People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by Atri »

Indian Civilization - Part 2 - Sapta Sindhu, Bhaarat, Hindutva and Secularism
Hindutva literally means Indian-ness. The core of India and Indianness is found in Vedas which is allegiance towards land of Sapta-Sindhu and culture and civilization of Sapta-Sindhu. The definition which Veer Savarkar gives for the word Hindu is

आसिंधु सिन्धु पर्यन्ता यस्य भारत भूमिका l पितृभू पुण्यभू च एव स वै हिन्दुरिती स्मृतः ll

- One who refers to the Indian subcontinent as Bhaarat and considers Bhaarat as his fatherland (or motherland) and most revered land (Punyabhoomi) is a Hindu.

This concept of revered land has its origin in the term of "Sapta-Sindhu" (7 rivers) which is widely cited in Vedic and post-Vedic literature.

This concept and high reverence of Sapta-Sindhu is central concept of Vedic literature. The most interesting part of Bhaaratiya civilization is the process in which the radius of this Sapta-Sindhu region increased and expanded with time.

The original Sapta-Sindhu region in early hymns of Rigveda comprises of 5 rivers of Punjab, Saraswati(in Rajasthan) and Kubha (Kabul) river in NWFP. This land is glorified as Sapta-Sindhu (Around 4000 BC to 1500 BC). The dwellers of this land are Arya people who are pure, rich, righteous and civilized men on earth who are Kavis (poets) composing beautiful literature and performing grand Yagnas to please their mighty Devas.

In later Rigveda (from 1900 BC to 1500 BC), in nadi-stuti sukta of 10th mandala, the Sapta-Sindhu region includes Ganga and Yamuna as well. Thus, now, this idea of Sapta-Sindhu, its culture and civilzation comprised of entire north Indian plains, from Bengal to NWFP.

In Puranic times post Rigveda (800 BC onwards), new Sapta-Sindhu concept became popular with time. This is seen in famous verse from Vishnu Purana (dated 400 to 500 BCE)

गंगेच यमुनेचैव गोदावरी सरस्वती l नर्मदे सिन्धु कावेरी जलेस्मिन सन्निधिम कुरु ll

From here on, the Sapta-Sindhu included the region of Ganga, Yamuna, Godavari, Saraswati, Narmada, Sindhu and Kaveri. Basically, entire Indian subcontinent.

Sapta-Sindhu is the term which gave birth to the word "Hindu". The Civilization of Sapta-Sindhu was referred to as Hapta-Hindu by Persians and other outsiders. The people of this region and culture, the Sapta-Saindhavas were referred to as hapta-Haindavas by Persians and other outsiders. All these terms are found in Zend Avesta of Zoroastrians. In all its context, Sapta-Sindhu has been the homeland of Sapta-Saindhavas (Bhaaratiyas/ Indians). This has been the Punya-Bhoomi (revered land) of them. This has been the Pitrubhoomi and Matrubhoomi for them.

Thus, the very concept and identity of India or Bhaarat originated from land of seven rivers and expands with the same. The concept of Bhaarat was Punjab and adjacent areas during Vedic war of ten kings where Sudas is a king of Bhaarata and Sapta Sindhu around 3000 BC. The concept of Bhaarat in Vishnupuran (around 400 BC) was same as pan-subcontinental identity of Sapta-Sindhu.
India means Indian subcontinent minus Tibet and Baluchistan and regions to the east of arakanese ranges. Indian federal structures rose in this geography. The mountains of Hindukush (Known as Paariyaatra mountain by Hindus) is the natural, scientific, strategic and cultural frontier of India to north-west. Tibet is similar natural frontier of India to north. Forests of Iravaty river basin is natural frontier of India to east. The land enclosed within these geographical frontiers were called as India by outsiders and Bhaarata by the Insiders. The cultural operating system within this land is called as "Dharma" which is the unifying thread of otherwise apparently diverse cultures, communities, Jaatis (clans) residing and sharing this land with each other.

Dharma does not necessitate centralization of power. and hence since times of epics to modern day, India has always been a federation.
heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by heech »

Suraj wrote:
heech wrote:In other words, for the past 2200 years... we're looking at about 350 years of fragmentation. You can probably easily add in another 100-200 years in there as rounding error.. but you get the idea. As I said, 1500+ years of unified central government over the past 2200 years.
Since you chose to characterize China as such, I think we can all agree now that China really amounts to just the region between Yellow and Yangtze river basins, since that's the only region that's consistently been part of the centrally ruled territory over the course of all the dynasties.

All the outlier portions - Heilongjiang, Jilin, Liaoning, Inner Mongolia, Qinghai, Turkestan, Tibet and even Yunnan, are annexed territories upon which Chinese territorial claim is at best nebulous, depending on whose argument you choose to accept.
Let me re-emphasize: I'm not looking to engage in a discussion about territorial borders at this point. It's distracting from the point I was looking to make.

But just so that I understand you correctly... are you really saying that the worlds' nations should have their borders drawn based on where they were 2200 years ago? That seems like a rather outrageous claim, and certainly not anything remotely like what I have been discussing.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by RamaY »

heech wrote: Let me re-emphasize: I'm not looking to engage in a discussion about territorial borders at this point. It's distracting from the point I was looking to make.

But just so that I understand you correctly... are you really saying that the worlds' nations should have their borders drawn based on where they were 2200 years ago? That seems like a rather outrageous claim, and certainly not anything remotely like what I have been discussing.
Actually that is the key problem for PRC.

PRC thinks the entire world is eastern kingdom, where as it domain is limited to Han dominated south-east China.

When lizard thinks it is dragon, all the problems start! Imagine that. A lizard is talking, walking and acting like a dragon in front of an elephant. What does/should the elephant do?

- Ignore it
- Treat it like Dragon
- Pity it
- Educate it
- Punish it
heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by heech »

Acharya wrote:Even now most of the central leadership of China comes from the Wuxi province near Beijing. Other regions dont have a claim on the leadership at all. It shows the evolution of the nation.
This is really a bizarre claim on every level. Not only does it have absolutely nothing to do with my point, it's just completely wrong. I don't even know where to start discussing it...

First, Wuxi isn't a province; it's a small-ish city. Second, Wuxi isn't anywhere near Beijing. It's in Jiangsu province (eastern China), and happens to be where my father was born.

Third, of the current leadership, only Hu Jintao was born in Jiangsu; he will be replaced by Xi Jinping, who was born in Beijing... but his ancestral roots are in Shaanxi (west/central China). The premier Wen Jiabao was born in Tianjin, in northern China.

