Congress and its history of making geopolitical mistakes when it comes to China

[SinNombre]

Pre-World War : This was evident in his first important work – Glimpses of World History. In this, he would refer to China as a great country and a friend of India. He envisaged a post-colonial world in which the two countries would play a major role in global affairs.

However, unlike Nehru, Mao Zedong made no mention of India as a major partner to China, and believed China would be the main guarantor of peace in post-war Asia.

 

On 1 April, 1950, India became the first non-socialist bloc country to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. 

 

In 1951, China invaded Tibet. Nehru government decided to do nothing to support the Tibetans after consulting with Attlee. 

 

In 1954, India officially recognized Tibet as a part of China by signing an agreement that refers to the "Tibet region of China". 

 

In 1960, China came to India to settle the border disputes with a compromise based solution where they recognized Arunachal Pradesh as Indian sovereign territory with India recognizing Aksai Chin as Chinese which they already controlled. Nehru government rejected it unilaterally. China in 1960 had even hinted that, ‘as part of an overall settlement’, it would accept India’s sovereign claim on Jammu & Kashmir (minus Aksai Chin) vis-à-vis Pakistan. 

 

In 1962, India suffered its biggest humiliation as an independent country when China declared war and were able to fully seize Aksai Chin and also push past the mcMahon line into Arunachal Pradesh which they later ceded in fear of increasing Soviet support to India. 

 

Nehru also pushed Pakistan to the Chinese sphere. Pakistan also shared a disputed boundary with China, and had proposed to India that the two countries adopt a common defence against "northern" enemies (i.e. China), which was rejected by India, citing nonalignment. In 1962, Pakistani president Muhammad Ayub Khan made clear to India that Indian troops could safely be transferred from the Pakistan frontier to the Himalayas. 

 

 

It doesn't mean the others are blemish free. Vajpayee in 2003 cemented the 1954 agreement without getting anything in return. And Modi in recent times after catching the Chinese surprised by the Indian reaction in Doklam has let them slowly continue their incursions into Bhutan. 

[Lone Wolf]

India's strategy with China has always been flawed & is still confusing.

No country in the world can counter 2 front threat.  With Pakistan as our biggest enemy threat post independence it made total sense to have good relationship with CCP and China... Shared cultural past chooran, oldest civilization was also supplied.

 

Only under Indira Gandhi in 1967 in Sikkim Nathula victory and 1987 under Rajeev Gandhi in Sumdrong Chu .. India adopted aggressive measures.

Other than that every government has seen loss of land... Via salami slicing.

Border resolution talks have failed multiple times. It is what it is ..  War is not a option at least for India.

We would have to resort to Nukes to deter Chinese.

Edited May 22, 2024 by Lone Wolf

[mishra]

10 hours ago, SinNombre said:

Pre-World War : This was evident in his first important work – Glimpses of World History. In this, he would refer to China as a great country and a friend of India. He envisaged a post-colonial world in which the two countries would play a major role in global affairs.

However, unlike Nehru, Mao Zedong made no mention of India as a major partner to China, and believed China would be the main guarantor of peace in post-war Asia.

 

On 1 April, 1950, India became the first non-socialist bloc country to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. 

 

In 1951, China invaded Tibet. Nehru government decided to do nothing to support the Tibetans after consulting with Attlee. 

 

In 1954, India officially recognized Tibet as a part of China by signing an agreement that refers to the "Tibet region of China". 

 

In 1960, China came to India to settle the border disputes with a compromise based solution where they recognized Arunachal Pradesh as Indian sovereign territory with India recognizing Aksai Chin as Chinese which they already controlled. Nehru government rejected it unilaterally. China in 1960 had even hinted that, ‘as part of an overall settlement’, it would accept India’s sovereign claim on Jammu & Kashmir (minus Aksai Chin) vis-à-vis Pakistan. 

 

In 1962, India suffered its biggest humiliation as an independent country when China declared war and were able to fully seize Aksai Chin and also push past the mcMahon line into Arunachal Pradesh which they later ceded in fear of increasing Soviet support to India. 

 

Nehru also pushed Pakistan to the Chinese sphere. Pakistan also shared a disputed boundary with China, and had proposed to India that the two countries adopt a common defence against "northern" enemies (i.e. China), which was rejected by India, citing nonalignment. In 1962, Pakistani president Muhammad Ayub Khan made clear to India that Indian troops could safely be transferred from the Pakistan frontier to the Himalayas. 

