Taiwan due to the hard realities of geography and logistics.  Realities similar to those that put Tibet within their reach, and out of India's capacity to defend, regardless of intent - Nehru's or Sardar Patel's.  

 

You may not like to accept it, or choose to believe it, but it doesn't mean that the earth is flat.  

[Khalpat]

Pakistan

 

They keep us always on toes 

 

They make sure our armed forces get regular practice

 

They take our name the most at any international conference and keep us popular

 

They all want to come to our country and earn either in IPL or Movie industry

 

They are the once who are most interested in our politics infact they love our politicians like Lalu, Mamta, Mulayam etc

 

They love our journalists like Barkha much more than Indians do

 

Some Indian politician want to send many people of our country to Pakistan for some odd reasons

 

Above all they remind us every now and then that BC whatever u become do not become like us

 

 

[zen]

2 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Instead of repeated parroting of certain quotes from blogs(!!) as if they were mantras, you'd be better off doing a bit of reading so you have a better understanding of the geopolitics and history of China, Tibet and India in the 1940s and 50s.  

 

For the umpteenth time, Nehru miscalculated and made mistakes in his policy choices regarding China - but even if he hadn't made those mistakes, Tibet was unlikely to stay out of Chinese clutches.  No amount of one-eyed pseudo-historian blogging can change those facts.  

 

Regarding Taiwan, again, you are broadcasting your lack of knowledge on the details of Taiwan-China.  Chiang Kai Shek and the 'nationalists' originally controlled large swathes of China, and were the de facto rulers.  Mao and the CCP routed them across the mainland and were unable to take Taiwan due to the hard realities of geography and logistics.  Realities similar to those that put Tibet within their reach, and out of India's capacity to defend, regardless of intent - Nehru's or Sardar Patel's.  

 

You may not like to accept it, or choose to believe it, but it doesn't mean that the earth is flat.  

Unlike those here, those blogs are written by knowledgeable people on the subject 

 

I anticipated that you would post on Taiwan (how the conditions are different), which could be used as a validation of what I wrote I.e., “different conditions create different results”  

 

Ind did not attempt to create conditions that would have deterred China .... Your points stem from an invalid assumption that no matter what the conditions were China would have marched in to Tibet, which is not true from a strategic perspective 

 

[sandeep]

28 minutes ago, zen said:

no matter what the conditions were China would have marched in to Tibet, which is not true from a strategic perspective 

 

Please state the "conditions" that could plausibly prevent China from marching into Tibet in 1950.  I asked you earlier - its 1950.  You are Sardar Zen Vallabhbhai Patel, undisputed leader of India.  

 

Please keep your 'conditions' within the realm of possibility.  For eg. Sending Lord Rama in the Pushpak Vimaan to defend Tibet, is not possible.  The conditions you propose have to be realistic, and within the capacity of Indian govt circa 1949.  Keep in mind, a newly independent country, with limited resources, no industrial base to speak of, and already caught in the throes of a hot border dispute with hostile Pakistan in the Northwest.  

[zen]

4 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Please state the "conditions" that could plausibly prevent China from marching into Tibet in 1950.  I asked you earlier - its 1950.  You are Sardar Zen Vallabhbhai Patel, undisputed leader of India.  

 

Please keep your 'conditions' within the realm of possibility.  For eg. Sending Lord Rama in the Pushpak Vimaan to defend Tibet, is not possible.  The conditions you propose have to be realistic, and within the capacity of Indian govt circa 1949.  Keep in mind, a newly independent country, with limited resources, no industrial base to speak of, and already caught in the throes of a hot border dispute with hostile Pakistan in the Northwest.  

We have already discussed one of the ways to create certain conditions (Opportunity 1, acting proactively)

 

And please also read on why Mao did not invade Taiwan (different conditions) - https://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-didnt-mao-invade-taiwan-22752?page=0%2C2 

 

Then you can connect it with the information Nehru had in 1949, his focus on Korean War and zeal to back China 

 

[sandeep]

23 minutes ago, zen said:

We have already discussed one of the ways to create certain conditions (Opportunity 1, acting proactively)

 

And please also read on why Mao did not invade Taiwan (different conditions) - https://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-didnt-mao-invade-taiwan-22752?page=0%2C2 

 

Then you can connect it with the information Nehru had in 1949, his focus on Korean War and zeal to back China 

 

You keep dodging the question - You got anything more specific than "acting proactively"?  You are Sardar Zen Patel, PM of India.  How do you "act proactively" to deter China's usurpation of Tibet?  

