India - China History and Relations

[Michael]

N I can speak behalf of all them as I interacted many Indians and found the same view as mine.
They think China is way ahead than India in development. China is more richer than India. But they never jealous about it. Indians want indian govt to learn from China how to develop India rapidly. For development, mostly Indians has positive views for China.
People to people views are also positive.

It's a right start

I have never heard negative view from any Indian for common chinese people walking on the street and going to work except food habit as you guys eat cockroaches and lizard. (That's what every Indian thinks for food) .
But militarily, views are completely opposite. They think PLA and CCP has an evil motive. They want to grab everyone's land.

This is a false start

There have also been some negative reports about India in China. But I don't want to repeat them, unless some research and analysis requires them to be cited.

There is a saying in Chinese: "知己知彼,百战不殆" Knowing yourself and the enemy is invincible in a hundred battles.

This is a phrase of war from the Art of War. Now, the Chinese apply it in many ways. For example, business dealings.

In the past, when the Chinese saw the USSR as a teacher and adversary, we worked hard to learn the Russian language, learn their music and culture. We change ourselves with our own thinking, not according to their hopes, but we try to learn and understand everything about them.
The USSR fell, and China took United States as its teacher and adversary. Therefore, English is a compulsory subject in Chinese education, and many things and cultures of United States are prevalent in China. In the same way, we will not change ourselves as United States hope.

India and China are both ancient civilizations with a very long history and culture. I would like to see the collision of these two civilizations as a result of harmony, rather than a lose-lose situation. So, we need to have good communication and interaction. But the premise is that we must first let go of each other's prejudices and resentments.

Chinese food culture is very famous, and you need to experience it for yourself. If you come to China to experience it for yourself, you will know that he is completely different from what you imagined. I believe that those India friends who have lived in China will give you the right answer.

The problem of CCP and PLA, due to language problems, it is difficult for machine translation to correctly interpret many words in the Chinese context. I can't accurately describe my point in English. I know very well how they are described in the English-speaking world. To be sure, they are very different from the information you get. If you are interested in CCP and PLA, I can try to communicate with you on some practical issues. But these exchanges must be based on rationality and openness.

In fact, the issue of the CCP and the PLA will not involve people-to-people exchanges. You can refer to the issues between China and the United States. If it weren't for United States economic war that harmed the interests of the Chinese people, Chinese would still be willing to do business with United States people even if China and the United States went to war. The Chinese call this the relationship between the stage and the stage.

====================================================

在中国也有一些关于印度的负面报道。但我不想重复它们，除非某些研究与分析需要引用这些报道。

中文中有一句话：“知己知彼,百战不殆”

这是一句出自孙子兵法的战争用语。现在，中国人把它应用在很多方面。比如商业交往。

过去，当中国人把苏联当作老师和对手时，我们努力学习俄语，学习他们的音乐和文化。我们以自己的思考来改变自己，而不是按照他们的希望去改变，但我们会努力学习和了解他们的一切。
苏联倒下了，中国以美国为老师和对手。所以，英语是中国教育中的必修课，美国的很多东西和文化在中国盛行。同样，我们不会按照美国人的希望去改变自己。

印度和中国都是文明古国，具有非常悠久的历史文化。我希望看到这两大文明的碰撞是水乳交融，而不是两败俱伤。所以，我们需要进行良好的沟通与互动。但它的前提是，必须先放下彼此的偏见与怨念。

中国饮食文化是非常著名的，这需要你亲自体验。如果你来中国亲自体验，你会知道他与你想象完全不同。这一点，我相信那些在中国生活过的印度朋友会给你正确的答案。

CCP与PLA的问题，由于语言问题，机器翻译很难正确解释很多中文语境的词语。我无法准确的使用英语来描述我的观点。我非常清楚在英语世界对他们的描述。可以肯定的是，他们和你得到的信息区别非常大。如果你对CCP和PLA感兴趣，我可以尝试就一些实际问题与你交流。但这些交流必须建立在理性和开放的态度之上。

事实上，CCP和PLA的问题不会涉及民间交往。你可以参考中美两国之间的问题。如果不是美国发起经济战争伤害到中国民众的利益，即使中美开战，中国人依然会乐意与美国人做生意。中国人称这为台上和台下的关系。

 

[Sharma Ji]

Current. This new thread is still in preparation.