If we look back at the key players in the 20th century... Mao Zedong was from Hunan. Deng Xiaoping was from Sichuan. Sun Yat-sen was Hakka/Cantonese. Chiang Kai-Shek was from Zhejiang. If you're remotely familiar with Chinese geography, and I'm guessing that Acharya really isn't, you'd realize these are really VERY different corners of the country. (And by the way, all of the above had very thick accents when speaking in the common dialect... sometimes I'm surprised they could even understand each other.)
heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Post by heech »

Dhiman wrote:Mauryas, Gupta (with some exception), Mughals, British, and current Indian Republic. In each case, a strong central authority worked/works in concert with smaller authorities.
I'm only going off of Wikipedia here... but it looks like the Mauryas lasted 140 years, and the Gupta empire lasted about 300. There was then a gap of about 1100 years until the establishment of the Mughal empire. After which, I think it could be fairly argued that the Indian subcontinent has been more united than not. 1100 years is a pretty long gap. Did the Mughals "base" the legitimacy of their dynasty off of the Maurya or Gupta empire in any way?
I have often felt that non-indians often assume one or both of the following: 1) homogeneity is a universally desired goal and/or 2) a diverse group will spontaneously morph into a homogenous group over time.
I think thou doth protest too much. I for one haven't made either of the above claims. I don't have a crystal ball, and I have no idea where things will lie in 10, 50, 500, or another 5000 years. And therefore, I have no reason to argue that homogeneity is a "desired goal" that Indians should be aspiring to. And I certainly don't think a diverse group will spontaneously become homogeneous. in China, it took the bloody action of many dictators + cultural strait-jacket to achieve that point.

My only point in this entire discussion has been to share *why* China has a different degree of homogeneity than India. Our histories are just extremely different. I wouldn't have even bothered to make the point, except even a poster like VikramS (who otherwise seems very informed) actually was under the impression Chinese homogeneity and unity is something as newly formed as the cultural revolution.

I'm not looking to belittle India (although many Indians here seem to be reflexively assuming that's my goal)... I'm just looking to explore the very obvious, and indisputable differences between Chinese and Indians in our outlook towards society and government. You can argue Hinduism and the Caste system represents a long tradition which has been continuous over the past 2000 years in the Indian subcontinent... that's fine, but that's still a very different animal (not necessarily a better or worse animal) from the continual stream of governments + institutions that has defined China for the past 2000 years.
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15043
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by Suraj »

heech wrote:But just so that I understand you correctly... are you really saying that the worlds' nations should have their borders drawn based on where they were 2200 years ago? That seems like a rather outrageous claim, and certainly not anything remotely like what I have been discussing.
No, it's the other way around - it's YOU who conflates the notion of a series of small geographically and demographically limited unitary states located in a particular region to define the history of 'China'. From my perspective that's somewhat ridiculous - it's merely a historical continuum of limited Yellow River dynasties. I suggested you do the same for India - the Gangetic plain is the nerve center of Hindu and Indian civilization, has always had a clear continuum of nation-states, dating back to probably a millenium before the Qin (see Vikram's reference to the Mahajanapadas).

Where you see lack of unity is in fact merely confusion over unitary vs federal structure; significant parts of Indian territory have a substantial history of strong non-central regional development. Like someone else stated, that's merely a question of viewpoint - China views unity as based around central rule + homogenity. India does not. Never has. It's always had a distributed federal structure, in between significant periods of unitary rule under several large dynasties.

Yet, even 2 millenia ago, people identified the entire current landmass as their land - they were obliged to travel in pilgrimage around various religious and cultural centers around the current territorial extent. There are pre-Christian area texts from Tamil Nadu in the south celebrating the Kedarnath temple up north near the Chinese border.

Perhaps there's some dissonance in both directions. You see our long federal structure as a sign of disunity. That's ok. I see the same in China's history. I don't really implicitly see the unity in a land that has continuously needed near-despotic central rule to keep it together, and has a long history of limited duration dynasties that were swept out of power, purged, and their histories summarily rewritten. If anything, that sounds like a land of continued discontent and strife. But that's my view of what you term the 'united political history' of your land.

In China, the way to control the country was to take Beijing (or whatever the then capital was). In India, there was no capital to take. Its heart was its temples, and the Mughals did their best to try and raze those, but failed. You should read about Somnath temple, one of the 12 holy temples I mentioned earlier. It was destroyed not once or twice, but seven times. One of the first things independent India did in 1947 was to rebuild it one more time, partly to restore its sanctity, and partly as a middle finger to all those who destroyed it before with a very clear intent in mind.
heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by heech »

Suraj,

I don't know that we really disagree at all on the main points, despite your voracious efforts in insisting that I'm wrong.
Suraj wrote:Where you see lack of unity is in fact merely confusion over unitary vs federal structure; significant parts of Indian territory have a substantial history of strong non-central regional development. Like someone else stated, that's merely a question of viewpoint - China views unity as based around central rule + homogenity. India does not. Never has. It's always had a distributed federal structure, in between significant periods of unitary rule under several large dynasties.
I'm still trying to understand the substance of the "federal" structure. What does this mean in practice? Was there an actual layer of federal government, with administrative power over all? I'm not trying to make a rhetorical point, I legitimately have no idea what you're referring to when you talk about a federal "structure".

Trying to parse the rest of your statement... let me try to recast/interpret your point. Are you stating essentially that the people of the Indian subcontinent have continuously, since 2000 years ago, had a shared spiritual/religious/cultural view of "their land" or heritage?
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by svinayak »

heech wrote:
Acharya wrote:Even now most of the central leadership of China comes from the Wuxi province near Beijing. Other regions dont have a claim on the leadership at all. It shows the evolution of the nation.
This is really a bizarre claim on every level. Not only does it have absolutely nothing to do with my point, it's just completely wrong. I don't even know where to start discussing it...

First, Wuxi isn't a province; it's a small-ish city. Second, Wuxi isn't anywhere near Beijing. It's in Jiangsu province (eastern China), and happens to be where my father was born.

Third, of the current leadership, only Hu Jintao was born in Jiangsu; he will be replaced by Xi Jinping, who was born in Beijing... but his ancestral roots are in Shaanxi (west/central China). The premier Wen Jiabao was born in Tianjin, in northern China.

