为什么中国和印度能够和平共处这么久? [印度媒体]

Why were China and India able to peacefully co-exist for so long？

为什么中国和印度能够和平共处这么久?

It is quite interesting to observe that for millennia, two neighbouring countries, ethnically, linguistically, racially diverse (and for some time religiously as well) were able to co-exist for thousands of years without wars in between. European powers been fighting each other for centuries, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Mongols, Arabs, etc.

很有趣的是，几千年来，两个相邻的国家，从民族、语言、种族(以及宗教上的不同)，在没有战争的情况下，能够共存数千年。几个世纪以来，欧洲列强一直在互相争斗，希腊人、罗马人、波斯人、蒙古人、阿拉伯人等等。

How could India and China maintain the peace for that long (ignoring some recent post WWII border skirmishes)?

印度和中国怎么能维持这么长时间的和平(忽略了最近的二战后的边境冲突)?



答案1：
Because China was actually pretty far from India.

因为中国实际上离印度很远

For most of the past millennia, China and India were not "neighbouring countries" in any meaningful sense of the word. Most Chinese empires did not actually stretch all the way to the Indian subcontinent. It seems you're considering China and India based on their modern borders, but that is misleading: modern China possesses vast territories beyond its historic core.

在过去的几千年里，中国和印度在任何意义上都不算“邻国”。大多数中华帝国并没有真正地延伸到印度次大陆。你似乎在考虑中国和印度的现代边界，但这是有误导性的：现代中国拥有的大片领土，超越了其历史核心。

Although the Chinese established wide ranging empires at different points of history, they did so from a home country that's roughly located like the red shaded region below:

尽管中国人在历史的不同时期建立了广泛的帝国，他们是通过一个类似于红色阴影地区的“母国”来实现的：



The maximum extent of Chinese empires (the yellow bits) reflected the limits of their logistics from home. This "supply range", if you will, reached its longest under the sophisticated military science of the Manchurian war machine, during the Qing Dynasty.

中华帝国的最大范围(黄色部分)反映了他们在国内后勤上的局限性。这一“补给范围”，如果你愿意那样说的话，于清朝时期，在满洲战争机器复杂的军事科学的下达到最长。

The hostile geography in India's direction, and huge distances involved, made it difficult for China to actively pursue war any further from home. For reference, expeditions to Korea were major causes in ruining the once mighty native Chinese Sui and Ming Empires. And Korea could be resupplied by ships.

印度方向的恶劣地理环境以及巨大的距离，使得中国很难在从内地继续进行战争。作为参考，征讨朝鲜是破坏曾经强大的中国隋朝和明帝国的主要原因，何况朝鲜还能通过船只提供补给。

Actually, China has not historically been particularly adept at waging large scale war over long distances. Most of China's modern conquests are a legacy of its Manchurians conquerors, who ruled China for most of the modern era up until 1911.

实际上，从历史上看，中国并不特别擅长在远距离上发动大规模战争。中国的大多数现代征服都是其满洲征服者的遗产，直到1911年，他们统治着中国的大部分地区。

Now, the maximum extent of Qing rule is mostly preserved today barring Manchuria and Mongolia. If you look at the modern border,

现在，除了满洲和蒙古，清朝统治的地域基本上最大程度的被保留了下来。如果你看看现代的边界，



You can see that India actually neighbours Tibet and, further north, Xinjiang. Although both regions are now under the ultimate control of Beijing, that is not the case for most of recorded history.

你可以看到，印度的邻国实际上是西藏，还有更北的新疆。尽管这两个地区现在都处于北京的最终控制之下，但在历史上的大部分时间里，情况并非如此。

Xinjiang

新疆

Literally "New Territories", Xinjiang was home to a series of different peoples and polities until 1759. This regions were at times under a strong China's influence, notably during the Tang Empire, but invariably Chinese power would wane amid civil war and internal unrest. None of China's previous "conquests" here, which were often achieved via diplomatic means (notably by wedding princesses to local rulers), lasted long.