When the discussion begins, you can give your point of view from the perspective of the Indian, and I can give my point of view from the perspective of the Chinese.

It was a very meaningful interaction.

As one of the initiators of this new topic, I shared the common goal with several veteran India mods: this is a rational discussion!

As someone who isn't Chinese, nor follows news from China closely, I can only somewhat hypothesize how you guys feel about us lot.

It's hard to imagine too many Chinese caring much about India somehow, most of your civilization is based on the far east coast, and as such, matters relating to foreign policy and military posturing/tensions are mostly confined to that region.

There is a formidable USFK and USFJ presence in the area, the Taiwan issue, disputed islands with the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Brunei and others in the SCS

Also, the disputed region and conflicting border claims with India is barren high plateau, nothing grows, no oil or much mineral deposits (or are they ?), sparsely populated.. why open a new front when the CCP have much bigger fish to fry (or sharks to ward off, whichever way you see it) than India.

India's foreign policy under the current administration could be described as 'somewhat muscular, but not aggressive'

You tell us what the Chinese people, not the CCP think when it comes to India. How prominently does India figure when you discuss foreign policy and regional matters ?

 

[Michael]

@Sharma Ji​

It can be seen from your statement that your heart is full of hostility towards China. This is not a good start and does not help in any way with communication. You don't know the real China. If you don't want to communicate, you can choose to leave; If you want people to have friendly exchanges, you need to have a friendly attitude.

As a courtesy, I'm willing to answer some of your questions. But I hope you can let go of your grievances in the follow-up communication.

As someone who isn't Chinese, nor follows news from China closely, I can only somewhat hypothesize how you guys feel about us lot.

In all your descriptions, there is your impression of China. There is no description of what you think is the impression that the Chinese have of India.

It's hard to imagine too many Chinese caring much about India somehow, most of your civilization is based on the far east coast, and as such, matters relating to foreign policy and military posturing/tensions are mostly confined to that region.

There is a formidable USFK and USFJ presence in the area, the Taiwan issue, disputed islands with the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Brunei and others in the SCS

The origin of Chinese civilization is not the Far East coast, it originated in the middle reaches of the Yellow River. That is, today's Shaanxi Province and Henan Province. They are not at the seaside.
China's affairs in the southeast coastal region involve many factors. These questions cannot be explained clearly in a few simple sentences. At the same time, they have no connection with the problems between China and India. If you're interested, you can discuss it separately, not here.

Also, the disputed region and conflicting border claims with India is barren high plateau, nothing grows, no oil or much mineral deposits (or are they ?), sparsely populated.. why open a new front when the CCP have much bigger fish to fry (or sharks to ward off, whichever way you see it) than India.

India's foreign policy under the current administration could be described as 'somewhat muscular, but not aggressive'

You tell us what the Chinese people, not the CCP think when it comes to India. How prominently does India figure when you discuss foreign policy and regional matters ?

I have already explained the boundary issue. You can check out the previous content. I don't want to continue to escalate the contradictions.
But, the Chinese government has always had an idea: A border agreement can be signed at any time on the current LAC to end all border conflicts.Therefore, as long as the India government accepts it, it can immediately enter an era of peace and cooperation.The problem is that the India government has consistently rejected the offer!
Ordinary Chinese don't care about the border affairs you are talking about at all, at most some entertainment topics. They are more concerned with how to make money.

======================================

As for the content of your separate new thread, it's not worth my reply. An article published by a typical anti-Chinese media does not make any sense.

 

[Michael]

@MH.Yang Please join us for discussion.Don't sneak watch our discussions. My English is very bad. Machine translation often makes very serious mistakes, which can deliver the wrong message.

 

[VCheng]

Please consider this to be the opening post in a discussion about China and India.

@Michael - please feel free to invite those whom you wish to involve in a discussion. I hope to find another suitable post about how China is viewed in India.

@Krptonite
@Nilgiri

@Afif - in case you are interested.

