What is India's stance on Tibet ?

Homepage     About me     Contact me   Privacy policy

In 1959, as Chinese troops consolidated power over Lhasa, the Dalai Lama, only 23 at the time, disguised himself as a soldier and fled to India. Eighty thousand Tibetans followed. India allowed him to set up an exile government in the Himalayan town of Dharamsala.

Heart-rending stories of Tibetans walking through icy mountain passes to reach India — their land seized, their monasteries razed, their prayers silenced — buttressed U.S. efforts to isolate China during the Cold War and have continued to rake up support on college campuses and outside Chinese embassies worldwide. “Free Tibet” long ago became a familiar cry. So, what is the Indian stance on Tibet?

Strategic importance of Tibet:

 A sizable proportion of Chinese water reserves are on the Tibetan plateau and the region includes a long land border with India. Any concessions to Tibetans could draw the ire of hard-liners within China’s ruling party, PLC and rouse nationalist fervor in Inner Mongolia and other regions which PLC has suppressed for so long. 

India's stance:

India likes to keep a moderate approach for every problem- ‘Non-Alignment Policy’. But that does not mean that India is weak. Unlike China and some other nations who keep meddling in other’s problems, India likes to keep a neutral stance. Despite Chinese threats, India was the country that provided sanctuary for the Tibetans. This shows that India is not weak.

Now, coming back to the main question, current situation does not allow a full-fledged war between any two nukes. So, a military approach to free Tibet is not possible.

Other than that there are political issues. Every nation wants its own benefit first. The first duty of any nation is to work for the benefit of its citizens. India and China already have tensed relations due to Chinese claim on north eastern part of India. So, accepting Chinese claim on Tibet may lead the Chinese to accept Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh as a part of India (although I believe Chinese government is not trustworthy enough as they keep on claiming more and more territories everyday. God knows when they are going to find solace !!). However freeing Tibet would also mean getting rid of an irritating neighbor because India would no longer share such a long border with China.

Now if Tibet really wants to free itself, Tibetans have to fight for themselves. When dictatorship is a fact, revolution becomes a right. They need to revolt against their Chinese dictator. Every civilization has from time to time became a thin crust over a volcano of revolution. India like US can only help Tibetans to achieve independence. Remember, India helped Bangladesh because they themselves fought for independence.

Read more articles:

Home

Were Indians truly as vulnerable as portrayed by our history books?

Homepage     About me    Contact me   Privacy policy

Our history books are full of detailed invasions. Indians are always portrayed as a bunch of victims whose resistance was always crushed from the onslaught of invading tribes. 
This post seeks to create awareness among people and uplift the crushed image of our ancestors in our minds with the mention of a single example of a forgotten battle. 

Battle of Baharaich.

Every Indian today is aware of Mahmud of Ghazni and his unstoppable 17 raids. His plunders are believed to form the basis of the later Islamic invasions. However, many people today are unaware of the aftermath of Ghaznavid empire.

Mahmud was followed by his nephew Masood Gazni. Continuing Mahmud’s legacy, he invaded India with an army of more than 100,000 men in May 1031 AD. Unlike Mahmud's army which was basically a raiding party, Masood's army was backed by the imperial army and had attacked India with the intention of permanent conquest and Islamization of India.

King Anandpal Shahi tried to check this invasion along with the king of Sialkot. But, this alliance was overwhelmed by the superiority in numbers of the invading army. Masood continued his advance towards Indian mainland. King Mahipal Tomara also tried to check their advance but he was also defeated. After victories across Northern Indian plains, Masood camped at Bahraich which is near Lucknow.

Meanwhile, a historic alliance was being created under Raja Suhaldev. 17 Rajput Kings together forged an alliance. This was the biggest confederation that has ever existed in India.

On 13th June, Rajput army of about 1,20,000 descended on the Ghazni camp of Bahraich. Masood's army was completely besieged and encircled. Each and every man in Masood's camp was killed. The battle ended on 14th June with the victory of the Rajput federation. This battle took place near Chittaura Lake.

The invasion was completely crushed and such resounding was this victory that none of foreign kingdoms dared to invade India for the next 160 years.

Nowadays, I have seen many people mocking Rajputs by saying that they were unable to win even a single battle. This answer seeks to create awareness among such people. There have been many instances where Rajputs were successful in defeating their enemies. This is one such example. India is extremely indebted to the Rajput Kings. They were instrumental in keeping Arab invaders at bay for 3 centuries. This was the time when Khalifat empire was at its peak and extended from Sindh to Spain. However, they were unable to defeat Rajputs and enter Indian heartlands.

