Has Indian territory ever been demarcated by Indian govt based on ground realities?
What ground realities would these be? Today's? Yesteryears? Before 1950? Before 1959? Before 1962?
Are you aware of the history of the demarcation of the eastern borders of Ladakh, taken over by the princely state of J&K, and taken up by the British?
Please don't say half-baked things that might make sense to you, but have no connection with 'ground realities'.
How did Aksai China become part of India? It is a road connecting Tibet & Xinjiang and completely cutoff by Himalayas to the South & West. By what magic did India get claims on that land?
For your information, there was no road in that region. The first road was built by a Chinese cavalry commander after they had occupied Tibet.
To learn how Aksai Chin, a region and not a road, became part of India, you have to learn about the history of the geography. It might make your head hurt, but do try.
There was no magic to it, as it was - and is - barren, unclaimed land with no habitation.
You are simply being stubborn and have no ground based facts on historical data but just look at superficiality
Once you have read a book or two, you might get a better grasp of the Sino-Indian border situation.
It is called economic control. India wields significant economic control over Bangladesh. Unless BD is willing to go back 10 years of development, they have to shove their opinions and tow the line. India has not got anything back but also ensuring that it can't be harmed by BD by having a leverage. This is similar to how USA goes around investing in countries like Pakistan.
There is zero economic control. Nothing that we have provided cannot be replaced by China and by Pakistan.
Has Indian territory ever been demarcated by Indian govt based on ground realities?
What ground realities would these be? Today's? Yesteryears? Before 1950? Before 1959? Before 1962?
Are you aware of the history of the demarcation of the eastern borders of Ladakh, taken over by the princely state of J&K, and taken up by the British?
Please don't say half-baked things that might make sense to you, but have no connection with 'ground realities'.
How did Aksai China become part of India? It is a road connecting Tibet & Xinjiang and completely cutoff by Himalayas to the South & West. By what magic did India get claims on that land?
For your information, there was no road in that region. The first road was built by a Chinese cavalry commander after they had occupied Tibet.
To learn how Aksai Chin, a region and not a road, became part of India, you have to learn about the history of the geography. It might make your head hurt, but do try.
There was no magic to it, as it was - and is - barren, unclaimed land with no habitation.
You are simply being stubborn and have no ground based facts on historical data but just look at superficiality
Once you have read a book or two, you might get a better grasp of the Sino-Indian border situation.
It is called economic control. India wields significant economic control over Bangladesh. Unless BD is willing to go back 10 years of development, they have to shove their opinions and tow the line. India has not got anything back but also ensuring that it can't be harmed by BD by having a leverage. This is similar to how USA goes around investing in countries like Pakistan.
There is zero economic control. Nothing that we have provided cannot be replaced by China and by Pakistan.
BDR revolt had nothing to do with BDR firing at Indians. You are just mincing words and twisting things to suit your ideas but they are not reality. BDR may definitely fire at India by going rogue but if they went rogue, why did BD leadership back them? They could simply have conveyed India that India can kill any BDR soldier & BD govt would do only lip service. That would have meant India could simply free fire at BDR and that would have instilled fear in BDR while also reducing the headcount of rogue elements.
It is difficult to find out where to start and where to end, faced with such abysmal ignorance.
The BDR is the equivalent of our border force, the BSF. It patrols Bangladesh's borders, hence its name. During this patrolling, it has frequently clashed with the BSF, and the two forces have exchanged fire.
The BDR was also disgruntled at not being entitled to the coveted UN assignments that the Army - the Bangladesh Army - got, and in the incident in question, rose up in mutiny, slaughtered Army officers in their cantonment, and held hostages, as well as detaching a formation to assassinate political figures. This is quite distinct from intermittent firing on the borders, and quite clearly, you do not know the difference.
The BDR never went rogue; they fired under orders, and had the full support of their superior officers, for that matter, even of the Bangladesh Army.
BDR may definitely fire at India by going rogue but if they went rogue, why did BD leadership back them? They could simply have conveyed India that India can kill any BDR soldier & BD govt would do only lip service. That would have meant India could simply free fire at BDR and that would have instilled fear in BDR while also reducing the headcount of rogue elements.
They did not go rogue, as mentioned earlier. As to why the Bangladesh leadership backing them, there was never any question of giving in to what was perceived as the high-handed behaviour of the BSF. There was no question of lip service or of killing BDR soldiers by India at will.
Again, to enlighten your ignorance, there was more free fire from the BDR than from the BSF.
It is difficult to understand where a fevered imagination and a total lack of information can take some of our naive members.
Bangladesh has no indigenous artillery. It has no indigenous steel supply, missiles etc. Bangladesh has no major weaponry to shoot back. Its limited ammunition & indigenous spare part production means India can disable its military in a day or 2 and there will not no case of BD having the ability to shoot back.
I suggest you look up how many days' ammunition the Indian Army has, at its disposal. You might be surprised; judging by your performance so far, you will be surprised.
Also, nobody needs indigenous artillery. The Pakistanis use Chinese weaponry, because you shoot with a gun, not show off your technical and production expertise.
Finally, you should educate yourself on the progress - or the lack of it - of artillery procurement by the Indian Army. Other than the imported ultra-lightweight M777 and the self-propelled K9, nothing much has happened. So don't talk about achievements that are all on paper.
As for armed formation of Myanmar tribes, I am well aware.
I doubt it. You displayed your usual total ignorance when the question came up, and even now, I doubt that you can name the tribes that occupy both sides of the India-Myanmar border.
The tribals on either Indian or Burmese side don't have any heavy industry or weapon making factories. Weapons are not something that can be traded like potatoes that they will be purchased from anonymous street vendors and sneaked in sacks on boats and carts by random people via rivulets or unfenced border. The weapons used by the tribals are military grade weapons supplied from high tech industries and have limited sources & supply chains and can be easily restricted from passing a territory by government authorities. My point is that they are buying that weapons from BD or trafficked via BD as there is no other route available which implies BD authority is complicit with weapons trafficking
No. Do your homework. The Bangladesh government has had its own friction with armed formations on the Rakhine frontier, but not with the other three, with which its borders do not overlap.
Really, it is difficult to understand how you can spout such nonsense with not the slightest information about the facts.
theprint.in