I wonder how many here can appreciate the fact the relationship between these two behemoths need not be adversarial, and there is much to be gained by working together to resolve differences on the border and foreign policy, and economic growth feeding off each other's strengths.

Visionary leaders can indeed achieve such outcomes, but whether those are likely to be in power is the real question. It depends on the strategies employed to gain and retain government control in both countries.

 

[Michael]

I wonder how many here can appreciate the fact the relationship between these two behemoths need not be adversarial, and there is much to be gained by working together to resolve differences on the border and foreign policy, and economic growth feeding off each other's strengths.

Visionary leaders can indeed achieve such outcomes, but whether those are likely to be in power is the real question. It depends on the strategies employed to gain and retain government control in both countries.

Many things can only be based on the reality of the situation and move forward in small steps. Moving each step slowly is much better than staying in the imaginary fantasy all the time.

 

[MH.Yang]

I wonder how many here can appreciate the fact the relationship between these two behemoths need not be adversarial, and there is much to be gained by working together to resolve differences on the border and foreign policy, and economic growth feeding off each other's strengths.

Visionary leaders can indeed achieve such outcomes, but whether those are likely to be in power is the real question. It depends on the strategies employed to gain and retain government control in both countries.

China is a homogeneous country, China can do without confrontation with any country, but not India.

There are over a hundred ethnic groups in India, with the largest ethnic group making up only 40% of the population. India also has a dozen major languages and several large religions. Whether it is in the areas of language, script, beliefs, values, etc., India is divided.

A country like India needs enemies both internal and external if it does not want to be divided. So the Indian government is bound to be hostile to Pakistan. Once the power gap between Pakistan and India is too great, the Indian government is bound to be hostile to China.

The very existence of India as a patchwork nation was a mistake. It will only lead to inconvenience in all aspects of economic development for Indians, except to fulfill a false sense of vanity as a great power. If India fails to find a way to integrate and unite all Indians, it is bound to break up in increasingly bitter ethnic conflicts.

 

[MH.Yang]

@MH.Yang Please join us for discussion.Don't sneak watch our discussions. My English is very bad. Machine translation often makes very serious mistakes, which can deliver the wrong message.

That's a good point you're making, that fits the reality within China. But you may not know much about India.

Of course, Indians don't understand China either. Especially since surprisingly there are Indians who think that CCP is blocking the Chinese from being friendly to Indians.

CCP is a left-wing party, while China has always been a right-wing Confucian society. These Indians naively believe that right-wing Han Chinese nationalists are similar to nationalists of ethnic groups such as Russia, and that the demand is for the dismantling of the Soviet Union and Russian independence like the Russians. These Indians are actually answering your question with malice.

Actually, it is we Chinese who realize that Han Chinese nationalists are nothing like other nationalists around the world. The value of Han nationalism is "凡日月所照、江河所至，皆为汉土。"“普天之下，莫非王土，率土之滨，莫非王臣。”“犯我大汉天威者，虽远必诛。”. If a right wing nationalist government replaces the CCP, Indians are in for a rude awakening.

I don't feel the need to explain too much to a bunch of losers who don't know you well but are full of malice.

 

[mythbuster]

Many things can only be based on the reality of the situation and move forward in small steps. Moving each step slowly is much better than staying in the imaginary fantasy all the time.

You are into a much cliched thuccidide trap now , this trap has held it's own as long as the known history goes .....you ain't easily wiggling your way out of it , doesn't matter how hard you try .

 

[MH.Yang]

You are into a much cliched thuccidide trap now , this trap has held it's own as long as the known history goes .....you ain't easily wiggling your way out of it , doesn't matter how hard you try .

The Thucydides Trap applies only to the Cold Warrior Era, not the Nuclear Weapons Era. The peaceful change of hegemony between the United States and Britain is the best proof of this.

 

[mythbuster]

The Thucydides Trap applies only to the Cold Warrior Era, not the Nuclear Weapons Era. The peaceful change of hegemony between the United States and Britain is the best proof of this.

United States is a child of Britain ....sorry it's not same same .

 

[Nilgiri]

I don't know why, but it's hard to form a coherent meaning after these words of yours are translated. I can't understand these translated contents............

Well I guess it tested the bounds of the translation capability. I will try simplify from now on.

