Thread on Evolution of Sino-India Border
I expect followers not to tag official govt handles and create unnecessary hype.
Lets first go back to 2 main great Chinese extents-
Ming Dynasty with independent Tibet 1368-1644
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EurdAjVVoAMYtGj.jpg)
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eurdb2AVcAU6sue.jpg)
The defeat of the 1791 Nepalese invasion increased the Qing's control over Tibet.
This is 1820 qing claim possibly at the behest of Ambans.
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eurd4jtUYAUP1Jl.png)
This is the boundary which india officially claim
This is the border Republic of India has inherited and is its official claim based on Dogra and 1914 Simla maps.
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EurfHNHVcAAz_e5.png)
Map published by china in 1933 putting aksai chin inside India.
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EurfWPkVcAQi1gW.jpg)
Let us come to post independence.
The Chinese built the road and India was not knowing since 1957, when india protested the Chinese claimed that they have already annexed half of aksai chin
This claim line includes 70% of Aksai chin but includes arunachal as a part of India.
In 24 oct 1962, China invaded further and occupied Aksai Chin and also occupying galwan valley and Depsang Plains.
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eurg_W_VkAA23k6.png)
As far as Congress is concerned the Chinese thus invaded India between 2001-2013, 14 times occupying 900-2000 sq km every time
1. Galwan clash- Most violent claiming casulities, Chinese incursion thwarted
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EurhavKVEAI9Q1F.jpg)
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eurh8fXVgAciZF9.jpg)
This area saw Chinese occupation 4 times under UPA regime, I will discuss 2020 only.
I might get bashed by BJP and bhaktas badly but what I feel Modi lied when he said not an inch of our land has been occupied
More from India
Reporters, pundits, activists. Before you echo the notion that Palestinians are being "corralled into small, crowded enclaves", which is in vogue in some circles, here are some facts that you won't find in @btselem's new position paper. Read and decide for yourself.
Thread:
Starting with the West Bank, specifically Area C from which allegedly Palestinians are being systematically pushed into the enclaves of Areas A and B, and replaced by Jewish settlers. If so, we should've seen the demographic balance in Area C shift in the Jews' favor. Has it? /2
Well, there's no evidence for that, certainly none in the paper. Latest UN estimate is ~ 300k Palestinians in Area C in 2013, probably >3 times their number in 1995 when the area was delineated. Jewish population growth in the same area & period was slower or similar at 2.6%./3
While good population stats for Area C are unavailable, there are construction surveys based on aerial photos. Do they support Btselem's claim? Quite the contrary. At least one shows that in recent yrs the total Palestinian residential area expanded more than the Jewish one./4
The same analysis by @RegavimIsrael found that the number of Palestinian structures in Area C increased by 28,600 during 2009-2019, nearly doubling in one decade, far more than the 18,600 built in Jewish settlements in that period, according to official statistics. /5
Thread:
Israel works to "Judaize" the entire area, treating the land as a resource chiefly meant to benefit the Jewish population. Jewish communities are established and developed, while Palestinians are dispossessed and corralled into small, crowded enclaves.https://t.co/DFU922lNvC pic.twitter.com/d36H8OVgdD
— B'Tselem \u05d1\u05e6\u05dc\u05dd \u0628\u062a\u0633\u064a\u0644\u0645 (@btselem) January 14, 2021
Starting with the West Bank, specifically Area C from which allegedly Palestinians are being systematically pushed into the enclaves of Areas A and B, and replaced by Jewish settlers. If so, we should've seen the demographic balance in Area C shift in the Jews' favor. Has it? /2
Well, there's no evidence for that, certainly none in the paper. Latest UN estimate is ~ 300k Palestinians in Area C in 2013, probably >3 times their number in 1995 when the area was delineated. Jewish population growth in the same area & period was slower or similar at 2.6%./3
While good population stats for Area C are unavailable, there are construction surveys based on aerial photos. Do they support Btselem's claim? Quite the contrary. At least one shows that in recent yrs the total Palestinian residential area expanded more than the Jewish one./4
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Er7wJHkW4AEvflA.jpg)
The same analysis by @RegavimIsrael found that the number of Palestinian structures in Area C increased by 28,600 during 2009-2019, nearly doubling in one decade, far more than the 18,600 built in Jewish settlements in that period, according to official statistics. /5
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Er7wJ39XAAEosVe.jpg)
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dp5bpvjXQAEMxB1.jpg)
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dp5cWdfXQAA501l.jpg)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dp5dUCgWwAAqUSL.jpg)
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?