Land is resource in economic terms and a prominent part in definition of sovereignty. As nature of land remains unchanged, it is our perception of land which is changing over the years.
Why one should occupy the land of others?
1. More land means, more productivity or real estate and more profits
2. More land means, more powerful the occupier seems to be
In the age industrialisation, one need not have more land, to have more profit. Profits are linked to the industrialisation, Human resource management and others in the modern world.
Coming to point two, which is applicable to feudal lords and countries, it is always under debate over the nexus of land area and influence of the country. Brazil and India have more land than Japan, UK and Germany, but still their influence limited in Geopolitics.
In the last two weeks, the Geopolitics to the North of India are rapidly changing. While Chinese Army killed Indian Soldiers, to claim the territory, Nepal Parliament passed resolution claiming part of India.
Expanding territory is feudal and archaic thinking of expanding influence. Sending armies to expand territory is worse than Imperialism. As it is devastating for the oppressed country, in modern times, it is pain in the neck for oppressor too. After mediaeval ages, countries chose colonisation than territory occupation. In colonisation, the culture of the land is largely untouched. Locals will be employed for oppression, leading to creating of different class and making few casts powerful. But territory expansion will use force on culture too.
In the age soft power, SEZ, Bilateral Treaties, territory expansion for economic benefits is as medieval as guillotine.As the rape is not about sex but power, forceful territory expansion should be seen in the same view.
Why we need to oppose it, because it questions our sovereignty.
