#Anti India Slogan

[insightfultake]

Bail Conditions in Bhopal: Chanting Bharat Mata 21 Times by HC

In a recent case in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, a bail was granted to a person who was found chanting the anti-India slogan in public on the condition that he must salute the Indian flag twice in a month at a police station in Bhopal. In addition, while saluting the flag to pay respect, he was ordered to chant “Bharat Mata Ki Jai” 21 times each session.

A case was registered against Faizal at the Bisrod police station in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, for allegedly raising slogans against India: “Pakistan Zindabad." He was arrested and taken into jail under Section 153 B of the IPC (Indian Penal Code) for promoting enmity and disrupting public harmony. However, Justice Dinesh Kumar Palliwal granted him bail on the strict condition that he must salute the Indian flag twice in a month on every first and fourth Tuesday of the month between 10 AM and noon until the trial concludes...click here

[never-was-has-been]

Don't Look Away

"I am 85 years old.

I have experienced the American Dream because I was born a white, American male; I was privileged.

Women did not have that privilege, African-Americans did not have that privilege, people of color did not have that privilege,

Native Americans did not have that privilege, non heterosexuals did not have that privilege--it was reserved for white, American males who presented as heterosexual.

In the 1960's and 1970's a sense of optimism filled the air in America, a genuine feeling that the American Dream could be made available to all people regardless of sex, color, creed, race, national origin or sexual orientation.

It was a tumultuous time, the civil rights movement, assassinations, the Watergate scandal, the Vietnam War protest movement; nevertheless, there truly was the feeling of a promise of a better tomorrow.

Because we were so optimistic, we let down our guard; we took our freedoms for granted, a big mistake; freedom is a fragile gift that must be closely guarded.

I can't pinpoint the exact time when the change began, I think it was when Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980.

A popular actor, a gentle-speaking likeable man, a convert to "conservative" values, a perfect puppet for the elitists, white supremacists and authoritarians who have been ever-present in our society since its very beginnings.

"Trickle-down" economics seeped in, anti-trust regulations were relaxed, “Free Markets” was the slogan of the day, human beings were reduced to chits on a profit board, consumerism took hold as the gap between the richest and the poorest widened into an insurmountable divide during the ensuing decades.

Money became the weapon of the rich and powerful white supremacists and Fascists who now seek to overthrow our tattered republic. Donald Trump is their latest puppet.

We are in a very dark place--BUT WE ARE STILL A LIVING, BREATHING REPUBLIC.

On November 5th, American citizens will be voting to decide whether our nation will remain a living, breathing Republic or will go the way of Russia, China, India, Hungary and all the other regimes that oppress their people under the heel of totalitarianism.

THE CHOICE IS OURS; EVERY VOTE IS CRITICAL; THE SUM TOTAL OF OUR VOTES WILL ECHO THE VOICE OF FREEDOM.

Donald Trump has a fixed base of mindless supporters that will not grow significantly.

If freedom-loving voters go to the polls, we can have a decisive victory and we can then begin the long and challenging task of restoring the promise of a better tomorrow, not just for American citizens, but FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS.

I am an old man; I will not live to see my AMERICAN-DREAM-FOR-ALL come true.

I have devoted my life to. this cause.

Please allow me to celebrate the beginning of a better tomorrow for America and the world.

IT CAN HAPPEN ON NOVEMBER 5TH!

Be well... ~Alan "DontLookAway" Dornan~ "

[hindulivesmatter]

I am a proud hindu so i was angry about what happened to kashmiri hindus. but after reading up on it and the history of kashmir in general, one thing is really obvious: india failed kashmir (all of them not just hindus). It’s why I support their right to self-determination. I am based in America and I know several punjabis here who don’t consider themselves indian because their family/community was directly impacted by the 1984 anti sikh pogroms. ig i’m saying india has failed a lot of people (esp minorities) so if we are not from their ethnic group, we don’t get to selfishly claim them or impose our will on them. like i’m a kannadiga and i hate the imposition of hindi in my home state and while this is not even slightly comparable to the violence and trauma faced by kashmiris, punjabis and other groups, i would hate for a non-kannadiga (esp a hindi speaker) telling me how to feel and having the final say in the matter so kashmiri self determination just makes sense to me.

this just my two cents hope this didn’t sound rude because that’s not my intention.

I know you didn't mean to be rude here, but what you're saying is actually really out of touch.

I hope you're aware of what happened in Kashmir to Kashmiri pandits. Pakistan has dreamed of Kashmir since it was formed. That's why they wrongfully attacked India the first time, securing only POK which sadly was due to the UN, and weak Indian political power. Since then, they have infiltrated our country, and approximately 300,000 Kashmiri Pandits are reported to have left the region due to constant persecution from the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) and other militant groups, like Hizbul-Mujahideen (HM). In 1989, radical Islamists initiated an insurgency, fueled by covert support from Pakistan.