字面含义”新的疆土“，新疆是一系列不同民族和政权的故乡，直到1759年。这些地区有时在强大的中国影响力之下，尤其是在唐朝时期；但在内战和内部动荡中，中国的实力总是会削弱。中国以前的“征服”都没能持续了太长时间，通常都是通过外交手段实现的(尤其是将公主嫁给当地的统治者)。

That changed only in the mid-18th century, when the Qing Empire launched a series of brutal wars that forcibly put the region into the Qing Empire in a process so bloody it has been termed a genocide.

直到18世纪中叶，清帝国发动了一系列残酷的战争，迫使该地区纳入清帝国，这一过程被视为种族灭绝。

    天无所诉，地无所容，自作自受，必使无遗育逸种于故地而后已。计数十万户中，先痘死者十之四，继窜入俄罗斯、哈萨克者十之二，卒歼于大兵者十之三，除妇孺充赏外，至今惟来降受屯之厄鲁特若干户，编设佐领昂吉，此外数千里间无瓦剌一毡帐

    Roughly translated: They have no appeals to Heaven and no place on Earth. They brought this on themselves. They will leave none of their seed in their homeland. Of the hundreds of thousands of families, four in ten died of disease; two in ten fled into Russia and Kazakhstan; three in ten were vanquished by our army. With the exception of women and children taken as rewards, only a handful of Oirat(?) families who surrendered remained. Other than that there not a single tent remained across thousands of miles.

    -- A Military History of the Qing Dynasty, by Wei Yuan. 清朝军事史，魏源。 ”
Tibet

西藏

Once upon a time Tibet was, in fact, a powerful empire that posed a credible threat to Tang China. That did not last; however, like Korea, Tibet remained a distinct polity separate from China in most of the centuries since. While Tibet was always liable to be within the Chinese sphere of influence (again c.f. Korea), this only became more pronounced from the late 18th century onward.

历史上某段时间，西藏实际上是一个强大的帝国，对唐朝构成了切实的威胁。但并没有持续太久；然而，就像韩国一样，自那以后的几个世纪里，西藏一直是一个与中国不同的独立政体。虽然西藏总是在中国的势力范围之内(再一次和朝鲜一样)，这种情况在18世纪后期才变得更加明显。

It is difficult to say when exactly did Tibet fell to China. A good point however is 1792, when the Qing Empire, fresh from saving Tibet from the Nepalese invasion, was able to impose unprecedented controls on Tibet. The most important measure taken was the Chinese intervention in the succession of Tibet's religious/political leadership.

很难说西藏究竟何时落入中国。然而，一个很好的观点是，在1792年，当时清朝刚刚从尼泊尔的入侵中拯救西藏，能够对西藏实施前所未有的控制。最重要的措施是中国对西藏宗教/政治领导层的介入。

Nonetheless, as late as 1904 Great Britain could still sign a treaty with Tibet: the Convention Between Great Britain and Thibet (1904). And in 1907, two European Great Powers would declare:

尽管如此，直到1904年，英国仍然可以与西藏签署一项条约：大不列颠与西藏公约(1904年)， 【译者注：1904年9月7日,英国强迫西藏签订《拉萨条约》】1907年，两个欧洲大国宣布:
 

In conformity with the admitted principle of the suzerainty of China over Thibet, Great Britain and Russia engage not to enter into negotiations with Thibet except through the intermediary of the Chinese Government.

与承认中国对西藏的宗主国权利的原则相一致，大不列颠和俄国不愿与西藏进行谈判，除非通过中国政府的中介机构

    -- Article II, Convention Between Great Britain and Russia (1907)

    -- 第二条，大不列颠和俄国公约 (1907)
This status was explicitly confirmed by China as well in 1914's Simla Accord:

中国在1914年的西姆拉条约中明确确认了这一地位：

    The Governments of Great Britain and China recognizing that Tibet is under the suzerainty of China, and recognizing also the autonomy of Outer Tibet, engage to respect the territorial integrity of the country, and to abstain from interference in the administration of Outer Tibet (including the selection and installation of the Dalai Lama), which shall remain in the hands of the Tibetan Government at Lhasa.