If we look back at the key players in the 20th century... Mao Zedong was from Hunan. Deng Xiaoping was from Sichuan. Sun Yat-sen was Hakka/Cantonese. Chiang Kai-Shek was from Zhejiang. If you're remotely familiar with Chinese geography, and I'm guessing that Acharya really isn't, you'd realize these are really VERY different corners of the country. (And by the way, all of the above had very thick accents when speaking in the common dialect... sometimes I'm surprised they could even understand each other.)
I will talk with my chinese friend who is a distantly related to Mao. I will ask him to verify what you claim. I will report this matter to him.
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15043
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by Suraj »

heech wrote:I'm still trying to understand the substance of the "federal" structure. What does this mean in practice? Was there an actual layer of federal government, with administrative power over all? I'm not trying to make a rhetorical point, I legitimately have no idea what you're referring to when you talk about a federal "structure".
Administrative rule ran together with support of religion - Hinduism, or for a period, Buddhism. The clergy by themselves did not rule, but interacted and advised all rulers. Strictly speaking though, the definition of religion here is not the same as the modern one - the formal name of Hinduism literally translates to 'way of life' and does not specify a creed or prophet.

As I mentioned previously, I don't really see 'political unity' in Chinese history as such. What I do see is periods of political development that had coercively enforced compliance, separated by bouts of traumatic upheaval. Having seen what it entailed during the Cultural Revolution, it's impossible to believe that the continuous rewriting of history was a friendly book writing session over tea and dumplings. From my perspective it seems absurd to celebrate unity arising from a political entity that enforced compliance in this manner. What kind of unity is that - a collective desire to avoid being decapitated ?
heech wrote:Trying to parse the rest of your statement... let me try to recast/interpret your point. Are you stating essentially that the people of the Indian subcontinent have continuously, since 2000 years ago, had a shared spiritual/religious/cultural view of "their land" or heritage?
Correct, and quite a bit before the common era, for that matter. The Ramayana, which dates back to ~1500BC, depicts a story beginning in the Gangetic plain (probably an early Mahajanapada), and extending far south across the land bridge into Sri Lanka, where the climactic battle occurs. A number of the holy temples mentioned previously trace its path, including the one at the peninsular tip at Rameswaram.

The common history and shared cultural foundation is why every Indian empire - including the present republic - essentially reconstituted itself to the same geographical and demographic extent as the very first one - the Mauryan Empire.
harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by harbans »

Are you stating essentially that the people of the Indian subcontinent have continuously, since 2000 years ago, had a shared spiritual/religious/cultural view of "their land" or heritage?
Yes and no. Yes because we know irrespective of where in India we came from broadly what geographical limits Bharat implies too. No because we know this last 7000 years..not 2000. To that effect the Vedas have been quoted and a millenia back the Shankaracharyas spelt it out clearly through there maths. Dharma has been very exclusive to this land. It was meant to be a preserve of it.
heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by heech »

Suraj wrote:As I mentioned previously, I don't really see 'political unity' in Chinese history as such. What I do see is periods of political development that had coercively enforced compliance, separated by bouts of traumatic upheaval. Having seen what it entailed during the Cultural Revolution, it's impossible to believe that the continuous rewriting of history was a friendly book writing session over tea and dumplings. From my perspective it seems absurd to celebrate unity arising from a political entity that enforced compliance in this manner. What kind of unity is that - a collective desire to avoid being decapitated ?
You can characterize the "kind" of unity as "coercively enforced compliance", but the fact remains the same. China was unified in fact.

As far as the rewriting of history... Communism is a strange creature, since it's an ideology that required it to be the *end* of history. There is supposed to be nothing beyond Communism, while everything that came before had to be re-perceived in terms of class warfare. So, the historical rewriting of the cultural revolution is distinct in that way.

The earlier histories don't look anything like that. The Mongol Yuan intentionally described themselves as successors of previous Chinese emperors. And I was just glancing through the "History of the Yuan" today, commissioned/published by the Ming court in 1369. For those who keep wanting to focus on the ethnic portions of things... keep in mind this is the Han Chinese dynasty that overthrew the "racist" Mongol dynasty, and built the Great Wall in order to keep out the nomads. But the "History of the Yuan" doesn't read anything like a racial treatise, or criticism of the Yuan... it's simply a history of the Yuan. And afterwards, the Han emperors of the Ming dynasty and the Manchu emperors of the Qing dynasty both worshipped at the same temple, where plaques were setup for *every* Chinese emperor in series starting from the near-mythical era of 500+ BC.
The common history and shared cultural foundation is why every Indian empire - including the present republic - essentially reconstituted itself to the same geographical and demographic extent as the very first one - the Mauryan Empire.
In a somewhat similar sense, I'd say much of the "Western World" have a shared cultural and religious tradition as well. Even nearly 2000 years after the fall of the roman empire, that remains the reason many of the nations of the western world retain a cultural / philosophical (and even religious) affinity. And it also seems there are similarities here to Confucianism, which has also been variously described as a religion or philosophy. And Confucianism extends well beyond the borders of China, defining societies throughout east Asia.

Even so, this Indian religious/cultural heritage that is still qualitatively distinct from the political tradition that has defined China over the same time frame. I don't really care to what you attribute the motives or forces behind that unified political tradition, just don't deny that it exists.
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15043
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by Suraj »

heech wrote:Even so, this Indian religious/cultural heritage that is still qualitatively distinct from the political tradition that has defined China over the same time frame. I don't really care to what you attribute the motives or forces behind that unified political tradition, just don't deny that it exists.
It's you who seems to find it convenient to narrowly define unity on the basis of a sequence of unitary rule by local kingdoms that mostly encompassed only part of Chinese geographical and demographic extent even at that time. I can use that same criteria to claim that India has been politically united in a similar manner based on the history of the Gangetic plain alone. It would be more reasonable to argue that (to pick from my hazy knowledge of Chinese provincial geography) say, Shandong, Henan, Jiangsu and umm, Hebei collectively have a history of long unitary rule.

India has no history of 'falling apart' without a strong central ruler, unlike China, nor any history of internecine internal warfare like either China or Europe. That's because unlike a unitary state it does not have a single point of failure. In fact India has frequently prospered under weak or nonexistent central political control, with vibrant trade and cultural development within its extent, and with the rest of the world. China only knows unity when imposed upon it through force; it's natural state is to revert to a collection of constituents that have a history of conflict with each other.
ManuT
BRFite
Posts: 595
Joined: 22 Apr 2005 23:50

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by ManuT »

Heech ji

Putting below from last year 'rewritten' by Xinhua as an example. Please clarify what happened here? Do you believe 'this' was not in the narration of Chinese history by PRC? 

thanks

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/w ... 854920.htm
ISLAMABAD, May 2 (Xinhua) -- Pakistani Urdu TV channel Geo News quoted Pakistani intelligence officials as saying that the world's most wanted terrorist Osama Bin Laden was killed in a search operation launched by the Pakistani forces after a Pakistani army helicopter was shot down in the wee hours of Monday in Abbotabad, a mountainous town located some 60 kilometers north of Pakistan's capital city of Islamabad.