The party at the time did its best to hide this, and stifle it as much as possible, this got an ounce of coverage and light when The Kashmir Files was released

Hindus have 5000 years of recorded history with the land, that Islamists claim has “always been Muslim land”. "Kashmir" is literally named after Rishi Kashyap, if you're aware. On 19, January 1990 mosques blared out the infamous "convert leave or die" and finished their mission of converting the entirety of Kashmir to an Islamic state. Our pandits were told to leave their wives and daughters behind if they wanted to escape alive.

They're still living like refugees in their country, and now thanks to the scrapping of sec 370, things have taken a turn for the better.

Many Muslims of Kashmir still retain their Hindu surname. It was a deliberate attempt to wipe Hindus out that Islamists achieved and now THAT'S the free Kashmir they want, this slogan isn't promising actual Kashmiris that were displaced from their homes back, this slogan is furthering the agenda to chew Kashmir off India's map - the one true dream.

A similar approach is taken by Khalistanis, they aren't asking for Lahore, you know, the capital of Maharaja Ranjeet Singh, they're demanding INDIA to give Punjab away. They are funded by Pakistan as well that's why they can't say anything about Sikh treatment in Pakistan. That's why they can't say anything about Gurudwaras converted to garbage bins. You obviously, being far away, aren't aware of what's going beneath the surface, they have vandalized various Hindu Temples.

They take the name of their Guru who sacrificed his life for India, while they stomp on the flag of India.

In theory, I guess it sounds easy to say "Well, disagreements are flaring up, so let's just split and give them their own thing". But this isn't how it works. Compromise and collaboration is how decisions are made in a democracy. This is our motherland, the last time we split was painful as fuck. The only reason India didn't fall apart after Independence is because of the formation of linguistic states.

I lived in Bangalore for the majority of my childhood, and I left 2 years before the entire language debacle began. I don't know if you know, but now Kannadigas are getting violent if anyone speaks Hindi. They demand you to speak in Kannada even if you don't know how.

You're based in America, so I'm not holding this against you, but I'm begging you, please do more research.

[Exhibit 82]

[bfpnola]

Part of the rationale offered by supporters of the name change is that Bharat is an indigenous term that goes back in history and was prominent in the anti-colonial struggles – for example, the slogan “Bharat Mata ki Jai” (Hail to mother Bharat). But there are other more important political ideological factors that must not be missed.

As the backbone of the right-wing in the country, the RSS (founded in 1925) has always carried a vision for India as a Hindu nation that extends far beyond electoral politics. In this transformation of Indian society and polity, the idea of “othering” non-Hindus has been crucial, and at various times has targeted Muslims, Christians, non-Brahmins, secularists, atheists, dissenters and so on.

So the proposed change of name from India to Bharat is not an anti-colonial move. Rather it is the creation of a binary designation whereby those who continue to espouse an “Indian” identity will, over time, become politically labelled as an “other” to the true and authentic “Bharatiya” (resident of Bharat) who is the “ideal” Hindu or Hindu-ised citizen.

—

🚨 want more materials like these? this resource was shared through BFP’s discord server! everyday, dozens of links and files are requested and offered by youth around the world! and every sunday, these youth get together for virtual teach-ins. if you’re interested in learning more, join us! link in our bio! 🚨

[ritchiepage2001newaccount]

Project2025 #CorpMedia #Oligarchs #MegaBanks vs #Union #Occupy #NoDAPL #BLM #SDF #DACA #MeToo #Humanity #FeelTheBern

JinJiyanAzadi #BijiRojava Welcome to Raqqa [UPDATES]

After a ruthless and exhausting 6 years of war in Syria, only the most ideologically strong militias have managed to flourish, absorbing various fragmented rebel factions and uniting them under strict philosophies. On the frontlines of Raqqa, a battle is raging between the American-backed coalition of Kurdish and Arab fighters known as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the Islamic State (ISIS)…

RELATED UPDATE: Nevertheless, Idlib’s Women Persist: Hiba Ezzideen

RELATED UPDATE: Introducing Murray Bookchin, the Extraordinary Originator of ‘Social Ecology

RELATED UPDATE: How the Kurds of Rojava Embraced Revolutionary New Ideas of Social Organization

RELATED UPDATE: 4th conference of SDC kicks off in Raqqa

RELATED UPDATE: ‘Jin, Jiyan, Azadî’ Conference in Stockholm

RELATED UPDATE: World Social Forum2024: A webinar on the Rojava Revolution

RELATED UPDATE: Eastern European Viyan finds herself with the Rojava Revolution

RELATED UPDATE: Syrian civil war enters 14th year

FURTHER READING:

[critical-skeptic]

There Are No Gods or Kings, Only Man

A Scathing Critique of Trumpism and the Rise of Populist Extremism

The era of Donald Trump has left an indelible mark on the political landscape, both in the United States and globally. The ascent of Trumpism, with its cult-like fervor, has emboldened extremist rhetoric and actions reminiscent of a nascent Fourth Reich. This dangerous trend has profound implications, and it is crucial to dissect its roots, impacts, and the broader issues it reveals about contemporary society.