But it is a pity that these battles where native Indians crushed the invaders, which should have been the pride of Indians, are hardly mentioned in our history books. We must learn from the Chinese who study their high points much more than the high points of their oppressors and hence they have a natural pride in their civilization. Indian books on the other hand are exactly the opposite where the high points of the invaders are given wide coverage while the high points of our own are not even mentioned.

This battle is an exemplary example of how united Indian kings had the ability to create the most formidable force of the world !!

Read more articles:
Home

Is Napoleon Europe's Samadragupta?

Homepage       About me    Contact me   Privacy policy

First of all, I doubt that you guys know about Samudragupta. Even most of the Indians don't know about this great conquerer because as far as I remember only a single page is devoted to him in our 'school history books' and in that he is referred to as India's Napoleon. But is Napoleon worthy enough to be called as Europe's Samudragupta?

4th century AD, India was once again divided into numerous kingdoms. The great Mauryan empire (Ashoka's empire) which was once created by the immense hardships of the great Mauryan kings had shattered. For nearly 500 years after the death of Ashoka, the numerous small kingdoms warred with each other. Finally a new empire started to take shape in the Northern India. The 'empire of Guptas' started to take shape which was going to provide political stability to India once again.

Samudragupta was the younger son of the founder of the Gupta empire. The small empire founded by his father started to take a gigantic shape under him. His indefatigable energy and strong determination along with his brilliant strategies and diplomatic skill and shrewdness made him the 'king of kings'. His policy of conquest and liberal attitude towards the defeated kings earned him a place in the list of the greatest Indian kings. His diplomatic triumph opened new way for cementing friendliness with the foreign rulers of southeast Asia and middle East. He commanded the biggest army of the world at that time.
He was also a great administrator. The reforms brought by him formed the basis of administration of the later Indian rulers.

But Samudragupta was more than a fighter; he was also a lover of the arts. He set the stage for the emergence of classical art, which occurred under the rule of his son and successor Chandragupta II. Samudragupta is also known to have been "a man of culture". He was a patron of learning, a celebrated poet and a musician. Several coins depict him playing on the Indian lyre (veena). He gathered a galaxy of poets and scholars and took effective actions to foster and propagate religious, artistic and literary aspects of Indian culture. Though he favoured the Hindu religion like the other Gupta kings, he was reputed to possess a tolerant spirit for other religions. His reign is rightly called as the 'Golden Age' of India.

According to professor Dr. HC Roychowdhury, Samudragupta was more versatile than King Ashoka. Ashoka was proficient in scriptures only, but the versatility of Samudragupta lies in the fact that Samudragupta was proficient in all facets of art and culture.


Comparison with Napoleon:

Samudragupta never lost a single battle during his entire reign. Napoleon on the other hand faced numerous defeats throughout his career which ended with his ultimate defeat at Waterloo. Napoleon’s forces regularly plundered and pillaged the territories which he conquered. His rule which consisted of wars spread over 17 years supposedly left 6 million people dead across Europe, led to the loss of overseas French territories and the great nation of France became bankrupt. He also emancipated the Jews across Europe, the Catholics in Protestant majority countries and the Protestants in Catholic countries.

On the contrary, Samudragupta was a man of honour. He treated his opponents with respect. He established relations with almost all kingdoms in India and cemented them through matrimony. He was a man of culture and his court was filled with some of the greatest intellectuals. He was a Hindu by faith but encouraged all faiths. At the request of the Sri Lankan king and the Buddhist monks from over there, he allowed the construction of a large monastery at Bodh Gaya one of the holiest sites for Buddhists. Nalanda University was founded during this Golden Age. This center of Buddhist learning was built in a place that the Buddha himself had visited a number of times, and was patronized by the Gupta kings. He left behind a great legacy which is rightly called as The Classical Age in Indian history.

There is absolutely no similarity between Samudragupta and Napoleon yet European exceptionalism creates that similarity and the much superior Samudragupta is called as Indian Napoleon, a man who was nowhere near his standards.

More Articles:
Home

Is there a moral need for Britain to commemorate Indian soldiers of World Wars?