 

 

It doesn't mean the others are blemish free. Vajpayee in 2003 cemented the 1954 agreement without getting anything in return. And Modi in recent times after catching the Chinese surprised by the Indian reaction in Doklam has let them slowly continue their incursions into Bhutan. 

I think there was a fundamental flaw in Nehuru when it came to foreign relations. let me explain it.

 

People complain Politics has little or no ideal/moral/ethic. Its generally true but politicians worry about how a particular action of their if exposed will be seen by society as it impacts his vote.  Hence,  in reality Politicians still try to maintain/contain/hide their corruption and moral/ethical/ideological bankrouptcy i.e. threat of "Vote" from society keeps a check on Politician behaviour.

 

However in Geo Politics, Nations can screw all morality ideals and ethics without risk of reprecursions. So they do. Nehuru was trying to be idealist, socialist , pricipalled in Geo politics. So he was effed.

 

Chapters have been hidden, but if someone digs enough, they will understand what I am saying. I will quote few examples

 

1. Going to UN assuming UN will be asking Pakistanis to vacate PoK and Pakistanis will vacate Kashmir if UN asked and let Kashmir do a plebiscite when all that was needed was brute Force.

2. Recognising Tibet belonged to China and taking our Security forces out off Lhasa and not asking anything in return

3. Recognising all Chinese claims on neighbouring states like Taiwan without asking anything in return

4. Non Alignment is a morally correct but fundamentally impractical postion also you become predictable so no one Invests any capital(money time technology goodwill etc) in you.

 

PS: Nehuru is true grandad of RaGa when it came to Geopolitics

Edited May 22, 2024 by mishra

[Real McCoy]

2 hours ago, mishra said:

I think there was a fundamental flaw in Nehuru when it came to foreign relations. let me explain it.

 

People complain Politics has little or no ideal/moral/ethic. Its generally true but politicians worry about how a particular action of their if exposed will be seen by society as it impacts his vote.  Hence,  in reality Politicians still try to maintain/contain/hide their corruption and moral/ethical/ideological bankrouptcy i.e. threat of "Vote" from society keeps a check on Politician behaviour.

 

However in Geo Politics, Nations can screw all morality ideals and ethics without risk of reprecursions. So they do. Nehuru was trying to be idealist, socialist , pricipalled in Geo politics. So he was effed.

 

Chapters have been hidden, but if someone digs enough, they will understand what I am saying. I will quote few examples

 

1. Going to UN assuming UN will be asking Pakistanis to vacate PoK and Pakistanis will vacate Kashmir if UN asked and let Kashmir do a plebiscite when all that was needed was brute Force.

2. Recognising Tibet belonged to China and taking our Security forces out off Lhasa and not asking anything in return

3. Recognising all Chinese claims on neighbouring states like Taiwan without asking anything in return

4. Non Alignment is a morally correct but fundamentally impractical postion also you become predictable so no one Invests any capital(money time technology goodwill etc) in you.

 

PS: Nehuru is true grandad of RaGa when it came to Geopolitics

 

Agree on the first three I would even say Nehru almost acted liek a british agent in these scenarios. Nonalignment was the only good thing he did. I don't think its such an impractical position. Pak sided with USA. how did it work out for them. Even though he was a scoialist and got somewhat influenced by kgb, India showed that it can stand on itself without much support. USA and USSR treated its satellites like how colonials dealt with their colonies, only somewhat better outside and in a more deceiving manner.

[SinNombre]

9 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

 

Agree on the first three I would even say Nehru almost acted liek a british agent in these scenarios. Nonalignment was the only good thing he did. I don't think its such an impractical position. Pak sided with USA. how did it work out for them. Even though he was a scoialist and got somewhat influenced by kgb, India showed that it can stand on itself without much support. USA and USSR treated its satellites like how colonials dealt with their colonies, only somewhat better outside and in a more deceiving manner.

 

He kept asking Attlee for advice when possible so almost is generous to Nehru. 

[SinNombre]

22 hours ago, SinNombre said:

 

It doesn't mean the others are blemish free. Vajpayee in 2003 cemented the 1954 agreement without getting anything in return. 

 

I guess the Chinese did indirectly accept that Sikkim was part of India so it wasn't for nothing. 

[gattaca]

On 5/22/2024 at 4:38 AM, Lone Wolf said:

India's strategy with China has always been flawed & is still confusing.