The Cult of Personality

Donald Trump's presidency was characterized by an unprecedented cult of personality. His followers, often referred to as the MAGA (Make America Great Again) crowd, elevated him to an almost god-like status. This idolization is antithetical to the principle that "there are no gods or kings, only man." By placing Trump on a pedestal, his supporters disregarded his numerous failings and embraced a narrative built on lies and demagoguery.

Trump's appeal lay in his ability to present himself as an anti-establishment figure, a billionaire who spoke for the "common man." However, this facade masked his true nature as a self-serving opportunist. The QAnon conspiracy theory, which flourished under his watch, further exemplifies the dangers of blind faith in a singular figure. QAnon followers believed in a shadowy "deep state" and saw Trump as their savior, leading to real-world violence and a distortion of democratic discourse.

Populist Rhetoric and Authoritarian Tendencies

Trump's rhetoric was marked by extreme populism, scapegoating minorities, immigrants, and political opponents. This us-versus-them mentality fostered division and hatred, eroding the social fabric. His infamous slogan, "Make America Great Again," harkened back to an idealized past that never truly existed, promoting a reactionary agenda that sought to roll back civil rights and social progress.

The rise of Trumpism also saw an alarming embrace of authoritarian tendencies. Trump's frequent attacks on the media, judiciary, and other democratic institutions undermined the checks and balances essential to a functioning democracy. His refusal to accept the results of the 2020 election and the subsequent insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, highlighted the dangers of a leader who refuses to relinquish power and incites violence.

Global Impact: A Fourth Reich in the Making?

The impact of Trumpism has not been confined to the United States. Around the world, populist leaders have drawn inspiration from Trump's playbook. Figures like Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, and Narendra Modi in India have adopted similar tactics, leveraging nationalism, xenophobia, and disinformation to consolidate power. These leaders, emboldened by Trump's example, pose a significant threat to global stability and democratic norms.

The comparison to the rise of a Fourth Reich is not hyperbolic. The parallels between the current wave of populism and the conditions that led to the rise of fascism in the 20th century are stark. Economic uncertainty, social fragmentation, and a distrust of established institutions create a fertile ground for demagogues who promise simple solutions to complex problems. The dangerous combination of charismatic leadership and a disaffected populace can lead to the erosion of democratic principles and the rise of autocratic regimes.

The Broader Problems: Idolatry and Centralization of Power

The rise of Trumpism and global populism underscores a broader issue: the human propensity for idolatry and the centralization of power. In times of crisis, people often seek strong leaders to provide direction and reassurance. This tendency, however, can lead to the elevation of deeply flawed individuals to positions of immense power, exacerbating the very issues they purport to solve.

The idolization of leaders like Trump distracts from the reality that they are mere mortals, subject to the same flaws and limitations as anyone else. This deification creates a dangerous feedback loop, where leaders are emboldened by their followers' unwavering support, leading to increasingly authoritarian behavior. The principle that "there are no gods or kings, only man" serves as a reminder that power should be dispersed and accountable, not concentrated in the hands of a few.

The Way Forward: Embracing Rationalism and Egalitarianism

Addressing the rise of populist extremism requires a fundamental shift in how society approaches leadership and governance. First and foremost, it is essential to reject the notion of infallible leaders. Political discourse should be grounded in rationalism, critical thinking, and empirical evidence, not in blind faith and conspiracy theories.

Egalitarianism must also be a guiding principle. A healthy democracy thrives on diversity of thought and a robust system of checks and balances. Power should be decentralized, with strong institutions that hold leaders accountable and protect the rights of all citizens. Education plays a crucial role in this endeavor, fostering a populace that is informed, critical, and resistant to demagoguery.

In conclusion, the era of Trump and the rise of populist extremism serve as a stark reminder of the dangers of idolatry and the centralization of power. The quote "there are no gods or kings, only man" encapsulates the need for a more rational, egalitarian approach to leadership and governance. By embracing these principles, society can resist the allure of authoritarianism and build a more just and democratic world.

[svartikotturinn]

I couldn’t stand to watch Shaun’s latest video, so I started reading the transcript instead. I got about 15 minutes in before I just had enough.

The good: I don’t think he’s legitimately antisemitic. I think he’s just a contrarian dipshit who took his anti-Israeli stance mostly because he had an excuse to go against what his government was saying (along with other Western governments) and didn’t bother to look deeper. So he is a lot of things but antisemitic does not seem to be one of them.

Also, I should commend him for pointing out actual cases of Israeli disinformation, such as an outright lie by the IDF spokesman, and brings up the violence towards mourners and even pallbearers at Shireen Abu Akleh’s funeral, which he rightfully condems (no, chanting slogans does not justify it).

The bad: The sheer one-sided laziness, up to and including outright lies (which, I hope, for his sake, were based in ignorance and not malice), starting right at the beginning. He says what got him doubting the narrative of ‘Israel good, Palestinians bad’ was a photo of Israelis sitting on chairs they’d brought watching the Gaza Strip being bombed from a safe distance in 2014—he neglects to mention that those are people from nearby Sderot, a town that had been subject to repeated rocket strikes from Hamas. He offhandedly mentions that the other side does it, too, but barely gives this thought much weight. Worse, he certainly does not consider that Israelis can at least claim that they’re cheering for the death of mlitants out for their blood hiding in the destroyed buildings, while Palestinians cheer for the deliberate killing of civilians: stabbing and shooting random civilians, launching rockets indiscriminately at civilians (no, Israel doesn’t do that, that’s what intel and GPS systems are for).