Anyway its related to the govt-govt (state-state) versus people-people thing we have established now as being different in nature. This is something similar around the world as we have states and nations that are different entities to each other (basically the size of the nation with its low authority.... versus smaller size but high authority of the state).

How shall we proceed? Maybe we should focus on the state-state analysis over time from 20th century to present years? To maybe give an idea of the context in play that impacts maybe Indian people more than it does the Chinese people from their respective state messaging and decision making.

 

[Nilgiri]

I wonder how many here can appreciate the fact the relationship between these two behemoths need not be adversarial, and there is much to be gained by working together to resolve differences on the border and foreign policy, and economic growth feeding off each other's strengths.

Visionary leaders can indeed achieve such outcomes, but whether those are likely to be in power is the real question. It depends on the strategies employed to gain and retain government control in both countries.

It will be clear who have made their flawed conclusions already and keep repeating them, because that's all they can do.

The issue to comprehend first is the state-state vector and why it may be disjointed to degree it is with nation-nation one as obviously there is a power and authority differential.

In India's case w.r.t China the contours of the situation can be found with compare and contrast of other axis regd China ( and its largest current nationstate PRC) regarding foreign relations and conflict:

i.e roughly (some overlaps exist):

south (Burma - Vietnam etc)
south east - East (PH, ROC, Japan, Korea)
North (USSR/Russia, Mongolia)
West (USSR, now Central Asian republics etc)

vis a vis the South Western one (India, Himalayan states, Pakistan etc), and then how this axis further impacts India directly (given say Pakistan pre 71 and post 71).

These can be cross referenced like a matrix with the PRC state's political tenure eras in the modern era i.e relevant time segments:

pre-1949 (pre PRC, ROC first arc in nationstate mandate/formation taking over from Qing empire),
1949 - 1981 (PRC, roughly Mao Zedong tenure)
1981 - 2002 (Deng Xiaoping and jiang Zemin tenures)
2002 - current (Hu Jintao and Xi jinping tenures)

From there one can figure out where China engaged in conflict on a great deal of things yet bridges over those things today in the various ways the state handles it (in concert with its nation to whichever degree for the interest of the longer term), and how that sits with the specific Indian case in present time.

 

[Michael]

That's a good point you're making, that fits the reality within China. But you may not know much about India.

Of course, Indians don't understand China either. Especially since surprisingly there are Indians who think that CCP is blocking the Chinese from being friendly to Indians.

CCP is a left-wing party, while China has always been a right-wing Confucian society. These Indians naively believe that right-wing Han Chinese nationalists are similar to nationalists of ethnic groups such as Russia, and that the demand is for the dismantling of the Soviet Union and Russian independence like the Russians. These Indians are actually answering your question with malice.

Actually, it is we Chinese who realize that Han Chinese nationalists are nothing like other nationalists around the world. The value of Han nationalism is "凡日月所照、江河所至，皆为汉土。"“普天之下，莫非王土，率土之滨，莫非王臣。”“犯我大汉天威者，虽远必诛。”. If a right wing nationalist government replaces the CCP, Indians are in for a rude awakening.

I don't feel the need to explain too much to a bunch of losers who don't know you well but are full of malice.

Yes, I really don't know much about India. At the same time, we see that many Indians do not know much about China. So, we need some communication.

We have to admit it. Between India and China, most people have very limited knowledge of each other. After all, most people don't go to each other's homes to touch them in person. When we are in real contact with each other, many of our inherent traditional perceptions change. Just as @Nilgiri's impression of China is completely different from the impression of many India people on the PDF about China, because he has personally experienced the real Chinese, not India Chinese in the media. The Indians I met in real life were also completely different from the Indians on these networks.

As for the relationship between governments, we can try to think about it from the perspective of academic research. At least at the moment there is no war between us, and we can try to relax the conversation. Although I study the military, I don't want to see it happen, and I don't want the weapons that excite me to actually fall on human heads one day. I know it's contradictory.