At about 1:20 a.m. local time a Pakistani helicopter was shot down by unknown people in the Sikandarabad area of Abbotabad. The Pakistani forces launched a search operation in the nearby area and encountered with a group of unknown armed people. A fire exchange followed between the two sides.

When the fire exchange ended, the Pakistani forces arrested some Arab women and kids as well some other armed people who later confessed to the Pakistani forces they were with Osama Bin laden when the fire was exchanged and Bin Laden was killed in the firing.

Local media reported that after the dead body of Bin Laden was recovered, two U.S. helicopter flew to the site and carried away the dead body of Bin Laden.

Initial reports said that at least one was killed and two others were injured in the crash. At least two houses were engulfed by the huge fire caused by the crashed chopper.

Rescue team rushed to the site shortly after the crash was reported and the armed forces cordoned off the area and launched a search operation there.

Sources of Xinhua said they tried to enter the area after the incident took place, but no media people were allowed inside.

"No one knows in that helicopter crash Bin Laden was killed," said the sources.
VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1885
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by VikramS »

heech:

It would be nice if you could go into more detail about how different dynasties which ruled China were similar and different, and how the basic notion of the Chinese state has stayed pretty much the same over time. I understand that your focus is not on the current physical boundaries of PRC, and I am glad that we are not taking the discussion in that direction.

One way to better understand India, is that in the dharmic system, the role of the ruling class the kshatriyas, was to rule justly; everyone else accepted who ever the victorious kshatriya was. For a long time, to the common person it did not matter who was the ruler. The kshatriya's would battle, negotiate etc., and get or lose territory. However for the rest of the society the victory or loss of their current ruler in battle made little difference, since the individual rulers governed and ruled by using a similar philosophy.

The kshatriya's themselves had a code of battle; the battles of ancient India were more like modern day sports, with rules, regulations, time when battled could be fought etc. It was perhaps quite unique. One reason the initial Islamic conquests were so traumatic to the population at large, is that the concept of pillage and looting by the victorious army was foreign to the masses.

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/War_in_Ancient_India.htm

Even among the ruling classes, there were different thoughts. Emperor Ashoka, whose chakra adorns the Indian flag, and whose four lion seal is the official seal of the Government of India, gave up conquest based on war, after witnessing the loss of life during one his campaign. He is credited with spreading the more pacifist version of Dharma, Buddhism, all over Bharat and beyond the borders of Bharat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka

So even though one might argue that a strong central ruler existed only in small periods, the basic essence of the India is not defined by the ruler. It is defined by the way people live, interact, travel, trade and carry on the business of life. It is characterized by shared cultural, religious, and social values.

You question of Western civilization having a lot on common, is a very pertinent one. The current crisis in Europe is perhaps a great example of how in spite of having a lot in common, they are so many cultural, political and social differences that they are finding it hard to find a common ground. Contrast that with modern India, a nation left penniless, hungry and bloody after the partition, but still able to coalesce together into a single political entity. Most Westerners do not get it and were ripe with predictions of the breakup of India; many still dont but a majority are now eating crow.
Last edited by VikramS on 08 Feb 2012 04:16, edited 1 time in total.
heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by heech »

ManuT wrote:Heech ji

Putting below from last year 'rewritten' by Xinhua as an example. Please clarify what happened here? Do you believe 'this' was not in the narration of Chinese history by PRC? 
I really have no idea what this means, or what you're asking me. It sounds to me like Xinhua reposted an article based on a Pakistani TV report... what's the question here?
heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by heech »

VikramS wrote:It would be nice if you could go into more detail about how different dynasties which ruled China were similar and different, and how the basic notion of the Chinese state has stayed pretty much the same over time. I understand that your focus is not on the current physical boundaries of PRC, and I am glad that we are not taking the discussion in that direction.
I'm not sure I could do the topic justice... not sure I'm qualified for such a broad summary. I'll do my best, just go easy on me if I muddle through this.

In the near-mythical past, the Chinese trace our history back to a number of smaller tribes/kingdoms in what is now central China. But in actual recorded history, we have to look to Qin Shihuang at around 220 BC... he's really the father of the Chinese imperial system. He effectively unified all of China, and set into place intellectual traditions that have defined every dynasty since. He decided that he had surpassed the "huang" and "di" kings of the past, and therefore declared himself the first "huangdi" (emperor). Huangdi have the "mandate from heaven", the pseudo-religious right to do anything they wish as absolute dictator. A very complicated bureaucracy of court officials was formed around him. Emperors had absolute administrative power, and appointed officials at every level.

Every dynasty that has followed the Qin Shihuang has taken on the same form, calling themselves huangdi and adopting the exact same structure as the original emperor. For the past 1000 years, there has been a steady trend of "foreign" invasion as nomads invaded the central plains from northern Asia: the Jurchen, the Mongols, and finally the Manchu. It took the Jurchen and the Mongol a couple generations before they were "sinized", but their kings inevitably all declared themselves huangdi, and adopted the same traditional + intellectual court structure that existed before their arrival. The Manchu were even more anxious, they declared themselves huangdi and joined themselves to the imperial tradition almost immediately upon crossing the border. (Perhaps China was fortunate in a way that the Indians weren't... in that none of our immediate neighbors were empires with a lasting tradition/culture like the Muslims or Greeks. To our "barbarian" neighbors, adopting Chinese civilization/culture was very desirable, and the only thing that made sense.)

Note that Qin Shihuang was not a believer in Confucian philosophy; the state 'religion' was instead legalism... which you might even call a cousin to modern facism. A well defined set of firm laws defined the responsibility of every citizen, in service of the state, and anyone who disobeyed would be harshly punished. He attacked and attempted to destroy all opposing philosophies, including Confucianism. After his death, Confucianism quickly surged back to the surface... but the ultimate result was something that's a mixture of legalism and Confucianism. Confucianism essentially states that a man, a family, and a society will thrive if we constantly strive to self-improve, and behave according to certain ethical rules. I would say, legalism resembles something like a top-down, trickle-down view of society; Confucianism is sort of the bottom-up, trickle-up view of the same. Emperors used both to complement each other: obey my laws absolutely, because it's the ethical thing to do.

There is a cultural continuity here, sort of similar to what India experienced. In the case of China, this cultural continuity eventually converted foreign invaders... and that helped maintain the underlying, fundamental political continuity, which is different to what India experienced. Even if a new dynasty came into place... the new imperial court had similar ranks for their officials that the old one had; government had similar "departments"; officials were appointed to rule simliar geographic areas; taxes were collected in the same way; petitions were passed up the same way; documents were written in the same language and structure. And with the Confucian influence here, of course every emperor performed similar rituals. That's not to say details didn't reform along the way over the past 2200 years, but the overall structure remained static. For example, the Qin emperor in 200 BC had six official seals (called xi); after the Sui dynasty in 600 AD, all subsequent emperors had eight official seals... but the these official seals were used in basically the same way.

