India says it has agreed with China to work urgently to achieve the withdrawal of tens of thousands of troops stationed along their disputed border in a long-running standoff.
Because it's part of Tibet? Idk, why does India need to claim it? Why does India need to own Assam for that matter? Why can't Bangladesh have it? Or be its own state like Nepal or Bhutan? Historical claims are just like that, they're not objective and they often overlap. Who's to say who's right and who's wrong?
Well it depends whose globe i look at doesn't it? One side says one thing the other says another.
The point i was making is that most of the lines on the map that we call borders are really arbitrary and the arguments why they should be one way and not the other depend on your point of view. And the border between India and China is especially dubious in legitimacy because it was drawn by the British, and at a time when one of these two countries didn't even exist/was a colony and the other was too weak to defend its sovereign interests and territory.
And i don't understand the point you're making about rivers.
I've heard of dividing borders on ethnicity but basing them on continental divides is a new one for me. Would you say all of Russia east of the Urals belongs to mongolia or something?
Yes. Look at a globe and then touch the relief textures. Arunachal is part of the Indian continental landmass, which is very very clearly defined by the Himalayas, Hindu Kush, and Arakan mountains
"Touch the map, you will know intuitively know where the borders should be." and other sentiments that sound like they were dreamed up by hopping mad crackers about to reenact the scramble for Africa
Ok but we're talking about countries not geographical regions. You do know there's a difference between the country called India and the Indian subcontinent, right? There are more countries on the subcontinent than just India.
Countries and their borders are political constructs. You are of course free to think that a country should have its border on this or that geographical feature like a river or a mountain range, but reality is often more messy than that.
Geography is just one of many considerations that factor into where borders between two countries ultimately end up, there's all sorts of political factors like history, demography, economic and strategic importance, etc.
Which is exactly why China only claims it and doesn't hold it. They had occupied all of it way back in the 62 war and would've held on to it if it made sense. At this point, the claim is just a pressure tactic against an India that regularly takes potshots at China to impress US.
you literally can't keep track of the argument lmao. done
the original argument was "losing arunachal = water insecurity"
you countered with "uhhh the tsangpo is acktshyually in Tibet" and ignored the massive amounts of water (snow) from Arunachal itself
somehow you can't admit that you're wrong, or you can't keep track of what was said 4 comments ago
Hint: wanna actually disprove what I said? look at the volume flow rates for all those rivers on your map, and show me that a large amount of it originates from before it hits Arunachal
You on the other hand keep insisting that arunachal is the focal point where the river starts and therefore its being grabbed by china.
Never said this, come up with more interesting headcanon
No ones genuinely buys that siang just pops out arunachal.
Again, never said this. the point is that losing control of 90% of your water supply is a lot worse than the current situation of not controlling 10% of it. Numbers!
Because it's part of Tibet? Idk, why does India need to claim it? Why does India need to own Assam for that matter? Why can't Bangladesh have it? Or be its own state like Nepal or Bhutan? Historical claims are just like that, they're not objective and they often overlap. Who's to say who's right and who's wrong?
Nope, it's part of India. Look at a globe.
and yea, anyone can claim anything. But if you continue to claim the river that feeds 600 million people, expect not to be cooperated with
Well it depends whose globe i look at doesn't it? One side says one thing the other says another.
The point i was making is that most of the lines on the map that we call borders are really arbitrary and the arguments why they should be one way and not the other depend on your point of view. And the border between India and China is especially dubious in legitimacy because it was drawn by the British, and at a time when one of these two countries didn't even exist/was a colony and the other was too weak to defend its sovereign interests and territory.
And i don't understand the point you're making about rivers.
Nope! It's like saying Colombia is part of North America
Again I can't believe I have to say this but yea crackers know literally fucking anything at all about the rest of the world challenge: impossible
I've heard of dividing borders on ethnicity but basing them on continental divides is a new one for me. Would you say all of Russia east of the Urals belongs to mongolia or something?
yes. gb2europe
Yes. Look at a globe and then touch the relief textures. Arunachal is part of the Indian continental landmass, which is very very clearly defined by the Himalayas, Hindu Kush, and Arakan mountains
Simple!
"Touch the map, you will know intuitively know where the borders should be." and other sentiments that sound like they were dreamed up by hopping mad crackers about to reenact the scramble for Africa
So you support the cracker colonization of Africa? Countries are just constructs
Ok but we're talking about countries not geographical regions. You do know there's a difference between the country called India and the Indian subcontinent, right? There are more countries on the subcontinent than just India.
Countries and their borders are political constructs. You are of course free to think that a country should have its border on this or that geographical feature like a river or a mountain range, but reality is often more messy than that.
Geography is just one of many considerations that factor into where borders between two countries ultimately end up, there's all sorts of political factors like history, demography, economic and strategic importance, etc.
That's nice. If a country claims another country's land, then that country will not cooperate with it!
Which is exactly why China only claims it and doesn't hold it. They had occupied all of it way back in the 62 war and would've held on to it if it made sense. At this point, the claim is just a pressure tactic against an India that regularly takes potshots at China to impress US.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
look at a globe, cracker
the river does not originate in Tibet, 90% of it originates in the mountains of Arunachal
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
you literally can't keep track of the argument lmao. done
the original argument was "losing arunachal = water insecurity"
you countered with "uhhh the tsangpo is acktshyually in Tibet" and ignored the massive amounts of water (snow) from Arunachal itself
somehow you can't admit that you're wrong, or you can't keep track of what was said 4 comments ago
Hint: wanna actually disprove what I said? look at the volume flow rates for all those rivers on your map, and show me that a large amount of it originates from before it hits Arunachal
deleted by creator
Never said this, come up with more interesting headcanon
Again, never said this. the point is that losing control of 90% of your water supply is a lot worse than the current situation of not controlling 10% of it. Numbers!
deleted by creator