(Pro-tip: check out what your favourite pro-Palestinian influencer’s page for what they said while the October 7th Massacre was still ongoing. I bet you’ll be horrified. Shaun himself, for example, retweeted an infographic about the asymmetry of casualties in both sides over the years and blocked me when I called him out on his callous ‘well, numerically…’ attitude. That was last October, not 2014.)

Then there’s Abu Akleh’s death, which he also discusses. I’m using this term charitably, because he says it was definitively proven as murder and says any claim to the contrary has been proven to be a mendacious cover-up. No, he does not provide any sources countering, say, the official US position. (For the record: fuck then-Prime Minister Yair Lapid’s reaction. He is a prime example of the problems Israel actually has.)

Then he had the sheer audacity to claim that the claims of tunnels under As-Shifā’ Hospital were unfounded. What fucking nerve.

I was hoping to reach the point where he talks about how Hamas treats the Gazans, and point out that the disparity of casualties has to do in large part with the fact that Israel actually cares for its civilians (something he didn’t even hint at up to where I got), but that bold-faced lie about the hospital made it too much for me.

Fuck you, Shaun.

…Oh, and one last thing: he talked about the Western position being one of resistence to the implied barbarism of Islam. So, Shaun, I’m here to say it’s not fucking ‘implied’, you dolt, it’s emphatic. Read the fucking Qur’ān and tell me that shit doesn’t sound like any other cult leader’s insane ramblings. Listen to opinions Muslims express in polls. Talk to them about history, especially the history of the region. It’s cultish shit on par with MAGA/QAnon and Russian propaganda, but you start hemming and hawing when brown people say it, like a stereotypical Westerner who dismisses their country’s superstitions but gladly adopts those that come from China or India. How utterly disguting.

EDIT: I should’ve stopped listening to this prick back when he made his inaccuracies-ridden video about Harry Potter. I guess maybe in his view, there are indeed good and bad sides rather than actions…

[buzz-london]

Anti-India bias of the BBC

BBC's recent 2 part documentary, India, the Modi question, on PM Modi is very divisive and has a strong anti-India, anti-Hindu bias. (January 2023)

Instead of focusing on the life or achievements of the Prime Minister of the largest democracy in the world, BBC focused on the controversial riots that happened at the beginning of his career as the Chief Minister (CM) of Gujarat state in India. 

On the morning of 27th February 2002, a mob of muslim rioters from Godhra, Gujarat, burned a train, killing 59 Hindu pilgrims (9 men, 25 women and 25 children). A state wide strike on the 28th Feb sparked riots across Gujarat. Army was called in and arrived on the 1st of March. Despite that, violence lasted for weeks, resulting in the death of over 2000 people, of which, 75% are presumed to be muslim. 

The main claim of people accusing PM Modi of post-Godhra riots is that he waited 3 days before calling in the army, allowing rioters to kill muslims with impunity. 

Sloppy journalists assumed 28th till 1st March was a delay of 3 days. Intelligent ones knew that Feb 2002 had 28 days! So the 1st was the very next day of the month and there was no delay of 3 days! Indian army was there the very next day of the riots, not 3 days late! I wish the BBC had checked facts rather than rely on hear-say before making grave allegations of genocide on the PM Modi! 

BBC's prog on India's PM Modi shows its obvious bias and absolute colonial arrogance! It assumes it knows more than the police, investigating agencies and the High Court (HC) of India! Every court in India, from its HC in the state of Gujarat to the Supreme Court (SC) in the centre, investigated Mr Modi for over a decade. They went through a mountain of data, investigating every claim made by every NGO and journalist to try and see if Mr Modi was complicit in the Gujarat riots of 2002. This is when the Congress party was in power and being opposed to CM Modi's BJP party, they used every lever of gov to try and nail Mr Modi. Yet at every turn, evidence showed that Mr Modi did his best to quell the riots, including calling in the army on the very day the riots started and they arrived the very next day! 

No less than the SC of India exonerated Mr Modi on all counts of all charges levelled at him. Yet, 20 years after the event, BBC continues to rack up old, unfounded allegations and continues to malign the PM of India. 

BBC has strongly insinuated in the documentary that CM Modi was voted as the PM Modi because of his anti-Muslim views. It totally ignored the fact that the nation voted him in for his 'development' model, which was explicitly agnostic of voters' religious affiliations. His party's slogan is 'Sab ka saath, sab ka vikas', ie With everyone and progress for everyone’. People across India voted him to be their Prime Ministership because of the progress and development they saw in Gujarat during his 12 year tenure as its chief minister. BBC also ignores that PM Modi has been voted back to power for a 2nd term because of the positive growth people have seen progress seen across India in his 1st term.