Ever since 200 BC, China has either had only one emperor (deciding everything), or was in the process of trying to figure out who could claim the title of the next emperor (in order to decide everything). This is clearly very different from the Indian experience. In terms of actual policy, of course every emperor/dynasty was different. Some were militant, some were passive. Some were alcoholics, some were intellectuals. But the system remained in place around them. This makes the events of the 20th century pretty interesting... some, of course, think it represents the end of history, and imperial China has forever disappeared. Others think the Communist Party represents yet another (perhaps short-lived dynasty).
ManuT
BRFite
Posts: 595
Joined: 22 Apr 2005 23:50

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by ManuT »

Heech ji

Do you trust this narrative reposted by Xinhua or not?
heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by heech »

ManuT wrote:Heech ji

Do you trust this narrative reposted by Xinhua or not?
Do I trust that Pakistani TV first reported Osama Bin-Ladin was killed by Pakistani forces? Yes, yes I do.

Do I believe that OBL was actually killed by Pakistani forces? Of course not, because Xinhua brain-washed me with this article (linked as an update from the same page):
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/w ... 854883.htm
ManuT
BRFite
Posts: 595
Joined: 22 Apr 2005 23:50

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by ManuT »

Thanks for pointing that out. What (and Why) Xinhua was pushing in a span of 30 minutes ? (and let's not pretend Xinhua is holding some high bar in journalism)

Point is, what makes you think that narrative of Chinese history (and even of the Cultural Revolution) has not been sanitized by the Chinese Communists to a one favourable to them?


===========================
Added for reference, This is the on you referred and looks like a kind of breaking news.
Bin Laden killed in mansion outside Islamabad

English.news.cn 2011-05-02 11:19:42

WASHINGTON, May 1 (Xinhua) -- Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. military assets in a mansion outside the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, CNN reported Sunday night.

U.S. media said bin Laden is dead, and President Barack Obama is to make a statement shortly.

Media reports indicated U.S. authorities now have the body of bin Laden, and confirms his death. Obama is to make a highly unusual statement about the issue.
(The one above has more 'detail' so to say and the time stamp of 2011-05-02 11:52:58)
heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by heech »

ManuT wrote:Thanks for pointing that out. What (and Why) Xinhua was pushing in a span of 30 minutes ? (and let's not pretend Xinhua is holding some high bar in journalism)

Point is, what makes you think that narrative of Chinese history (and even of the Cultural Revolution) has not been sanitized by the Chinese Communists to a one favourable to them?
I mean, you have to understand as Chinese, we are *raised* to know that propaganda exists. It's not like our eyes are secretly covered, and propaganda is a foreign concept. In the Soviet/Communist system, propaganda is something the government publicly engages in, and takes pride in. It's all about "guiding public opinion". We know when we watch "xinwen lianbo" (the central governments' nightly news program) or read the People's Daily, we are fully aware the stories are picked and crafted to send a message. So, when non-Chinese sort of dance around the bush and sort of hint that the Chinese state media might be biased; the reaction of most Chinese would be a roll of the eyes... really, no shit?

You know, there's a very Western concept which is the equivalent of Chinese propaganda: public relations. Any time a Western corporation issues a press release, you're well aware of the fact it's going to be filled with positive quotes that focus on the optimistic future and ignore the negative reality. In other words, I read the People's Daily the same way I read press releases issued by Apple.

Now, some people assume this means Chinese knowledge of history is therefore fatally flawed, and therefore irrelevant. That's really an ignorant point of view. If you think any remotely interested Chinese college student doesn't know what happened on Tiananmen on 6/4, then you're wrong; any Chinese college student remotely interested in the matter has watched "secret" foreign documentaries... probably by their first year in college. If you think anyone doesn't know what happened during the Cultural Revolution, then you're *completely* wrong... we don't even need history books for that, the vast majority of Chinese (especially intellectuals) lived through the Cultural Revolution. You can't find one urban family that didn't have a close relative attacked, and very often killed, during the Cultural Revolution; and at the same time, you can't find one urban family that didn't have a close relative which *participated* in the GPCR. Literally hundreds of millions of Chinese have traveled overseas in the past 20 years.... 20 million mainland Chinese visit Hong Kong *every year*. How closed off do you think China really is? As far as knowledge of imperial history... after 2000 years of cultural tradition in which we obsessively recorded historical accounts of what just occurred, do you really think that could be wiped out?

And as far as whether OBL was actually killed by the Pakistanis or Americans.... are you kidding me? Even asking this question makes me wonder (no disrespect intended) what planet you're logging on from.
heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by heech »

And by the way, just so you guys are up to date to the most recent news...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/stor ... 53008264/1

This the real deal. This is a *huge* story, with *huge* implications for China's political landscape for years, maybe even decades, to come. China's political system has been pretty static for the last 15 years. This is going to be a big year.
VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1885
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by VikramS »

heech:

Thank you for that post about different Chinese dynasties.
ManuT
BRFite
Posts: 595
Joined: 22 Apr 2005 23:50

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by ManuT »

Can I phrase it as "an honest analysis recent history (since Chinese-Communist (ChinCom) take over) is yet to happen in China."

What you have written would point to an underground and under currents at Universities is fine, but see it from another side, it doesn't matter as it doesn't have a voice.

It is like the 'alcohol drinking' in tea cups certain cultures indulge in so as not to lose credentials of being 'faithfools'. It is a sentiment but not something one cannot take to the bank.

(For example, one can say that Kim the IIIrd in NK has been educated overseas, but in a way, it doesn't count for much, NK is still the same till it CAN change its behaviour)

(Also, there is a real chance that the vast majority of the students who watch those things later become bricks in the wall)
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by Agnimitra »

Dear heech,

Thanks for your thoughtful outline of Chinese historical iterations. Much appreciated.

The East Asian ethos taken as a whole crystallized the following natural values under fundamental attributes of consciousness:

- Notion of Non-illusion -- was crystallized in terms of the absoluteness of Ritual;
- Demonstration of Love -- as dutiful Loyalty;
- Reward -- as Contemplation;
- Social equality -- in terms of Harmony;
- From these, a particular integral Effect emerges -- as Community (as opposed to the Individual).

Taken together, these comprise an important tier of the cultural iterations of human history. Other cultures have produced their own crystallizations based on their churning and resultant stable crystallizations.

