Talk:Forward policy: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:52, 3 March 2019

International relations Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Start‑class Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Addressing Petty edit wars

This article is about "FORWARD POLICIES" in general. Not specifically to just one forward policy. Forward policy of India shouldn't be censored by edit wars.

@Kautilya3 ~ You completely deleted my input. I'm not interested in a petty edit war but you asked me to provide sources in "The forward policy" that Indian government engaged in.

Forward policy is a famous policy made by Nehru. It is one of the notable "forward policies" in modern history and deserves to be included as a case example in this article.

You want sources. Here they are ~

https://www.deccanherald.com/content/392828/forward-policy-nehru-govt-blamed.html

"The "Forward Policy" of the government under late Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and the then army leadership has been blamed for India's humiliating defeat in 1962 war against China in a top secret report accessed an Australian journalist" aka The Henderson Brooks report.

Chinese never accepted the McMahon Line. The Chinese know exactly where it lies; they simply don't recognize it as legitimate since they never signed the Simla Accord. So this isn't a case of reneging on a prior commitment / agreement; there was no agreement on the part of the Chinese.

And that's not all: the Simla Accord claimed that Tibet was under Chinese suzerainty. Suzerainty means control over domestic affairs but delegating control over foreign affairs to the suzerain. To me, it seems that the Simla Accord was never a valid agreement because the party that agreed to it, Tibet, did not have the legal capacity to agree to it under the terms of the agreement itself!

So to be clear, the Indian Army had set up outposts NORTH above the McMahon Line in what was Chinese territory: IF you go to wikipedia and lookup nehru and his forward policy.

"In June, local Indian commanders had estab- lished Dhola Post, in Tawang. The relevant issue was that Dhola Post was one mile north of the McMahon Line, in Chinese territory even by Indian standards."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm

All of this was after the Chinese had built a road across Aksai Chin. So there are plenty of sources and established reasoning behind my words

Undelete my input and add in the source. Don't just remove completely and fyi, i was not the one who originally added india into the article. So you deleted other people's work too.

also bear in mind everything is recorded and logged and you can't delete history ~ i'm not going to fight you over it as i don't really care about your beef with China. Not my problem but I am am aussie who read alot of chinese history, fascinated about it and know my stuff. And i didn't do anything wrong.

I also noticed that you have been flagged for petty edit warring in the past. 120.18.180.210 (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]