 

Lay it out for me, Backup your claim with specifics.  I'm all ears, and will try my best to keep an open mind.  

Edited August 1, 2018 by sandeep

[zen]

6 minutes ago, sandeep said:

You keep dodging the question - You got anything more specific than "acting proactively"?  You are Sardar Zen Patel, PM of India.  How do you "act proactively" to deter China's usurpation of Tibet?  

 

Lay it out for me, Backup your claim with specifics.  I'm all ears, and will try my best to keep an open mind.  

Ok, will try one more time: 

 

1949: Tibet expels Chinese representative from Lhasa 

 

1949: Ind anticipates that Tibet would be invaded. Risk is the McMohan line and losing Tibet. It does a defence agreement with Tibet and keeps a small force in Tibet. Additionally takes up diplomatic initiative to protect Tibet by seeking backing of other nations and UN

 

With Tibet fortified relatively speaking both diplomatically and militarily, the conditions for invading Tibet change  for China. To address the issue, China would need to negotiate as the starting point to resolve this rather than just march in and force a “left on its fate” Tibet to sign unilateral agreement 

 

This is the least we should have done for a friend and to also safeguard Ind’s interest. What Ind did was the opposite, which intentionally or unintentionally signalled to China that the campaign in Tibet was a mere formality 

 

[Muloghonto]

10 hours ago, sandeep said:

You keep dodging the question - You got anything more specific than "acting proactively"?  You are Sardar Zen Patel, PM of India.  How do you "act proactively" to deter China's usurpation of Tibet?  

 

Lay it out for me, Backup your claim with specifics.  I'm all ears, and will try my best to keep an open mind.  

you are arguing with one of the biggest morons on this board, who thinks India in 1950 was in a position to defend Tibet, which means sending troops to Qamdo and Naqgu, nearly a thousand Kms from Indo-Tibetan border, when India didn't have infrastructure to cross Tibet in even 1962. 

Why do you bother with morons like these ? They have zero knowledge of logistics and are not patriots, just blind nationalists.

 

[coffee_rules]

53 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

you are arguing with one of the biggest morons on this board, who thinks India in 1950 was in a position to defend Tibet, which means sending troops to Qamdo and Naqgu, nearly a thousand Kms from Indo-Tibetan border, when India didn't have infrastructure to cross Tibet in even 1962. 

Why do you bother with morons like these ? They have zero knowledge of logistics and are not patriots, just blind nationalists.

 

The crux of the argument is what India/Nehru could have done differently to counter China. We all know how Nehru was a pacifist even in Kashmir w.r.t Military operation and how SVPatel favored the Military in 1947. We can't deny that Nehru was responsible for the China policy from 47 to 62s when it culminated in the war. Without the pacifist policy, India could've confronted China to prevent the annexation of Tibet. With some browbeating over the  McMahon line , we could've made China accept the border as it did for Burma or Myanmar and avoided the 62s war.

Edited August 2, 2018 by coffee_rules

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

The crux of the argument is what India/Nehru could have done differently to counter China. We all know how Nehru was a pacifist even in Kashmir w.r.t Military operation and how SVPatel favored the Military in 1947. We can't deny that Nehru was responsible for the China policy from 47 to 62s when it culminated in the war. Without the pacifist policy, India could've confronted China to prevent the annexation of Tibet. With some browbeating over the  McMahon line , we could've made China accept the border as it did for Burma or Myanmar and avoided the 62s war.

The bolded part is simply absurd. Again, for the umpteenth time, India lost 1962 because we didnt have infrastructure to the Indo-Tibetan border. In 1950, when Tibet was annexed, India definitely did not have the capacity to wage war deep inside Tibet. That should be bleeding obvious based on 1962. If we couldnt defend OUR OWN BORDERS 12 years later due to infrastructure issues, we definitely couldn't project power DEEP OUTSIDE that border, 12 years prior.

[zen]

Delving into the pockets of history, in 1903/4 3,000 British India troops marched in to Tibet:

 

“By contrast, the British and Indian troops were experienced veterans of mountainous border warfare on the North-West Frontier, as was their commanding officer. Amongst the units at his disposal in his 3,000 strong force were elements of the 8th Gurkhas, 40th Pathans, 23rd and 32nd Sikh Pioneers, 19th Punjab Infantry and the Royal Fusiliers, as well as mountain artillery, engineers, Maxim gun detachments from four regiments and thousands of porters recruited from Nepal and Sikkim. With their combination of experienced officers, well-maintained modern equipment and strong morale, they were able to defeat the Tibetan armies at every encounter.”