If one day, the Sino-Indian war begins. When the country needs me, I will not hesitate to become a soldier. Even if it's @Nilgiri or @Joe Shearer on the other side, I don't hesitate to pull the trigger, that's what a soldier does. I am sure they will do the same. But before the war, when we still have the opportunity to communicate amicably, I will do my best to communicate amicably. We are human beings first, then Chinese or Indian. We can't just open fire without trying to communicate. We should try peaceful means before resorting to force.

I don't give a fixed label (left/right) to a person, a group, a country. I think they are a manifestation of certain periods, certain circumstances. This is a dynamic property rather than a static property. When we look back at the history of the CCP, there have been times when it has behaved like the left, and at other times it has behaved like the right. Even during the same period, some of the CCP's groups were skewed to the left and others to the right. The same is true in Chinese history. The same is true for the governments or peoples of other countries.

Dynamic properties are affected by many factors. Of course, war is a very important factor, and it is also the most cruel factor. In the history of human warfare, most of the causes of wars are due to information asymmetry between them. I didn't want to hit him, but I thought he wanted to hit me and I had to strike first. However, the other party also thinks so...... Thus, the war broke out. When the two sides communicated after the end of the war and found that the other side did not have this idea, both sides were already covered in bruises.

========================================================

是的，我确实对印度了解不多。同时，我们看到很多印度人对中国的了解也不多。所以，我们需要一些沟通。

我们必须承认。在印度和中国之间，大多数人对对方的了解都非常有限。毕竟，大多数人都没有亲自去对方家里亲自接触他们。当我们彼此真实接触时，我们很多固有的传统认知会发生变化。正如@Nilgiri对中国印象与PDF上很多印度人对中国的印象完全不同，因为他亲自感受过真实的中国人，而不是印度媒体上的中国人。我在现实生活中接触到的印度人，也与这些网络上的印度人完全不同。

至于政府之间的关系，我们可以尝试以学术研究的角度来思考问题。至少当前我们之间并没有开启战争，我们还可以尝试适度放松的展开交流。虽然我研究军事，但我并不想看到它真实发生，那些让我兴奋的武器，我并不想让它们在某一天真实的落在人类的头上。我知道这很矛盾。

如果某一天，中印战争开启。在国家需要我的时候，我会毫不犹豫的成为一名军人。即使对面是@Nilgiri或@Joe Shearer，我也会毫不犹豫的扣下扳机，这是军人的本职。我相信，他们也会如此。但在战争发生之前，当我们还有机会进行友好的沟通时，我会尽力进行友好的沟通。我们首先是人类，然后才是中国人或印度人。我们不能在没有进行努力沟通之前就直接开火。先礼后兵是中国人的传统。

我不会给某个人、某个群体、某个国家确定一个固定的标签（左翼/右翼）。我认为，他们是在某些时期、某些环境下的一种表现。这是一种动态属性而不是静态属性。我们回顾CCP的历史，某些时候表现得像左翼，某些时候又表现得像右翼。即使在同一时期，CCP的群体中，一些人的表现偏向左翼，而另一些的表现偏向右翼。中国历史上也是如此。其他国家的政府或人民，也是如此。

动态属性受到很多因素影响。当然，战争是一个很重要的因素，也是最残忍的因素。人类战争历史中，大部分诱发战争的原因都是因为彼此之间的信息不对称。我不想打他，但我认为他想打我，我必须先发制人。然而，对方也是这么想的......于是，战争爆发了。当双方在战争结束之后进行沟通，发现对方并没有这个想法时，双方已经遍体鳞伤。

 

[MH.Yang]

Yes, I really don't know much about India. At the same time, we see that many Indians do not know much about China. So, we need some communication.

We have to admit it. Between India and China, most people have very limited knowledge of each other. After all, most people don't go to each other's homes to touch them in person. When we are in real contact with each other, many of our inherent traditional perceptions change. Just as @Nilgiri's impression of China is completely different from the impression of many India people on the PDF about China, because he has personally experienced the real Chinese, not India Chinese in the media. The Indians I met in real life were also completely different from the Indians on these networks.

As for the relationship between governments, we can try to think about it from the perspective of academic research. At least at the moment there is no war between us, and we can try to relax the conversation. Although I study the military, I don't want to see it happen, and I don't want the weapons that excite me to actually fall on human heads one day. I know it's contradictory.