中英两国政府认识到，西藏处于中国的统治之下，同时也认识到西藏的自治，尊重其国家的领土完整，不干涉外藏的管理(包括答赖蜡嘛的选任)，（管辖权）保留在拉萨的西藏政府手里。

    

The Government of China engages not to convert Tibet into a Chinese province. The Government of Great Britain engages not to annex Tibet or any portion of it.

中国政府承诺不把西藏变成一个中国的省份。英国政府承诺不吞并西藏和它的任何部分。

    -- Article II, Convention Between Great Britain, China, and Tibet (1914)

    -- 第二条，英国、中国和西藏公约(1914年)  【译者注：1914《西姆拉条约》】
Tibet subsequently expelled Chinese troops and became de facto fully independent until 1951, when Communist forces annexed Tibet to the newly created People's Republic of China.

西藏随后驱逐了中国军队，并成为事实上的完全独立国家，直到1951年，共产党军队将西藏并入新成立的中华人民共和国。

In Conclusion:

最后：

China and India had peace for a long time because:

中国和印度长期以来的和平，是因为:

    Until relatively recently, Tibet and modern Xinjiang were massive buffer state/region/Turkic tribes.
    The geography made war an unattractive prospect
    China proper, which was not usually particularly adept at long distance warfare, is very very far from India

     一直到近代，西藏和现代新疆都是大范围的缓冲国/地区/突厥部落
     地理环境让战争变得毫无吸引力
    中国通常不擅长远程战争，而它离印度非常遥远

Note also that they weren't really at peace all that time either. Even when separated by large distances and the Himalayas, Chinese and Indian polities still actually did fight each other on at least two occasions:

还要注意的是，他们也不是一直处于和平状态。即使相隔很远的喜马拉雅山脉，中印两国仍然在至少两个场合下相互争斗：

648 - against the Harsa Empire's usurper.
1841-1842 - against the Sikh Confederacy.

648-戒日王帝国篡夺战对抗
1841-1842 - 锡克教联盟对抗

I would also include these, but I acknolwedge they are arguable:

我会把这些内容包括在内，但我认为它们是有争议的：

1790-1792 - against the Kingdom of Nepal.
1903-1904 - against British India

1790-1792 - 尼泊尔王国对抗

1903-1904 - 英属印度对抗

答案2：
The answer consists of 1 word - Himalayas.

答案是一个词——喜马拉雅。

Okay, let me add the second word: Tibet.

OK，让我再添加第二个词：西藏

Basically, the two cultures have been completely separated by an insurmountable barrier (not to mention that the fact that India and China share a border today is an artifact of the 20th century, when China annexed Tibet).

基本上，这两种文化已经完全被一个不可逾越的障碍所分隔(更不用说今天的中印边界是20世纪的产物，当时中国吞并了西藏)。

答案3：
If you look at the map,

如果你看地图，



you can see that there are highly mountainous regions covering northeastern India and Southwest China. So even if you draw a boundary line somewhere through these mountains, you can see that the desirability and likelihood of moving or fighting across these mountains is pretty slim (at least until 1962). They acted as a buffer zone between the two countries' population centers (on the eastern part of the map for China, on the southwestern part of the map for India). India's capital Delhi, is just west of these mountains, and China's capital, Beijing, is on the eastern edge of them.

你可以看到，印度东北部和中国西南地区都有高山地区。因此，即使你在这些山脉的某个地方划出一条界线，你也可以看到，在这些山脉之间移动或战斗的愿望和可能性是非常渺茫的(至少在1962年之前)。他们充当了两个国家人口中心之间的缓冲地带(中国地图的东部，印度地图的西南部分)。印度的首都德里，就在这些山脉的西边，而中国的首都北京，位于它们的东部边缘。

The area in between includes some of the most desolate, difficult territory in the world.