Homepage           About me             Contact me               Privacy policy

Brits commemorated the animals who lost their lives in world wars by building a memorial ' Animals in War Memorial ' in London. But it seems that they have forgotten the contribution of Indian soldiers who were made to fight for their colonisers. This post seeks to generate awareness among people about the Indian contribution in the allied victory.

In fact, every sixth soldier fighting for the Brits was from the Indian subcontinent. India contributed with more soldiers than Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa combined. 

 53,486 Indian soldiers lost their lives, 64,350 were wounded and 3,762 went missing or were imprisoned. Nearly 9,000 died due to severe winters in France. Apart from men and material, India also contributed with 100 million pounds of wealth. Not just combatants, there were 43,737 men who worked in the Indian Labour Corps. Within weeks of the war being declared, India also supplied 70,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition, 600,000 rifles, motors and machine guns.  The total value of India’s war contribution amounted to £ 80,000,000. That's about ₹ 7,420,800,000 in today's money. British continued to drain Indian money and manpower which resulted in death of 3 million Indians due to famines. This fact was never highlighted. The army was forgotten.

The Britain along with some other major powers who overlook India as a third world country have forgotten the Indian contribution in their prosperity. The India which once contributed 26% of world GDP before the arrival of British was exploited so much that after their departure India could contribute just 4% of world GDP. 

So, I think it's a moral responsibility of Britain to commemorate the Indian soldiers who fought for them in world wars. 

Read more articles:

Home

Why are there so many small northeastern states? Why don't they join to form 2-3 states?

Homepage              About me                   Contact me            Privacy policy     

To understand the scenario, you need to know the history of North eastern states of our India.

When India got its independence in 1947, northeast comprised of three states- Assam and the princely states of Manipur and Tripura. (Like you had wished)

As you can see, Assam was much bigger than present day Assam and included many tribes like nagas, garo, khasi, jaintia etc. In 1960, Assam declared Assamese as the state language. This move led to revolt from the different linguistic people who lived in Assam. It became very difficult to control such a big and diverse Assam.

Subsequently, Nagaland was formed in 1963 to please the violent Naga people who had taken arms against the army, Meghalaya in 1972, Arunachal Pradesh in 1975 and Mizoram in 1987 where Indian government had to use air Force to quell an armed uprising of Mizos!!

So, reasons like linguistic convenience, armed rebellion of tribes etc. were some reasons which led to division of Assam.

Union will again lead to disorder and unrest in northeast which could be exploited by our ‘well wishing' neighbors.

Division is easy, Union is difficult.

For more articles:
Home

Is it the right decision to spend 3000 crores on Statue of Unity?

Homepage     About me       Contact me       Privacy policy

Prime minister Narendra Modi (then the Chief Minister of Gujarat) had announced the plan for the construction of the world's tallest statue on 7 Oct 2010. 'The statue of Unity' that it has been named has faced serious opposition from critics and opposing parties on various social platforms. This page seeks to discuss some facts on these issues.

Who is the true father of India?

The Britishers came into India as traders, became our rulers, looted us for 200 years with all enthusiasm and sowed seeds of discontent and struggle that we are forced to live with till date. The central pillar of their rule over such a huge land with massive diversity was simple - break the Indian unity.
They believed that once they left India, India would simply balkanise into a number of small states due to lack of a central leadership. The rulers had no idea that a man whose vision was broader than Bismarck and skills sharper than Robert Clive and Warren Hastings combined, was waiting in the queue.
Many people including many Indians themselves believe that India would never had come into picture if there was no colonial rule. However the facts state otherwise. When the British left India, India still had about 565 princely states. Think of our country as a jigsaw puzzle of 500+ pieces. Some pieces are small, some are enormous, some immaterial, some vital, and while some are easy to fix some are intricate and hard to fit in place. Now, the thing about jigsaw puzzles is even if you finish almost all the piece it is still incomplete. The true picture only emerges if you get all the pieces right. The complexity of the situation and immensity of the task of unification could have driven anyone crazy.
Sardar Patel applied open talk, diplomacy, force, military power, and ultimately enabled the accession of almost every princely state. The hollow threats of most Nawabs and Kings were laid bare as Sardar quelled whatever little opposition arose.
He was the Iron Man of India who gave us the nation we know today. So, don't you think that he was the true father of India.
Many people today know about Bismarck who was a great politician and the unifier of the German nation state. However it's a pitiful fact that very few people outside India are aware about this great personality who united a state which was about 10 times bigger than Germany. The reason is that we never gave him the respect that he deserved. We bestowed him with Bharat Ratna (the highest civilian award of India) in 1991 much after his death while Nehru and Indira Gandhi were awarded this respect even when they were alive.
We need something to show our respect and reverence to this great underrated legend.  