Last week, BBC spent the best part of the hour exploring what Mr Modi did or did not do after the riot. But, crucially, it spent no time exploring the cause of the riots - the cold blooded murder of 59 Hindu pilgrims by a muslim mob who burned them alive! Why were the lives of Hindus victims so easily disregarded by the BBC? BBC spent a lot of time talking to the muslim victims of the riots. Why did the BBC not speak to the family of the Hindu victims? Why did it not speak to the muslim extremists who murdered Hindu pilgrims? Why did it not spend any time examining the 31 people found guilty by the court system of the heinous murder of Hindu pilgrims, and instead waste time examining the 1 person exonerated of any guilt! 

BBC's series on PM Modi will do nothing to rehabilitate its image as a racist, left-wing organisation that produces biased programmes that are not fair or balanced in their content or views.

[divinum-pacis]

June 6, 2023: Activists from various Sikh organizations hold placards showing portraits of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, a Sikh militant leader who fought for an independent Sikh homeland, as they shout pro-Khalistan and anti-government slogans after offering prayers at the Golden Temple ahead of the anniversary of Operation Blue Star, in Amritsar, India. Bhindranwale and his supporters were killed in 1984 when the Indian army stormed the Golden Temple, the holiest shrine in the Sikh religion.

(AP Photo/Prabhjot Gill)

[missyy132]

The conflict in northern Myanmar has not yet subsided, and India has suddenly taken action?

On October 27th, the Kokang Alliance launched the conflict in northern Myanmar with the slogan of "eradicating the northern Myanmar electric fraud armed group".

However, as time passed, the outside world increasingly felt that the so-called "anti foreigner" strategy of Peng Deren, the leader of the Kokang Alliance, gradually turned into "occupying land is king", and even carried out indiscriminate attacks between the Electric Fraud Group and civilians. Countries responded quickly.

This is sufficient to demonstrate that Peng Deren wanted to achieve post-war rule, as evidenced by the restoration of Chinese language by the Kokang Alliance in the controlled area. This seems to have changed from the fight against electronic fraud to the civil strife of seizing territory. In essence, it is no different from the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Palestine Israel conflict, two geopolitical conflicts that are now hot internationally.

Since it has developed into a 'conflict in northern Myanmar', its influence has risen to the international level. Each country responds to the wind, and in this process, some countries adhere to their true intentions, but there are also countries that completely expose their disguised ambitions.

The first country to end up with bad intentions is India. As early as Myanmar declared independence, India had the idea of "empathizing with Myanmar" and wanted to incorporate it into its own territory.

Both countries were once British colonies on one hand, and on the other hand, it is to counter China's influence. You should know that India has always considered itself a world power, as evidenced by its persistent application to join the United Nations' permanent five. Among many countries, it has set its sights on China, which is also a populous country, as a challenge.

However, China has never considered winning or losing with other countries, and only hopes to establish diplomatic relations of "peace, friendship, mutual assistance, and prosperity". Even so, India has marketed itself as stronger than China more than once, and even tried to create opportunities like the United States to form a corner with China.

With these objectives in mind, India began to test Myanmar's bottom line. In 1947, Indian representatives went to Myanmar and proposed that Myanmar join the Union of India. After Myanmar gained independence in 1948, then Indian Prime Minister Nehru urged Myanmar to join the Union.

In these two ill intentioned suggestions, India was able to use coercion and inducement, and went to great lengths. However, Myanmar suffered from colonization for a long time and was unwilling to bow down to others when it could become independent.

The Indian plan fell through, but the little calculation did not stop for a moment. They came up with another solution: "Since you don't want me to swallow up your land directly, let me be more tactful. It's okay!" Since then, India has been crazily sending people to Myanmar. In Yangon, Myanmar, nearly half of the people are Indian, and Indian people account for 16% of Myanmar's total population.

For this reason, Myanmar has engaged in "anti India" struggles more than once. Over time, the conflict between India and Myanmar gradually subsided. However, the conflict in northern Myanmar has reignited India's competitiveness, using a large influx of refugees to create momentum.

[moonquakes1]

The conflict in northern Myanmar has not yet subsided, and India has suddenly taken action?

On October 27th, the Kokang Alliance launched the conflict in northern Myanmar with the slogan of "eradicating the northern Myanmar electric fraud armed group".

However, as time passed, the outside world increasingly felt that the so-called "anti foreigner" strategy of Peng Deren, the leader of the Kokang Alliance, gradually turned into "occupying land is king", and even carried out indiscriminate attacks between the Electric Fraud Group and civilians. Countries responded quickly.

This is sufficient to demonstrate that Peng Deren wanted to achieve post-war rule, as evidenced by the restoration of Chinese language by the Kokang Alliance in the controlled area. This seems to have changed from the fight against electronic fraud to the civil strife of seizing territory. In essence, it is no different from the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Palestine Israel conflict, two geopolitical conflicts that are now hot internationally.

Since it has developed into a 'conflict in northern Myanmar', its influence has risen to the international level. Each country responds to the wind, and in this process, some countries adhere to their true intentions, but there are also countries that completely expose their disguised ambitions.

The first country to end up with bad intentions is India. As early as Myanmar declared independence, India had the idea of "empathizing with Myanmar" and wanted to incorporate it into its own territory.