No country in the world can counter 2 front threat.  With Pakistan as our biggest enemy threat post independence it made total sense to have good relationship with CCP and China... Shared cultural past chooran, oldest civilization was also supplied.

 

Only under Indira Gandhi in 1967 in Sikkim Nathula victory and 1987 under Rajeev Gandhi in Sumdrong Chu .. India adopted aggressive measures.

Other than that every government has seen loss of land... Via salami slicing.

Border resolution talks have failed multiple times. It is what it is ..  War is not a option at least for India.

We would have to resort to Nukes to deter Chinese.

Nehru was blinded by ideology and couldn’t accept to himself china wants to take India’s land. He thought being socialist and china Communist will not attack. Nehru’s mistakes are well documented in the Himalayan blunder book.

[mishra]

20 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

 

Agree on the first three I would even say Nehru almost acted liek a british agent in these scenarios. Nonalignment was the only good thing he did. I don't think its such an impractical position. Pak sided with USA. how did it work out for them. Even though he was a scoialist and got somewhat influenced by kgb, India showed that it can stand on itself without much support. USA and USSR treated its satellites like how colonials dealt with their colonies, only somewhat better outside and in a more deceiving manner.

The policy of standing on its own feet is very good and a idealistic principle. But NAM in itself was a alignment. Check the list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement

 

What you are saying is He did very well by not aligning with USSR or USA. Evidence suggests that every nation which was NAM or aligned with USSR lost battle of economics. There is also evidence that nations which sided USA, some of them got Royally screwed but most made it worthwhile.

 

Alignment is a must  if you want to prosper ie You need to quickly identify which side of bread is buttered and lick that one (China did it so successfully). Current multi-alignment policy of GoI is exactly doing that. INfact its one step ahead of China and idetifying parts of buttered bread and not assuming that whole side is buttered.

 

PS: Its arguable that hindsight is being used by us to judge it but we commoners elect leaders with faith in their foresightedness and wisdom to make correct decisions

Edited May 23, 2024 by mishra

[Real McCoy]

37 minutes ago, mishra said:

The policy of standing on its own feet is very good and a idealistic principle. But NAM in itself was a alignment. Check the list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement

 

What you are saying is He did very well by not aligning with USSR or USA. Evidence suggests that every nation which was NAM or aligned with USSR lost battle of economics. There is also evidence that nations which sided USA, some of them got Royally screwed but most made it worthwhile.

 

Alignment is a must  if you want to prosper ie You need to quickly identify which side of bread is buttered and lick that one (China did it so successfully). Current multi-alignment policy of GoI is exactly doing that. INfact its one step ahead of China and idetifying parts of buttered bread and not assuming that whole side is buttered.

 

PS: Its arguable that hindsight is being used by us to judge it but we commoners elect leaders with faith in their foresightedness and wisdom to make correct decisions

 

With the level of foresight of Nehru, we would be screwed if we sided with any of the super powers. We had no bargaining chips. They had plenty. They would have demanded air bases setup in India. You should see how much USSR dominated Poland that Russians are poorly perceived in poland and other nearby nations. USA did the same thing in Southeast Asian and East Asian countries. China is the rare exception. I gave you the example of Paksitan.

 

I disagree that alignment is a must. You are short changing our power in the world. Even during independence, we had enough power to say "No thanks". Its the right move IMO

[mishra]

9 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

 

With the level of foresight of Nehru, we would be screwed if we sided with any of the super powers. We had no bargaining chips. They had plenty. They would have demanded air bases setup in India. You should see how much USSR dominated Poland that Russians are poorly perceived in poland and other nearby nations. USA did the same thing in Southeast Asian and East Asian countries. China is the rare exception. I gave you the example of Paksitan.

 

I disagree that alignment is a must. You are short changing our power in the world. Even during independence, we had enough power to say "No thanks". Its the right move IMO

I am sure you are aware but writting again. Alignment is based on principles. Not Ideological moral or ethical but Chanakya or Machivellian Geo Political principal

1. Every nation along your border is pottential enemy.

2. Every nation who is not sharing common border with you is pottential friend.

3. Establish your hegemony among bordering countries who are weaker

4. TRy making peace with bordering countries which are stronger than you.

 

Nehuru managed to create a border with China by conceding Tibet when he could have aligned with other powers of Rest of World to keep Tibet free between India and China.

 

If you read first 4 points you will realise there is no option left to nations apart from aligning. This wisdom was allready there within Indian political leadership which Nehuru and co were unable to use.

