When I was researching this I accidentally confused Tibet's 1.2 million population in 1951 as Lhasa's. Lhasa was 25,000 in 1951.90,000? Just how many people Lhasa had at the time?
With casualties that many, I wonder if enough people will feel incensed enough to stage a rebellion in the future, but with the presence of Indian military bases there I doubt there would be much of a fuss.
He has not annexed Burma yet, only replaced the Japanese troops with his. It is de facto a part of India but still under Japanese occupation in name. Burma only became a separate British colony in 1937 and before that it was a province of the British Raj. Bose may have disregard for British policy but he wants Independent India to wield the same geopolitical influence as the British Raj, only this time under a native government. That is the reason for Tibet as well.Wait did India annex Tibet and Burma ? I pretty sure India or Bose claimed neither, only the British Raj itself. Which is why even when Burma was occupied by Japan, it was considered separate from British India and was treated as such by allies and axis alike
Well that makes sense, though I do not think it would be feasible for India to hold onto Burma due to its own separate nationalism and revolts that would occurHe has not annexed Burma yet, only replaced the Japanese troops with his. It is de facto a part of India but still under Japanese occupation in name. Burma only became a separate British colony in 1937 and before that it was a province of the British Raj. Bose may have disregard for British policy but he wants Independent India to wield the same geopolitical influence as the British Raj, only this time under a native government. That is the reason for Tibet as well.
Partially, for Tibet, the motivation comes from the anticipation of a future conflict with the KMT and partially it being simply the good old fashioned subjugation of a weaker kingdom.
No Tibet belongs to whomever is in the defensive position. A part of why INA otl was defeated was that they were the aggressors and China had already occupied much of Tibet. If India occupies Tibet first, China is in no position to take it.Well that makes sense, though I do not think it would be feasible for India to hold onto Burma due to its own separate nationalism and revolts that would occur
And Tibet would most likely go to China, which would have the massive geographic advantage to take over it which it will once the civil war ends. Perhaps it would be a setback for Bose as he loses both Tibet and Burma later on
Agreed.I think it is not possible to hold on Burma. Maybe a allied Nation rather than being annexed better option. Same in case of Tibet. Better use soft economic power rather than annexation.
Agreed on that, Tibet would most likely be a neutral zone that is dependent on India while Burma just becomes independent. India cannot really hold on to these Countries without major exhaustionI think it is not possible to hold on Burma. Maybe a allied Nation rather than being annexed better option. Same in case of Tibet. Better use soft economic power rather than annexation.
Well that makes sense, though I do not think it would be feasible for India to hold onto Burma due to its own separate nationalism and revolts that would occur
And Tibet would most likely go to China, which would have the massive geographic advantage to take over it which it will once the civil war ends. Perhaps it would be a setback for Bose as he loses both Tibet and Burma later on
No Tibet belongs to whomever is in the defensive position. A part of why INA otl was defeated was that they were the aggressors and China had already occupied much of Tibet. If India occupies Tibet first, China is in no position to take it.
I think it is not possible to hold on Burma. Maybe a allied Nation rather than being annexed better option. Same in case of Tibet. Better use soft economic power rather than annexation.
Agreed.
It may be realistic that the Bose government would try to annex them, but if it happens, it would be a major blunder leading to long-standing conflict, rebellion and hatred... and that would turn those regions (especially Burma which is more populated) into problems for India.
There is a certain scenario for Tibet here that just as the Russians will give Manchuria to Mao, Bose might give Tibet to the CCP for a certain price and retain some territory.Agreed on that, Tibet would most likely be a neutral zone that is dependent on India while Burma just becomes independent. India cannot really hold on to these Countries without major exhaustion
Hmm, makes sense. By coastal regions do you mean Arakan, Tenassirim and Chin regions?There is a certain scenario for Tibet here that just as the Russians will give Manchuria to Mao, Bose might give Tibet to the CCP for a certain price and retain some territory.
Regarding revolts in Burma, that is certainly a possibility but the Indian diaspora was quite prominent there before the war and now there is only going to be larger influx. Gandhi might try to persuade any potential Burmese separatist movement to abandon their cause and cast their lot with India. And they would agree sensing that the British might come back for Burma(since they cannot retake India) and the only ones who can defend them are Indians. Being an indian province might have better prospects than being independent.
While it may not be retainable as a whole, Bose will definitely takeover its coastal areas to establish Indian naval bases and ensure no enemy bases come up close to Indian territory.
Yeah the latter part seems likely, especially with taking Chin and Rakine State along with Naga areas and some other coastal areas in Burma would be suffice as Burmese Nationalism would be too much for India to handle but parts of Myanmar would be easily controllableThere is a certain scenario for Tibet here that just as the Russians will give Manchuria to Mao, Bose might give Tibet to the CCP for a certain price and retain some territory.
Regarding revolts in Burma, that is certainly a possibility but the Indian diaspora was quite prominent there before the war and now there is only going to be larger influx. Gandhi might try to persuade any potential Burmese separatist movement to abandon their cause and cast their lot with India. And they would agree sensing that the British might come back for Burma(since they cannot retake India) and the only ones who can defend them are Indians. Being an indian province might have better prospects than being independent.
While it may not be retainable as a whole, Bose will definitely takeover its coastal areas to establish Indian naval bases and ensure no enemy bases come up close to Indian territory.
That is possibleYeah the latter part seems likely, especially with taking Chin and Rakine State along with Naga areas and some other coastal areas in Burma would be suffice as Burmese Nationalism would be too much for India to handle but parts of Myanmar would be easily controllable
India already has all it's territorial claims from China at this point. Only thing I can see would be the settlement of CCP claims in favor India.There is a certain scenario for Tibet here that just as the Russians will give Manchuria to Mao, Bose might give Tibet to the CCP for a certain price and retain some territory.
No. I was actually asking which companies would be the National Champions.Aerospace and nuclear power in the future. Defence as well.
Well I can understand the Tibet example but why Burma?He has not annexed Burma yet, only replaced the Japanese troops with his. It is de facto a part of India but still under Japanese occupation in name. Burma only became a separate British colony in 1937 and before that it was a province of the British Raj. Bose may have disregard for British policy but he wants Independent India to wield the same geopolitical influence as the British Raj, only this time under a native government. That is the reason for Tibet as well.
Partially, for Tibet, the motivation comes from the anticipation of a future conflict with the KMT and partially it being simply the good old fashioned subjugation of a weaker kingdom.