(Wiki) 

 

One can criticize the British for its policies but they usually seem to find a way to make things happen! In early 20th century, they conjured a way in to Tibet .... As they say, where there is will, there is way

 

Edited August 2, 2018 by zen

[zen]

8 hours ago, Pace90 said:

How about Pakistan, ? 

Therefore the saying - when you have friends like Pak who needs enemies

[Muloghonto]

23 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

The crux of the argument is what India/Nehru could have done differently to counter China.

Zero, zilch, zip. Nada. 

Its far easier for China, to KO any Indian presence in Tibet, which logistics dictates, would be qualitatively slightly better (which is a maybe by end of WWII) but massively outnumbered and out-supplied, in 1950. 

To dispute that, shows decisive ignorance of military balance of power in the terrain involved. A side that is near-equal in tech, with zero infrastructure and capability to go into a harsh terrain hunderds of miles, cannot, fight a side that IS sitting at the doorstep, on the other side of the region in concern, with far easier geography.

 

Competing with China, in 1950 over Tibet, militaristically, was as feasible for India as  you or I beating Usain Bolt in a race. Not gonna happen. 

23 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

We all know how Nehru was a pacifist even in Kashmir w.r.t Military operation and how SVPatel favored the Military in 1947.

Sure. And i have no problems saying Nehru's pacifistic side screwed us in Kashmir and with China. Still does not change the fact that Rep. of India could do jack $hit in Tibet vs China in 1950. 

23 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

We can't deny that Nehru was responsible for the China policy from 47 to 62s when it culminated in the war.

True. Again, does not change the crux of the argument : incapability of India to wage war with China in northern and eastern Tibet. 

 

23 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Without the pacifist policy, India could've confronted China to prevent the annexation of Tibet.

India would've gotten its a$$ whupped faster than Burma would get its a$$ whupped against us today if they tried to fight. Nehru was a pacifist, not a complete idiot. Those who think that Rep of India had the material and logistical ability to cross over Tibet, with zero infastructure, to fight the Chinese in Northern/Eastern Tibet are complete idiots to the historical reality that is being discussed here. 

23 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

With some browbeating over the  McMahon line , we could've made China accept the border as it did for Burma or Myanmar and avoided the 62s war.

Nobody brow-beats a military-based communist dictatorship without full ability, intent and demonstration to carry out a$$ whupping if not heeded. India lacked that capability and everyone knew it. We were in no position to contest a land war in Tibet in 1950 with PLA. Simple as that. 

[Muloghonto]

14 hours ago, zen said:

Delving into the pockets of history, in 1903/4 3,000 British India troops marched in to Tibet:

 

“By contrast, the British and Indian troops were experienced veterans of mountainous border warfare on the North-West Frontier, as was their commanding officer. Amongst the units at his disposal in his 3,000 strong force were elements of the 8th Gurkhas, 40th Pathans, 23rd and 32nd Sikh Pioneers, 19th Punjab Infantry and the Royal Fusiliers, as well as mountain artillery, engineers, Maxim gun detachments from four regiments and thousands of porters recruited from Nepal and Sikkim. With their combination of experienced officers, well-maintained modern equipment and strong morale, they were able to defeat the Tibetan armies at every encounter.”

(Wiki) 

 

One can criticize the British for its policies but they usually seem to find a way to make things happen! In early 20th century, they conjured a way in to Tibet .... As they say, where there is will, there is way

 

1903/1904 is not 1950. 

In WWII, British Empire gave immense material help to the Chinese, bringing them up, effectively just below British Raj levels. In 5 years of fighting the Koumintang and beefing up, PLA was materially far closer to Rep. of India troops than Qing Empire troops were to the British Empires.

Different era, different ground realities. 

 

Such sayings as yours are said by ignorant people living in fantasy-land. British found a way, because there was a way for them to win: with humongous qualitative advantage (way more combat experience, way better guns, bullets, cannons, etc and the new-fangled machine gun, which China did not have), they could take a strategic low-risk path into Tibet. 

 

This is not the case in 1950s, just like this is not the case between India-Pakistan TODAY. There is no 'where there is a will, there is a way' to win a war vs Pakistan without getting nuked. Period. So there goes your saying.

[Khalpat]

On 8/1/2018 at 11:26 PM, Pace90 said:

How about Pakistan, ?