Both countries were once British colonies on one hand, and on the other hand, it is to counter China's influence. You should know that India has always considered itself a world power, as evidenced by its persistent application to join the United Nations' permanent five. Among many countries, it has set its sights on China, which is also a populous country, as a challenge.

However, China has never considered winning or losing with other countries, and only hopes to establish diplomatic relations of "peace, friendship, mutual assistance, and prosperity". Even so, India has marketed itself as stronger than China more than once, and even tried to create opportunities like the United States to form a corner with China.

With these objectives in mind, India began to test Myanmar's bottom line. In 1947, Indian representatives went to Myanmar and proposed that Myanmar join the Union of India. After Myanmar gained independence in 1948, then Indian Prime Minister Nehru urged Myanmar to join the Union.

In these two ill intentioned suggestions, India was able to use coercion and inducement, and went to great lengths. However, Myanmar suffered from colonization for a long time and was unwilling to bow down to others when it could become independent.

The Indian plan fell through, but the little calculation did not stop for a moment. They came up with another solution: "Since you don't want me to swallow up your land directly, let me be more tactful. It's okay!" Since then, India has been crazily sending people to Myanmar. In Yangon, Myanmar, nearly half of the people are Indian, and Indian people account for 16% of Myanmar's total population.

For this reason, Myanmar has engaged in "anti India" struggles more than once. Over time, the conflict between India and Myanmar gradually subsided. However, the conflict in northern Myanmar has reignited India's competitiveness, using a large influx of refugees to create momentum.

[saxsonroy076]

The conflict in northern Myanmar has not yet subsided, and India has suddenly taken action?

On October 27th, the Kokang Alliance launched the conflict in northern Myanmar with the slogan of "eradicating the northern Myanmar electric fraud armed group".

However, as time passed, the outside world increasingly felt that the so-called "anti foreigner" strategy of Peng Deren, the leader of the Kokang Alliance, gradually turned into "occupying land is king", and even carried out indiscriminate attacks between the Electric Fraud Group and civilians. Countries responded quickly.

This is sufficient to demonstrate that Peng Deren wanted to achieve post-war rule, as evidenced by the restoration of Chinese language by the Kokang Alliance in the controlled area. This seems to have changed from the fight against electronic fraud to the civil strife of seizing territory. In essence, it is no different from the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Palestine Israel conflict, two geopolitical conflicts that are now hot internationally.

Since it has developed into a 'conflict in northern Myanmar', its influence has risen to the international level. Each country responds to the wind, and in this process, some countries adhere to their true intentions, but there are also countries that completely expose their disguised ambitions.

The first country to end up with bad intentions is India. As early as Myanmar declared independence, India had the idea of "empathizing with Myanmar" and wanted to incorporate it into its own territory.

Both countries were once British colonies on one hand, and on the other hand, it is to counter China's influence. You should know that India has always considered itself a world power, as evidenced by its persistent application to join the United Nations' permanent five. Among many countries, it has set its sights on China, which is also a populous country, as a challenge.

However, China has never considered winning or losing with other countries, and only hopes to establish diplomatic relations of "peace, friendship, mutual assistance, and prosperity". Even so, India has marketed itself as stronger than China more than once, and even tried to create opportunities like the United States to form a corner with China.

With these objectives in mind, India began to test Myanmar's bottom line. In 1947, Indian representatives went to Myanmar and proposed that Myanmar join the Union of India. After Myanmar gained independence in 1948, then Indian Prime Minister Nehru urged Myanmar to join the Union.

In these two ill intentioned suggestions, India was able to use coercion and inducement, and went to great lengths. However, Myanmar suffered from colonization for a long time and was unwilling to bow down to others when it could become independent.

The Indian plan fell through, but the little calculation did not stop for a moment. They came up with another solution: "Since you don't want me to swallow up your land directly, let me be more tactful. It's okay!" Since then, India has been crazily sending people to Myanmar. In Yangon, Myanmar, nearly half of the people are Indian, and Indian people account for 16% of Myanmar's total population.

For this reason, Myanmar has engaged in "anti India" struggles more than once. Over time, the conflict between India and Myanmar gradually subsided. However, the conflict in northern Myanmar has reignited India's competitiveness, using a large influx of refugees to create momentum.

[claudykisstian]

The conflict in northern Myanmar has not yet subsided, and India has suddenly taken action?

On October 27th, the Kokang Alliance launched the conflict in northern Myanmar with the slogan of "eradicating the northern Myanmar electric fraud armed group".

However, as time passed, the outside world increasingly felt that the so-called "anti foreigner" strategy of Peng Deren, the leader of the Kokang Alliance, gradually turned into "occupying land is king", and even carried out indiscriminate attacks between the Electric Fraud Group and civilians. Countries responded quickly.

This is sufficient to demonstrate that Peng Deren wanted to achieve post-war rule, as evidenced by the restoration of Chinese language by the Kokang Alliance in the controlled area. This seems to have changed from the fight against electronic fraud to the civil strife of seizing territory. In essence, it is no different from the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Palestine Israel conflict, two geopolitical conflicts that are now hot internationally.