However, one sees that the different cultures tend to be moving in circles with their isolated iterations, dissolving and re-crystallizing the same cardinal values in different technological forms. In a globalized and interconnected system, this moving-in-circles may be just about over. Only those civilizatons that have the capacity to absorb and integrate the cardinal values of all other cultural iterations into their own current iteration will come out on top. Others will break down to some extent or another.
Fidel Guevara
BRFite
Posts: 348
Joined: 21 Jan 2010 19:24
Location: Pandora

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by Fidel Guevara »

heech wrote:And by the way, just so you guys are up to date to the most recent news...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/stor ... 53008264/1

This the real deal. This is a *huge* story, with *huge* implications for China's political landscape for years, maybe even decades, to come. China's political system has been pretty static for the last 15 years. This is going to be a big year.
Heech, I don't follow why this is such big news...on the face of it, it just seems to be a popular police officer who fell afoul of CPC bigwigs and is defecting.

Are you implying this might be a catalyst for more dissent? The inside information that he can share with the West is probably very localized and short-medium term.

By the way, thanks for your insightful posts.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by SSridhar »

Playing down irritants, India & China call for 'new flexible approach to ties' - Ananth Krishnan in The Hindu
External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna, who on Wednesday evening inaugurated India's new $10-million embassy, which he described as turning “a new page” in ties, underscored India's willingness to calm sources of tension. He particularly stressed in unusually strong terms New Delhi's support to Beijing on the Tibetan issue, amid ongoing unrest in Sichuan province that has seen at least 16 self-immolation protests by Tibetans in the past year and clashes last month with police forces that have left at least two killed and dozens injured.

This week, Beijing blamed overseas Tibetan groups, some based in Dharamsala, and exiled religious leader the Dalai Lama for fanning flames of unrest. While India reiterated that the Dalai Lama was “an honoured guest” of India and his activities were not political, Mr. Krishna reaffirmed India's support to the ‘One China' policy, officials said.

It is the government of India's position that the Tibet Autonomous Region is part of the People's Republic of China, and as a result of that we are dealing with the internal affairs of China,” Mr. Krishna told journalists.

“Hence we will have to be very cautious, and any help that we can render to ease the tension we are willing to do it but I don't think that situation will arise.”

Mr. Krishna met four high-ranking Chinese officials on Wednesday — a rare event for a visiting Minister, officials said, suggesting a reflection of a new impetus from Beijing to get ties on the right track in 2012.

Zhou Yongkang, China's ninth-highest ranked politician and Communist Party of China (CPC) Standing Committee Polit Bureau member, told Mr. Krishna that the Tibet issue “concerns the core interest” of China. He said the Chinese government “appreciates the firm support of the Indian government over this issue,” adding that China “firmly penalises according to law” separatist activities.

Mr. Zhou described the opening of the new embassy building as “an auspicious event in the year of the dragon.” China celebrated the start of the new dragon year on January 23.

Mr. Krishna also met with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, State Councillor Dai Bingguo and Wang Jiarui, head of the CPC's International Department.

Mr. Krishna said he raised the case of two Indian traders in the town of Yiwu, who were illegally detained by Chinese businessmen, accused of owing 10 million RMB ($1.58 million). The traders, who will stand trial on March 1, told The Hindu in a recent interview they wanted Mr. Krishna to raise the issue and ensure a fair trial.

Mr. Krishna met briefly with the two traders, who had travelled here from Shanghai on Tuesday night. “I empathised with them regarding their traumatic experience and raised the matter with my Chinese counterpart,” he said. “The Indian mission will provide all assistance in resolving this issue.”

Mr. Krishna denied media reports that New Delhi had objected to the visit by the Vice-Governor of Zhejiang province, where Yiwu is located, to Gujarat. “[There is] nothing like prevention as such,” he said. “I think dates are being finalised.”

However, sources said New Delhi believed the timing of the visit was unsuitable considering their displeasure with the way provincial authorities handled the Yiwu case. “If you maltreat our businessmen, you are sending a bad signal,” an official said. “The fact is that we didn't get much assistance from Zhejiang provincial authorities.”

The two countries, which have recently held similar positions on global issues, discussed their recently differing positions on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) vote on Syria.

China stressed it held similar views on India, focusing on political stability and not regime change. Officials appeared concerned about China's isolation with Russia on the issue, hinting at unease over the vote and stressing the commonality of Chinese positions with India on most issues.

“We noted that we have taken divergent stands on the UNSC but nonetheless we would like the Syrian question to be peacefully resolved by all parties concerned,” Mr. Krishna said.

Mr. Krishna stressed that the overall tenor of talks was positive, with both countries deciding on Wednesday to mark 2012 as a year of friendship and cooperation.

“We also reviewed the outstanding issues in our bilateral relations, and agreed that while we work to resolve them we should not let them adversely affect the growing cooperation in other areas,” he said.
SM Krishna is naive (to be charitable to him). He need not have affirmed in such strong terms India's support for Beijing on Tibet or the 'One China' policy. Chinese foreign minister, when he comes to India, does not hold out similar promises for India. In fact, China deftly avoids mentioning J&K.
Sri
BRFite
Posts: 1332
Joined: 18 May 2005 20:19
Location: Earth

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by Sri »

During the old days during and before Mauryan empire, India was divided into padas and jan padas, but whenever the question of Rashtra came it was always 'Bharata'. Rather people had equal rights from Tamil Nadu till Afghanistan (Kanmboja). These rights were enshrined in the common law of every pada and Janpada. Rather Chanakya writes that even criminal justice cannot be applied differently between a citizen of one pada or jan pada.

Similarly education system was equal opportunity system for all irrespective of padas and janpadas. Numerous such examples are there. Chanakya himself was student and then professor of economics and politics in taxila whereas he hailed from Magadh. Similarly Aryabhatta was from Kerela but was student at Taxila and later a professor. Adi Sancara studied in Maharashtra.

This is not true for people who came from outside Bharatha. Numerous travelers and intellectuals from Persia and China visited these universities (Kashi and Nalanda being others) but were given an observer status and never enrolled as students. Rather they were not able to interact in a wholesome way with professors either. Arthashastra distinguish between people hailing from Bhartha (diffrent padas and janpadas) and people hailing from other countries. Rather i believe the Bhudhism traveled easily to China because established Hindu hierarchy never full engaged itself with the Chinese intellectuals. Only the Bhudhist did it in a meaningful way.