If one day, the Sino-Indian war begins. When the country needs me, I will not hesitate to become a soldier. Even if it's @Nilgiri or @Joe Shearer on the other side, I don't hesitate to pull the trigger, that's what a soldier does. I am sure they will do the same. But before the war, when we still have the opportunity to communicate amicably, I will do my best to communicate amicably. We are human beings first, then Chinese or Indian. We can't just open fire without trying to communicate. We should try peaceful means before resorting to force.

I don't give a fixed label (left/right) to a person, a group, a country. I think they are a manifestation of certain periods, certain circumstances. This is a dynamic property rather than a static property. When we look back at the history of the CCP, there have been times when it has behaved like the left, and at other times it has behaved like the right. Even during the same period, some of the CCP's groups were skewed to the left and others to the right. The same is true in Chinese history. The same is true for the governments or peoples of other countries.

Dynamic properties are affected by many factors. Of course, war is a very important factor, and it is also the most cruel factor. In the history of human warfare, most of the causes of wars are due to information asymmetry between them. I didn't want to hit him, but I thought he wanted to hit me and I had to strike first. However, the other party also thinks so...... Thus, the war broke out. When the two sides communicated after the end of the war and found that the other side did not have this idea, both sides were already covered in bruises.

========================================================

是的，我确实对印度了解不多。同时，我们看到很多印度人对中国的了解也不多。所以，我们需要一些沟通。

我们必须承认。在印度和中国之间，大多数人对对方的了解都非常有限。毕竟，大多数人都没有亲自去对方家里亲自接触他们。当我们彼此真实接触时，我们很多固有的传统认知会发生变化。正如@Nilgiri对中国印象与PDF上很多印度人对中国的印象完全不同，因为他亲自感受过真实的中国人，而不是印度媒体上的中国人。我在现实生活中接触到的印度人，也与这些网络上的印度人完全不同。

至于政府之间的关系，我们可以尝试以学术研究的角度来思考问题。至少当前我们之间并没有开启战争，我们还可以尝试适度放松的展开交流。虽然我研究军事，但我并不想看到它真实发生，那些让我兴奋的武器，我并不想让它们在某一天真实的落在人类的头上。我知道这很矛盾。

如果某一天，中印战争开启。在国家需要我的时候，我会毫不犹豫的成为一名军人。即使对面是@Nilgiri或@Joe Shearer，我也会毫不犹豫的扣下扳机，这是军人的本职。我相信，他们也会如此。但在战争发生之前，当我们还有机会进行友好的沟通时，我会尽力进行友好的沟通。我们首先是人类，然后才是中国人或印度人。我们不能在没有进行努力沟通之前就直接开火。先礼后兵是中国人的传统。

我不会给某个人、某个群体、某个国家确定一个固定的标签（左翼/右翼）。我认为，他们是在某些时期、某些环境下的一种表现。这是一种动态属性而不是静态属性。我们回顾CCP的历史，某些时候表现得像左翼，某些时候又表现得像右翼。即使在同一时期，CCP的群体中，一些人的表现偏向左翼，而另一些的表现偏向右翼。中国历史上也是如此。其他国家的政府或人民，也是如此。

动态属性受到很多因素影响。当然，战争是一个很重要的因素，也是最残忍的因素。人类战争历史中，大部分诱发战争的原因都是因为彼此之间的信息不对称。我不想打他，但我认为他想打我，我必须先发制人。然而，对方也是这么想的......于是，战争爆发了。当双方在战争结束之后进行沟通，发现对方并没有这个想法时，双方已经遍体鳞伤。

Just as the Russian nationalists of the Soviet era pursued Russian independence and eventually destroyed the Soviet Union, most of the nationalists of this world pursue territorial independence. These Indians believed that Han Chinese nationalists were the same and would pursue the independence of traditional Han Chinese territories(汉地十八省) and then abandon areas such as Tibet.

So what they believe when they say that CCP prevents friendship between Han Chinese and Indians is that the Han nationalist government will give up Tibet. Of course, as Chinese you and I know this is a superb joke. The values of Han nationalists are very unique and when a Han nationalist government comes into existence, not only will this government not give up Tibet, but it will be the end of India.