Economic benefits:

Till now we talked about political reasons and moral duties. Now, let's talk about the controversy. 

First let me tell you some facts: 

Do You know that statue of unity is funded by Gujarat government and not central government ?

The iron needed for the statue and other structures was to be collected from farmers of villages all around India in a form of donation of their used farming instruments.The drive was named the 'Statue of Unity movement'. During this 3 month long period, over 5000 metric tonnes of iron were collected. Can you see the love and respect that Gujaratis have for our beloved leader?

People raise many questions like why are wasting such huge sums of money? If you wish to view this from economic point of view. This seems to be a good investment. It is not a ordinary statue, it is going to be the world's tallest statue. It will bolster Gujarat tourism manifoldly. Let me present you the example of Statue of Liberty. Every year, it receives approximately 4.5 million visitors. Statue of Unity will be 2.5 times as tall as Statue of Liberty. So, don't you think that it has the potential to attract this many visitors?

  

If times are depressing and daunting, Sardar Patel reminds us of India's and Indians' potential. When times are good, we can think of him with glad gratitude !

So, yes I feel that it's the right thing to do.

For more articles:
Home

Why India spends so much on defense?

Homepage                 About me                                  Contact me                           Privacy policy

One of the questions that I have heard from many Indians is that why does our government spend so much on defense when we are facing many other critical issues. News channels highlight 'India spends 41.3 billion dollars every year on arms.', 'India's defense budget is ten times the education budget.' So, this post seeks to answer these questions.

Why is defense such a critical issue for India ?

How do you feel when you are playing an online multiplayer game like clash of clans and you invest a lot of time trying to develop your side and then suddenly someone invades and steals your resources?

Pakistan is a terrorist state where even a terrorist who is the mastermind of 26/11 Mumbai attack receives z+ security and is the next probable PM of the state. Pakistan has a heavily burdened economy because of the terror elements that it has supported for so long. The Pakistan economy even after receiving heavy grants from China and US is very dimunitive infront of the fastest growing economy of India.

So, if India doesn't remain militarily defensive against this small goblin then it will try its best to steal the resources because it is unable to generate it.

Now, why is it defensive and not offensive? Even though this goblin is small, it has received nuclear weapons. In case of war, this poor goblin will be destroyed but even India will lose its position as the fastest growing economy.

India's aspirations to become a key player in world politics dictates the imperatives of self-reliant defense capabilities. It is easy to say that we can spend the money on education and reducing poverty but the minute our security forces weaken we will once again start facing problems of terrorists and local naxals. We just need to reduce corruption and divert the money to the right direction so that we can use the hard earned taxpayer's money in the best possible way.

Read more articles at:
Home

Why is India reactive and not proactive against Pakistan?

Homepage      About me      Contact me     Privacy policy

One of those questions that has been posed to every elected Hindustani government is 'why do we have no first attack policy', 'why do we wait for Porkis to attack?' This post will answer such questions.

Pakistan is like a mischievous brat which keeps on troubling its sensible big brother India. Let's see how Pakistan developed after independence:

For a long time of Pakistan's post independence period, Pakistan has been ruled by its military. Democratically elected governments have struggled to complete their terms, being alternately dismissed by presidents or removed from power by army chiefs.

Indeed, only one parliament has ever completed its five-year term - and it was headed by General Pervez Musharraf, a military dictator, as both president and army chief.

So, Pakistani intellects lack power and are easily suppressed by its military when they try to raise any sensible opinions. Pakistani army tries to get popular public support to stay in power by condemning India and conducting frequent attacks on India. Let me give you an example, Nawaz Sharif was losing from India on diplomatic grounds, so military started condemning him to get back in power. So, even he has to continue with his frequent attacks on India. This is the reason for the frequent attacks from the Pakistani side.

Now let's talk about India. India is the one of the fastest growing economy with a good world standing. It has got enough sensible intellectuals who understand that war is never a good option because even the victor has to lose it's earlier powerful standing. So, India is reactive and not pro-active.

India knows that if India will become pro-active then the weak Pakistani government will be forced to declare a full scale war and a war has no victors.Even though Pakistan may vanish from the world map, India will also get weakened which could be exploited by other world powers.

Read more articles at :
Home