Since it has developed into a 'conflict in northern Myanmar', its influence has risen to the international level. Each country responds to the wind, and in this process, some countries adhere to their true intentions, but there are also countries that completely expose their disguised ambitions.

The first country to end up with bad intentions is India. As early as Myanmar declared independence, India had the idea of "empathizing with Myanmar" and wanted to incorporate it into its own territory.

Both countries were once British colonies on one hand, and on the other hand, it is to counter China's influence. You should know that India has always considered itself a world power, as evidenced by its persistent application to join the United Nations' permanent five. Among many countries, it has set its sights on China, which is also a populous country, as a challenge.

However, China has never considered winning or losing with other countries, and only hopes to establish diplomatic relations of "peace, friendship, mutual assistance, and prosperity". Even so, India has marketed itself as stronger than China more than once, and even tried to create opportunities like the United States to form a corner with China.

With these objectives in mind, India began to test Myanmar's bottom line. In 1947, Indian representatives went to Myanmar and proposed that Myanmar join the Union of India. After Myanmar gained independence in 1948, then Indian Prime Minister Nehru urged Myanmar to join the Union.

In these two ill intentioned suggestions, India was able to use coercion and inducement, and went to great lengths. However, Myanmar suffered from colonization for a long time and was unwilling to bow down to others when it could become independent.

The Indian plan fell through, but the little calculation did not stop for a moment. They came up with another solution: "Since you don't want me to swallow up your land directly, let me be more tactful. It's okay!" Since then, India has been crazily sending people to Myanmar. In Yangon, Myanmar, nearly half of the people are Indian, and Indian people account for 16% of Myanmar's total population.

For this reason, Myanmar has engaged in "anti India" struggles more than once. Over time, the conflict between India and Myanmar gradually subsided. However, the conflict in northern Myanmar has reignited India's competitiveness, using a large influx of refugees to create momentum.

[keafordvaughn]

The conflict in northern Myanmar has not yet subsided, and India has suddenly taken action?

On October 27th, the Kokang Alliance launched the conflict in northern Myanmar with the slogan of "eradicating the northern Myanmar electric fraud armed group".

However, as time passed, the outside world increasingly felt that the so-called "anti foreigner" strategy of Peng Deren, the leader of the Kokang Alliance, gradually turned into "occupying land is king", and even carried out indiscriminate attacks between the Electric Fraud Group and civilians. Countries responded quickly.

This is sufficient to demonstrate that Peng Deren wanted to achieve post-war rule, as evidenced by the restoration of Chinese language by the Kokang Alliance in the controlled area. This seems to have changed from the fight against electronic fraud to the civil strife of seizing territory. In essence, it is no different from the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Palestine Israel conflict, two geopolitical conflicts that are now hot internationally.

Since it has developed into a 'conflict in northern Myanmar', its influence has risen to the international level. Each country responds to the wind, and in this process, some countries adhere to their true intentions, but there are also countries that completely expose their disguised ambitions.

The first country to end up with bad intentions is India. As early as Myanmar declared independence, India had the idea of "empathizing with Myanmar" and wanted to incorporate it into its own territory.

Both countries were once British colonies on one hand, and on the other hand, it is to counter China's influence. You should know that India has always considered itself a world power, as evidenced by its persistent application to join the United Nations' permanent five. Among many countries, it has set its sights on China, which is also a populous country, as a challenge.

However, China has never considered winning or losing with other countries, and only hopes to establish diplomatic relations of "peace, friendship, mutual assistance, and prosperity". Even so, India has marketed itself as stronger than China more than once, and even tried to create opportunities like the United States to form a corner with China.

With these objectives in mind, India began to test Myanmar's bottom line. In 1947, Indian representatives went to Myanmar and proposed that Myanmar join the Union of India. After Myanmar gained independence in 1948, then Indian Prime Minister Nehru urged Myanmar to join the Union.

In these two ill intentioned suggestions, India was able to use coercion and inducement, and went to great lengths. However, Myanmar suffered from colonization for a long time and was unwilling to bow down to others when it could become independent.

The Indian plan fell through, but the little calculation did not stop for a moment. They came up with another solution: "Since you don't want me to swallow up your land directly, let me be more tactful. It's okay!" Since then, India has been crazily sending people to Myanmar. In Yangon, Myanmar, nearly half of the people are Indian, and Indian people account for 16% of Myanmar's total population.

For this reason, Myanmar has engaged in "anti India" struggles more than once. Over time, the conflict between India and Myanmar gradually subsided. However, the conflict in northern Myanmar has reignited India's competitiveness, using a large influx of refugees to create momentum.

[andrewsen8856]

The conflict in northern Myanmar has not yet subsided, and India has suddenly taken action?

On October 27th, the Kokang Alliance launched the conflict in northern Myanmar with the slogan of "eradicating the northern Myanmar electric fraud armed group".