[Real McCoy]

1 hour ago, mishra said:

I am sure you are aware but writting again. Alignment is based on principles. Not Ideological moral or ethical but Chanakya or Machivellian Geo Political principal

1. Every nation along your border is pottential enemy.

2. Every nation who is not sharing common border with you is pottential friend.

3. Establish your hegemony among bordering countries who are weaker

4. TRy making peace with bordering countries which are stronger than you.

 

Nehuru managed to create a border with China by conceding Tibet when he could have aligned with other powers of Rest of World to keep Tibet free between India and China.

 

If you read first 4 points you will realise there is no option left to nations apart from aligning. This wisdom was allready there within Indian political leadership which Nehuru and co were unable to use.

 

Point 2 is the weakest one. There are other factors that decide this point. FOr example, Israel and Iran are never friends which boils down to religion. England should be a friend of Germany but that was not the case in WW2. The word potential is highlighted in these instances as it can be negated by various circumstances. These points are good to give a thumb rule but there are nuances when applying this rule.

 

Nehru was probably naive in trusting china. You are pro-alignment but would you bear the cost of the alignment. Would you be happy with foreign soldiers training in India. Considering this was the first steps of an independent India, I don't think many at that time would have agreed to alignment.

[gattaca]

19 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

 

Point 2 is the weakest one. There are other factors that decide this point. FOr example, Israel and Iran are never friends which boils down to religion. England should be a friend of Germany but that was not the case in WW2. The word potential is highlighted in these instances as it can be negated by various circumstances. These points are good to give a thumb rule but there are nuances when applying this rule.

 

Nehru was probably naive in trusting china. You are pro-alignment but would you bear the cost of the alignment. Would you be happy with foreign soldiers training in India. Considering this was the first steps of an independent India, I don't think many at that time would have agreed to alignment.

India was aligned to Russia. Yes we didn’t have foreign soilders training in India or may be we don’t know. The foreign soilders training also comes if a location is strategic. The statements made during India Gandhi clearly indicate we were Russia aligned. 

[mishra]

1 hour ago, gattaca said:

India was aligned to Russia. Yes we didn’t have foreign soilders training in India or may be we don’t know. The foreign soilders training also comes if a location is strategic. The statements made during India Gandhi clearly indicate we were Russia aligned. 

And she reaped benefit of that alignment. Created Bangladesh in a blink of an eye.

Now for once think if she wasnt aligned at all and tried Supporting Bangladesh on humanitarian ground.

Now think what she could have avhieved has she aligned India with US. 

 

For me alignment is must and there is nothing better than to be in position of being able to manage and execute multialignment. Alignment at short change is completely different thing which @Real McCoy says. Its like not jumping in pool because you are worried that you will drown despite knowing how to swim.

[Real McCoy]

2 hours ago, gattaca said:

India was aligned to Russia. Yes we didn’t have foreign soilders training in India or may be we don’t know. The foreign soilders training also comes if a location is strategic. The statements made during India Gandhi clearly indicate we were Russia aligned. 

 

Yeah but that was an alignment was not on paper but still was. Maybe that was neccessary to ward off China and Pakistan which was aligned towards USA.

 

29 minutes ago, mishra said:

And she reaped benefit of that alignment. Created Bangladesh in a blink of an eye.

Now for once think if she wasnt aligned at all and tried Supporting Bangladesh on humanitarian ground.

Now think what she could have avhieved has she aligned India with US. 

 

For me alignment is must and there is nothing better than to be in position of being able to manage and execute multialignment. Alignment at short change is completely different thing which @Real McCoy says. Its like not jumping in pool because you are worried that you will drown despite knowing how to swim.

 

Yes its fine to engage in alignement if the tradeoffs are satisfactory. If the threat of alignment is too much and the benefits are not that great, then its better not to have it all. I don't believe Nehru had any insight at all. It was just a fluke decision that worked out ok for us.

[mishra]

3 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

 

Yeah but that was an alignment was not on paper but still was. Maybe that was neccessary to ward off China and Pakistan which was aligned towards USA.

India USSR signed a treaty under Indiraji. You Can google it

Edited May 24, 2024 by mishra

[Real McCoy]

40 minutes ago, mishra said:

India USSR signed a treaty under Indiraji. You Can google it

 

Because nixon and kissinger forced India into it. India USSR were freindly even after the NAM