其间的区域包括一些世界上最荒凉、最艰难的地区

答案4：
They were peaceful because they didn't LOOK for wars and preferred trading with each other. Although many answers give simple reasons for NOT fighting war as a cause for peace I think that is based on the assumption that they were LOOKING for war with neighbours. But I present you a different point of view removed from the assumption that peace comes not from ceasefires or destructive deterrents nor lack of interest in invading but rather the natural tendency to live harmoniously with neighbours.

他们和平相处，是因为他们不寻求战争，也不喜欢互相贸易。尽管许多答案都给出了不打仗的理由，但我认为这是基于他们“寻求与邻国开战”这一假设。我向你们展示了一个不同的观点，即和平并非来自于停火，也不是破坏性的威慑，也不是对侵略的缺乏兴趣，而是与邻国和谐相处的自然倾向。

Fact is both India and China were trading with each other for more than 2000 years via the silk road and maritime routes. Himalayas are not the only route! they can go meet through Burma and we know both of these countries have been a sea faring nation for a much longer time than Europe. It has been documented Buddhism, sugar, Indian astronomy and some math, wootz steel, cotton among other things has traveled to china from India, while India bequeathed from the chinese silk, fishing nets, gunpowder and various tools among other things. Thus to say war couldn't have happened because its too far is facile as there were already long established trading routes and commodity driven markets that were apparently ready for the taking for the Europeans. In fact, if you look up the Indian ocean trade it was largely peaceful between africa, middle east india and china until the europeans entered the fold 800 years later. This is supported by John Greene of Crash Course series on Youtube.

事实上，印度和中国都是通过丝绸之路和海上路线在2000多年间进行贸易往来的。喜马拉雅山并不是唯一的途径! 他们可以通过缅甸见面，我们知道这两个国家都是比欧洲更长久的海洋国家。根据文献记载，佛教，糖，印度天文学，还有一些数学，乌兹钢，棉花以及其他的东西从印度来到中国，印度人则把中国的丝绸，渔网，火药和各种工具保留了下来。因此，战争是不可能发生是因为它们相距太遥远了，因为已经建立了很长的贸易路线和商品驱动的市场，而这些市场显然已经准备好迎接欧洲人了。事实上，如果你查一下印度洋的贸易，它在非洲、中东、印度和中国之间基本上是和平的，直到800年后欧洲人进入了。这一点为约翰·格林在Youtube上的速成课系列节目所支持。

Thus the assumption that distances are too far to wage war is a self defeating argument as there are were tons of exchange happening already for a very, very long time. China is even mentioned in the Mahabharatha.

因此，认为距离太远而不能发动战争的假设是一种自相矛盾的论点，因为在很长很长时间内已经有大量的交易发生。甚至摩诃婆罗多都提到过中国。

But I am also questioning the mindset that to have peace only the absence of war is necessary. This maybe true now, but as I have demonstrated peace existed among the most economically strong countries such as India and China for millennia without having to wage constant wars. There have been many instances in history, but not really touched upon in western history books, of cultures conducting business and exchange largely peacefully for centuries without resorting to military support.

但我也在质疑这样一种心态，即只有在没有战争的情况下才有和平。这或许是事实，但正如我所展示的那样，在印度和中国等经济实力最强的国家中，和平已经存在了几千年，而不需要发动持续的战争。历史上有过很多这样的例子，几个世纪的时间里，文化和商业的交流在很大程度上是和平的，而没有诉诸军事支持，但在西方历史书籍中却没有真正触及过。

答案5：
As mentioned, the two areas have been historically very decoupled. Very few (any?) crops moved from one region to the other in antiquity. Agriculture and writing seem to have evolved independently in both areas, implying lack of contact. Ironically, the region with the most extensive cultural transmission in Asia was Mongolia/Siberia, since the people there were much more nomadic.

如前所述，这两个地区在历史上是非常分离的，很少有人从一个地区迁移到另一个地区。农业和书写（注：也许意思是文化）似乎在这两个地区都是独立发展的，这意味着缺乏联系。具有讽刺意味的是，亚洲文化传播最广泛的地区是蒙古和西伯利亚，因为那里的人们更加游牧化。