Bharath Putras have claim to all of India. This not just because the constitution of the Republic of India says so but because it is a right enshrined in our collective history. No one can either give to you or take it away from you legally. Indics are India...
harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by harbans »

Sri Ji, some good points, but Kambhoja is Cambodia. Another there was nothing called Hindu then. Buddhism was not some separate entity. All fell within the scope of Dharma. The religion of India is Dharma whether India was under the influence of a King that followed Vaishnav, Shaivite or Buddhist tradition. All major canons of Buddhism were developed by Brahmin scholars from all parts of India. Dhammapada Chapter 26 on Brahmins: "Him I call a brahmin who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill."
Dharma encouraged religious debate and finding ones equation to God, personal or via a Guru. That's why within the Dharmic fold we have many streams of thought. These unite India. These defined the framework where the concept of Bharat was prevalent, irrespective of notional Kingdoms and tribute borders. And that concept spread beyond Bharat to beyond..to Kamhoja, China, Korea, Japan...
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17168
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by Rahul M »

harbans ji, cambodia was called khamboja (of the east) by Indian merchants after the original khamboja in what is now pakistan/afghanistan, the region around the hindukush mountains.

in the same way the names east london or new york came along.
harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by harbans »

Thanks Rahul Ji. My bad. My take on Bharat was it was always that Dharma united India. The concepts on equanimity, Truth, humility, Compassion run through all strands of thought. Divisions of Dharmic thought are foreign creations. The attempted hijacking of Buddhist thought as separate from the Dharma of India is a massive fraud on the scale of the Divide and Rule policy perpetuated by the British. That has led consequentially to all sorts of claims on Yoga, our distance from Tibet, our FM/ PM and confused politicians accepting a distorted One China policy perpetuated by the CPC. Our inability to unify under a Dharmic banner leads to this fall out and consequential claims of what India really is or not. We will get our knickers in a twist till we get that aspect of thinking correct.
ManuT
BRFite
Posts: 595
Joined: 22 Apr 2005 23:50

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by ManuT »

ManuT wrote:Can I phrase it as "an honest analysis recent history (since Chinese-Communist (ChinCom) take over) is yet to happen in China."

What you have written would point to an underground and under currents at Universities is fine, but see it from another side, it doesn't matter as it doesn't have a voice.

It is like the 'alcohol drinking' in tea cups certain cultures indulge in so as not to lose credentials of being 'faithfools'. It is a sentiment but not something one can {typo} take to the bank.

(For example, one can say that Kim the IIIrd in NK has been educated overseas, but in a way, it doesn't count for much, NK is still the same till it CAN change its behaviour)

(Also, there is a real chance that the vast majority of the students who watch those things later become bricks in the wall)
heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by heech »

Fidel Guevara wrote:Heech, I don't follow why this is such big news...on the face of it, it just seems to be a popular police officer who fell afoul of CPC bigwigs and is defecting.

Are you implying this might be a catalyst for more dissent? The inside information that he can share with the West is probably very localized and short-medium term.
The Western press is starting to get caught up on stuff now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asi ... story.html

I will just add... 1989 was a water-shed event in Chinese history. After Tiananmen... the Chinese political system became extremely stable (or maybe 'static' is a better word). Deng Xiaoping took the reins, and as by far the most senior person in the Party, was able to gather enough political support by 1992 to lay out EXACTLY what was going to happen over the next 20 years:

1) Massive economic and social reform, but almost no political reform.
2) Jiang Zemin would form the next leadership group for 10 years, to be followed by Hu Jintao for 10 years.

That was the consensus everyone in the political system bought into, which is what made some of the amazing changes over the past two decades possible. All of the bickering that normally defines any country, as I'm sure Indians are well aware, was obscured. Well... now the honeymoon might be over. Hu Jintao's leadership team leaves office this year. No one of Deng Xiaoping's stature is left in the Party, and no one can dictate China's future path with authority. On the one hand, most of us assumed things would remain pretty stable... the next leadership team seemed largely in place, and what China has been doing over the last 20 years has been working pretty well. I think even most people here wouldn't dispute that.

(Before Tiananmen, Chinese politics was unbelievably dark. Do you guys realize how many of our presidents + most senior officials were purged, persecuted, killed and in some cases rehabilitated from 1949-1989? Everyone other than Mao, pretty much.)

But now, this puts all of that stability / consensus in question. This *might* be the most pivotal moment in Chinese politics for the past 20 years. And more importantly to me... if a senior official widely touted as being just and fair doesn't trust the Party will provide him justice, and instead has to turn to the Americans... then what hope do the rest of us have? The other possibility (almost as distasteful) is that this widely touted "hero" was actually corrupt, and he offered to sell state secrets in order to gain protection from justice.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by Prem »

Chinese Official Met U.S. Diplomats Before Taking Treatment

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-0 ... tment.html
( Whole lot of shake up going on )
Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- A deputy mayor who was the protege of one of China’s most powerful leaders went on leave for overwork after meeting U.S. diplomats, fueling speculation of a political shakeup ahead of the country’s leadership transition this year.
Wang Lijun, the deputy mayor of Chongqing, requested a meeting that took place earlier this week at the U.S. consulate in Chengdu, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters yesterday. Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai called Wang’s visit a “very isolated case” that was “resolved relatively smoothly.”
Wang, 52, headed Chongqing’s police force from 2009 until last week, overseeing a crackdown on gangs that raised the profile of his patron Bo Xilai, Chongqing’s Communist Party secretary. Wang’s loss of his police portfolio and subsequent leave indicate that China’s leaders have spurned Bo and his development model, which focused on increased state-led social spending, political analyst Li Cheng said in an e-mail.“The Chongqing model is over,” Li, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Brookings Institution, said in reference to Bo’s strategy, which also included a resurgence of songs and sayings lionizing socialism and Chairman Mao Zedong. “It means a landscape change in Chinese elite politics.”
Potential Candidate
Bo, who sits on China’s 25-member Politburo, had been seen as a potential candidate for membership in the elite Politburo Standing Committee, which now has nine members, according to Li and other analysts. The Communist Party meets later this year to choose the next generation of top leaders.
“It is a real blow for Bo,” Li said.
On Feb. 2, the Chongqing government said Wang had been relieved of his police duties and put in charge of areas including sanitation, athletics and education. Yesterday, after Wang met with U.S. officials, the Chongqing government said in a statement that he was suffering from “immense mental stress and serious physical discomfort,” and had been put on “vacation- style treatment.”
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by Agnimitra »

heech wrote:But now, this puts all of that stability / consensus in question. This *might* be the most pivotal moment in Chinese politics for the past 20 years. And more importantly to me... if a senior official widely touted as being just and fair doesn't trust the Party will provide him justice, and instead has to turn to the Americans... then what hope do the rest of us have? The other possibility (almost as distasteful) is that this widely touted "hero" was actually corrupt, and he offered to sell state secrets in order to gain protection from justice.
Disaffection with corruption amongst the rich and powerful is not unique to China at this point of time. So while there will be some push and pull, aren't you exaggerating the "instability" aspect?