However, as time passed, the outside world increasingly felt that the so-called "anti foreigner" strategy of Peng Deren, the leader of the Kokang Alliance, gradually turned into "occupying land is king", and even carried out indiscriminate attacks between the Electric Fraud Group and civilians. Countries responded quickly.

This is sufficient to demonstrate that Peng Deren wanted to achieve post-war rule, as evidenced by the restoration of Chinese language by the Kokang Alliance in the controlled area. This seems to have changed from the fight against electronic fraud to the civil strife of seizing territory. In essence, it is no different from the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Palestine Israel conflict, two geopolitical conflicts that are now hot internationally.

Since it has developed into a 'conflict in northern Myanmar', its influence has risen to the international level. Each country responds to the wind, and in this process, some countries adhere to their true intentions, but there are also countries that completely expose their disguised ambitions.

The first country to end up with bad intentions is India. As early as Myanmar declared independence, India had the idea of "empathizing with Myanmar" and wanted to incorporate it into its own territory.

Both countries were once British colonies on one hand, and on the other hand, it is to counter China's influence. You should know that India has always considered itself a world power, as evidenced by its persistent application to join the United Nations' permanent five. Among many countries, it has set its sights on China, which is also a populous country, as a challenge.

However, China has never considered winning or losing with other countries, and only hopes to establish diplomatic relations of "peace, friendship, mutual assistance, and prosperity". Even so, India has marketed itself as stronger than China more than once, and even tried to create opportunities like the United States to form a corner with China.

With these objectives in mind, India began to test Myanmar's bottom line. In 1947, Indian representatives went to Myanmar and proposed that Myanmar join the Union of India. After Myanmar gained independence in 1948, then Indian Prime Minister Nehru urged Myanmar to join the Union.

In these two ill intentioned suggestions, India was able to use coercion and inducement, and went to great lengths. However, Myanmar suffered from colonization for a long time and was unwilling to bow down to others when it could become independent.

The Indian plan fell through, but the little calculation did not stop for a moment. They came up with another solution: "Since you don't want me to swallow up your land directly, let me be more tactful. It's okay!" Since then, India has been crazily sending people to Myanmar. In Yangon, Myanmar, nearly half of the people are Indian, and Indian people account for 16% of Myanmar's total population.

For this reason, Myanmar has engaged in "anti India" struggles more than once. Over time, the conflict between India and Myanmar gradually subsided. However, the conflict in northern Myanmar has reignited India's competitiveness, using a large influx of refugees to create momentum.

[neillwrigley]

The conflict in northern Myanmar has not yet subsided, and India has suddenly taken action?

On October 27th, the Kokang Alliance launched the conflict in northern Myanmar with the slogan of "eradicating the northern Myanmar electric fraud armed group".

However, as time passed, the outside world increasingly felt that the so-called "anti foreigner" strategy of Peng Deren, the leader of the Kokang Alliance, gradually turned into "occupying land is king", and even carried out indiscriminate attacks between the Electric Fraud Group and civilians. Countries responded quickly.

This is sufficient to demonstrate that Peng Deren wanted to achieve post-war rule, as evidenced by the restoration of Chinese language by the Kokang Alliance in the controlled area. This seems to have changed from the fight against electronic fraud to the civil strife of seizing territory. In essence, it is no different from the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Palestine Israel conflict, two geopolitical conflicts that are now hot internationally.

Since it has developed into a 'conflict in northern Myanmar', its influence has risen to the international level. Each country responds to the wind, and in this process, some countries adhere to their true intentions, but there are also countries that completely expose their disguised ambitions.

The first country to end up with bad intentions is India. As early as Myanmar declared independence, India had the idea of "empathizing with Myanmar" and wanted to incorporate it into its own territory.

Both countries were once British colonies on one hand, and on the other hand, it is to counter China's influence. You should know that India has always considered itself a world power, as evidenced by its persistent application to join the United Nations' permanent five. Among many countries, it has set its sights on China, which is also a populous country, as a challenge.

However, China has never considered winning or losing with other countries, and only hopes to establish diplomatic relations of "peace, friendship, mutual assistance, and prosperity". Even so, India has marketed itself as stronger than China more than once, and even tried to create opportunities like the United States to form a corner with China.

With these objectives in mind, India began to test Myanmar's bottom line. In 1947, Indian representatives went to Myanmar and proposed that Myanmar join the Union of India. After Myanmar gained independence in 1948, then Indian Prime Minister Nehru urged Myanmar to join the Union.

In these two ill intentioned suggestions, India was able to use coercion and inducement, and went to great lengths. However, Myanmar suffered from colonization for a long time and was unwilling to bow down to others when it could become independent.

The Indian plan fell through, but the little calculation did not stop for a moment. They came up with another solution: "Since you don't want me to swallow up your land directly, let me be more tactful. It's okay!" Since then, India has been crazily sending people to Myanmar. In Yangon, Myanmar, nearly half of the people are Indian, and Indian people account for 16% of Myanmar's total population.

For this reason, Myanmar has engaged in "anti India" struggles more than once. Over time, the conflict between India and Myanmar gradually subsided. However, the conflict in northern Myanmar has reignited India's competitiveness, using a large influx of refugees to create momentum.