dream11 cricket ind vs aus - Online Live Casino | Casino Games |

dream11 cricket ind vs aus,tennis serve how to,espn soccer highlights latest

Maroof Raza
Maroof Raza | Consulting Editor (Strategic Affairs)
Updated Nov 01, 2021 | 09:43 IST
China india border
In this September 9, 2020, file photo, an Indian Army convoy moves on the Srinagar- Ladakh highway at Gagangeer, northeast of Srinagar&nbsp | &nbspPhoto Credit:&nbspAP

cricket betting lines in india,In the last week of October, the Chinese legislature – the National People's Congress (NPC) - enacted new legislation (law) on the protection and exploitation of the areas on its land borders. It immediately drew a sharp reaction from India, since it is only India – other than Bhutan – that China has major disagreements with, over the boundary issue, as we have seen, with the military standoff along the LAC since April 2020. And though China shares a border with fourteen countries, it is only with India and Bhutan that China has yet to resolve its boundaries with. While the Sino-Indian boundary dispute is said to be over a 3,488-km Himalayan front line, the China-Bhutan row is over a boundary length of 400 km. Thus the legislation comes at a time when there appears to be no sign of a breakthrough after the 13th round of boundary talks between the military commanders of India and China ended on October 11th this year. The Indian Army claimed that the Chinese side ‘could not provide any forward-looking proposals’ and was ‘not agreeable’ on how the stand-off along the LAC in Ladakh could be put to an end; it has seen the deployment of 50,000 additional troops by each side, following the unexpected ingress by Chinese troops in April last year.

7 july soccer live score,So, what are the major points of disagreement between India and China and how have these come to be? The long-standing territorial dispute between China and India – along the Himalayas - is essentially over two geographically separate regions, and both have different historical origins, and in which lies the basis of these disputes. One is about the Sino-Indian boundary north-west of Ladakh, and as to whom should Aksai Chin belong to; and the other is about the McMahon Line - that separates India’s northeastern frontier regions (now Arunachal Pradesh) from Tibet, and how can it be made India’s boundary with China? While the dispute over the eastern boundaries of Ladakh (and whom Aksai Chin belongs to), can be traced initially to the Sikh empire’s expeditions - under General Zorawar Singh-  into the north in Baltistan and then to Tibet in the east in 1841-42, and then the Treaty of Chushul in 1842, the creation of the kingdom of Jammu & Kashmir after the Anglo-Sikh war in 1846, and thereafter the expeditions that were launched northeast onto the Kunlun mountain ranges to define the outer reaches of the kingdom; the McMahon Line, on the other hand, came into being after the long drawn out boundary conference in Simla in 1913-14. It was organised by the British government in India, to define India's borders with Tibet and that of China and Tibet.

cricdiction disqus,However, China was then in 1913-14, devastated by the impact of opium on its people and its economy - as a result of British rule and their trading practices – and was a reluctant participant in the Simla conference. Thus, with no agreement in sight after months of negotiation – in the absence of Chinese cooperation – but with the British keen on at least some outcome after months of parleys, they settled for an agreement between Tibet (then an independent nation) and the Government of India. And so, Sir Henry McMahon, the organiser of the Simla conference, eventually drew a line to define the southern boundary of Tibet, with British India. That became, the McMahon Line. As the British Empire was then at its prime, like other empires of that era, it could define its outer reaches, more so when it concerned its weaker neighbours. But, in the case of India - with the exception of its border with Nepal - the British left a lot of their boundaries unsettled, especially so after the messy partition of India; thus neither India's northern eastern boundary with Tibet nor was the boundary with Bhutan was settled.

Imperial China - and later Communist China - had refused to accept these boundary alignments. It saw it as a legacy of the British Empire, that the Communist elite had come to abhor for several reasons. Whereas independent India’s leadership – led by Pandit Nehru – had evolved in its role with considerable engagement with the British establishment well after India’s independence, and thus understood the historical circumstances and the British explanations for them. Moreover, with its partition, India was busy settling its new borders with the state of Pakistan in its east and west. It was assumed by Pandit Nehru that the boundaries to the north with Tibet (now with China) were settled, based on his implicit assumptions that the maps handed over by the British administration were final. However, the Communist leadership of China - though keen to settle its boundaries with its dozen neighbours – put the settlement with India on hold. Instead, China chose to first seek a settlement with the Soviet Union (now Russia), over tracts of Chinese territories that had been annexed by Tsarist Russia. Moreover, China’s Chairman Mao was eager to please Stalin to get Russian military support for his ambitious plans for China, as also Russian nuclear know-how.,us youth soccer europe e.v

Thus the settlement of its boundaries with India – especially the McMahon Line – was at a lower priority for Communist leadership of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). And a Sino-Indian boundary line in Ladakh, even less so. Considering the fact that the Soviet Chinese boundary settlement took half a century, it is argued by some that China would’ve legitimised at least the McMahon Line in due course of time. What perhaps tipped the scales for a confrontation (in 1962) was Nehru’s eagerness to put an end to ambiguity about India’s boundaries by publishing new maps (in 1954) that showed India’s whole northern frontier as an international boundary, and for good measure, he stated that “this frontier should be regarded as a firm and definite one which is not open to discussion with anybody”, and that it must be held on the ground, “especially in such places” which may be claimed by China. These newly-published maps – based on the lines drawn by the British Empire - became the basis of India’s claims, and it included the area of Aksai Chin.,golf us open betting tips

why can i not download pokerstars,Since China was initially slow to react, it was assumed in Delhi that India’s claims had Peking’s (now Beijing) acceptance. But then first in 1959 and then in 1960, China put forward its own claims over east Ladakh, including Aksai Chin. The Chinese had in fact begun their occupation of Aksai Chin from the early 1950s, building what is now their vital highway (219) that connects Kashgar in Xinjiang to Lhasa in Tibet. This had apparently become known to Nehru’s administration by 1954, but it wasn’t brought into the public domain until much later. While some historians have argued that Nehru’s tough stance on the boundary alignment and his dismissal of the offer by the Chinese premier, Chow en Lai, on his visit to India, in 1960, that: “you keep what you hold, you take too anything that is in dispute and occupied by neither, and we keep what we hold”, essentially remains central to the Chinese stance even now, which the Chinese have hinted at since the 1990s.

pokere,And though China has said – after announcing this new legislation – that its new land border law will not affect the implementation of its existing border treaties a day after India raised concerns over the legislation, an unnoticed part of China’s position is that it’ll abide by existing treaties. And as history tells us, there is no treaty that India has with modern-day China over their boundary with Tibet – either in eastern Ladakh or across the Arunachal Pradesh -  that China will be willing to honour, New Delhi must get real on what to expect from China, despite the many rounds of talks taking place now, or the 22 rounds of Special Representative talks. Neither has yielded any results that are favourable to India. Even the much-trumpeted Chinese withdrawal around the Pangong Tso lake came about after the contestable Indian decision to vacate the gains made by our troops of those heights on the Kailash range. Though it gave the policymakers in New Delhi a face-saving opportunity to announce all would be back to normal soon, the Chinese had not only grabbed those heights but then have refused to relent further on all other areas claimed by India along the LAC in Gogra, Hot Springs or Depsang plains. And they are unlikely to do so. They are in fact reinforcing their military positions all along the Sino-Indian front new border, and won’t relent easily. This is a new reality, and China’s new border law is yet another step in that direction!

pokere,Maroof Raza is a guest contributor. Views expressed are personal.

Times now
Times Now Navbharat
ET Now
ET Now Swadesh
Live TV