India is also in the grip of an anti-corruption movement that sometimes spills out onto the streets, and sometimes seems to fizzle out. We don't have any leader of great stature in active electoral politics to be a Prime Ministerial candidate either. In comparison with his Indian counterpart, I wonder whether the Chinese commoners will be less or more actively involved in the socio-political transition towards less corruption and more transparency.
heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by heech »

Carl wrote:Disaffection with corruption amongst the rich and powerful is not unique to China at this point of time. So while there will be some push and pull, aren't you exaggerating the "instability" aspect?
I might be exaggerating the aspect. Very few people in all of China know exactly what's happening with Wang Lijun and his former boss Bo Xilai, and I'm definitely not in the loop. This is all a very bizarre series of events. There are reports he's been depressed / dealing with insomnia... so maybe there's even mental health issues here, we will just have to wait and see.

In any case, I don't think this instability will come from the "common man"; the vast majority of Chinese are happy with the status quo, and what's been achieved over the past two decades. There aren't very many common people in China interested in putting politics above every-day life.

But China remains very much a government ruled by edict, with few checks and balances. Instability, if it comes, will come from the top. This is one of the great weaknesses of the current Chinese political system. And if you look at Chinese history over the past 100 years, instability has been much more common than political stability. So this all depends on how deep this issue goes... if it's just limited to problems with one man, or if a broader political struggle between left/right is coming to the surface. If it's the latter, serious instability is definitely possible.
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15043
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by Suraj »

heech: Was Hu Jintao (and uncle Wen) also groomed for succession after Jiang Zemin/Zhu Rongji by Deng himself ? Source please ?

I think the only senior political persona who escaped persecution at some point in the first 40 years (besides Mao himself) was Zhou Enlai, though even he walked a tightrope trying to curtail Mao's excesses and trying to support Deng while the latter was being persecuted during the GPCR.
heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by heech »

Suraj wrote:heech: Was Hu Jintao (and uncle Wen) also groomed for succession after Jiang Zemin/Zhu Rongji by Deng himself ? Source please ?
Hu Jintao was named to the standing committee of the CPC Politburo in 1992, the first (and only) member of his "generation" to be assigned to the top. The standing committee is the highest leadership, containing the 7 (and now 9) most powerful people in China. Deng Xiaoping called all of the shots at the time, and it was clear Hu Jintao was expected to take charge after Jiang Zemin retired. They did the same thing in 2007, when Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang (expected to be the new leadership in 8 months) were brought into the standing committee. (By the way, Wen Jiabao is officially not even *second* in the CPC hierarchy. He's actually third behind the more senior Wu Bangguo.) Other than Hu, the rest of the team was really more constructed by consensus... but Hu and Wu were also very early promotions.

Very different than the Indian system, am I right? :) The current system works like this... the political leadership is groomed generation by generation. Every candidate is expected to work in different geographic areas, take on different roles, and they are watched to see how they react. And then people make deals, beg, borrow, threaten, blackmail, or whatever to get their candidates promoted at the next party congress.
VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1885
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by VikramS »

heech:
Thanks again for your insightful posts. Very few Indians understand Mandarin or have access to China sourced articles. Is there a blog or authors who you recommend for English speaking people, to get a better understanding of the internal dynamics of the Chinese system.

On a different note, I wanted to get your sense about something which is of critical importance. There is a school of thought that China will try to "cut India to size" or "teach India a lesson" within the next few years. Part of the reason is supposed to be due to internal compulsions forcing the CPC leadership to take drastic actions either to establish their nationalist credentials or to divert the attention of the masses or in one bizarre school of thought, to help fix the sex ratio, which is lop-sided in China thanks to the one-child policy (there is a precedence to that from Mao's time...).

What are you thoughts about something like that happening? Do you think that within China the war-mongers can garner enough support to wage wars? What are the circumstances which can drive power contenders to seek external military glory to bolster their own power base? Or do you feel that any force projection will be done via the proxytute (Pakistan), where the Chinese military itself will not be the face of the war.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by Agnimitra »

Religion (esp. Christianity) and the Communist Party
THERE was a time when Devon Chang had difficulty reconciling his two chosen faiths: Christianity, which he embraced in 2005 at the age of 19, and the Communist Party of China, which had embraced him a year earlier. Did his submission to an almighty God not mean he must renounce the godless club of Marx and Mao?

Not necessarily. A fellow convert’s university lecturer suggested that if all Communist Party members found Jesus, then Christianity could rule China. “So it’s a good thing for me to become a Christian,” Mr Chang reasoned.

The party does not quite see it that way. Although people join the party more for career reasons these days than for ideological ones, it still officially forbids religious belief among its members. In practice, this has for some years been a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. But signs are now growing that the party is about to become tougher on believers within its ranks. And behind it might be Mr Chang’s notion of Christianity as a Trojan horse.

...
ManishH
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 21 Sep 2010 16:53
Location: Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democractic republic

Re: People's Republic of China, Dec. 27 2011

Post by ManishH »

Unrest has spread from Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) to Western Sichuan (known as Kham in Tibetan). This region is critical in PLA logistics connecting Chengdu to TAR (part of No. 318 National Trunk Highway).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-16908985
Government began introducing hardline policies that were already in place in Tibet proper.

One of those requires Tibetan monks and nuns to complete a period of "patriotic education", at the end of which they are forced to denounce the Dalai Lama.

Many Tibetans complain that their culture, language and way of life are being eroded by policies initiated in Beijing.
Of course China wants to erase cultural identities of Tibetans which are more in sync with India. This cultural assimilation is classical 19th century colonial education practice.
By contrast, China's leaders believe they are bringing development and modernisation to backward Tibetan areas. "The Tibetans here earn more than I do," said one senior Jiuzhaigou official, surnamed Zhou.
Classic - Chinese are using colonial terminology in China. The white man's burden is now the CPC comrade's burden.

Image
"We are talking about an area where China had a working relationship with Tibetans,"

Across Tibetan areas of western Sichuan, China has poured in security forces, cut communications with the outside world and tried to prevent foreigners from getting in.

That does not seem like the actions of a government that is confident about how it administers its Tibetan areas.
Communist China is even more nervous because any unrest in this strategic West Sichuan region will unhinge all the communication infrastructure that is used to keep Tibet under it's oppressive boots as well as supply the PLA forces it has deployed against Arunachal Frontier.

Image
(replaced the map: thanks Aditya)
Last edited by ManishH on 10 Feb 2012 13:42, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply