Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 19 Dec 2014 09:22

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 1055 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 27  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2012 05:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Posts: 12254
VikramS wrote:
Folks:

A small request. Lets go easy on heech regarding Tibet etc.

Very rarely do we have a Chinese poster who actually shares information about China which is unavailable to most of us. I find his insight invaluable, and his perspective reasonably balanced.

Originally he had tried to keep the present day boundaries of the PRC out of the discussion, and let us keep it that way.

There is a lot more to learn from him, and the keyboards battles about Tibet defeat that purpose. He can not change the way the CPC or the PRC behaves; nor can we. We can learn from him and get a better understanding; something which can hopefully help India engage China in a more fruitful manner.

The bottom line remains that the Die-nasty is primarily responsible for the loss of Tibet, the 1962 debacle, and even perhaps the way the dice rolled right after partition in 1947-48. A less Westernized and son-of-the-soil types could have wrested the complete J&K after the snow thawed in 1948 instead of going to the UN which anyone with an iota of sense should have known would be rigged to favor the Anglo interests. Trying to to score a "moral" victory over heech will not fix anything.


Well were also observing. Some of us would be so much interested to see some of the same critical attitudes towards his own gov and party and nationalism as "ultra", "fascistic", "excessive", "fanatical" and "living in the past jingoism" that we see in the name of balanced approach among many Indians towards - say Pakistan.

Some empathy for the neighbour's aspirations too? Something again we see so much in Indians? Since in none of the posters we see claiming themselves to represent China/Chinese thought - we see this element of criticality, and reaching out - we really do not get any real picture of Chinaor Chinese society. What he is representing here is the concoted image of the Chinese being a monolithic block -all of whom are at one with their party's ambitions and imperialism. This makes me suspect the representations or any hope of getting any real picture.

Sorry to say that is the picture the CPC wants to be publicized and outsiders to believe in. I do have reasons verified on a personal basis not to accept this agitprop.This is not the true picture if you think Heech ji is representing the true undercurrents of Chinese society. You may have to wait for roughly a decade to see the truth of what I am saying.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2012 08:13 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 21 Sep 2008 07:57
Posts: 1049
Location: Baudland
A video clip from the past

India moves resolution supporting People's Republic of China's admission into the United Nations [U.N.]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2012 13:03 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31
Posts: 1705
brihaspatiji:

I have no disagreement with what you are saying. You know a lot more about China than I do.

For some one with a lower level understanding his perspective is definitely refreshing. He also initially mentioned that he would like to keep the current boundaries of the PRC etc. out of the discussion. From the point of view of learning more, I think it would be better to respect that. Otherwise, we invariably end up with Tibet, TSP, human rights etc. and the opportunity to learn is drowned out.

In the economic forum, chola has been repeatedly saying that Indians might be too focused on the tree and missing the forest, when it comes to understanding the PRC.

With heech, I would like to stay in the listening mode, rather than the argumentive mode. While you might believe that heech is painting an incorrect picture, the picture he is painting is still a lot more balanced than what most PRC posters typically paint.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2012 14:13 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 11 Apr 2010 08:42
Posts: 122
VikramS wrote:
brihaspatiji:

I have no disagreement with what you are saying. You know a lot more about China than I do.

For some one with a lower level understanding his perspective is definitely refreshing. He also initially mentioned that he would like to keep the current boundaries of the PRC etc. out of the discussion. From the point of view of learning more, I think it would be better to respect that. Otherwise, we invariably end up with Tibet, TSP, human rights etc. and the opportunity to learn is drowned out.

In the economic forum, chola has been repeatedly saying that Indians might be too focused on the tree and missing the forest, when it comes to understanding the PRC.

With heech, I would like to stay in the listening mode, rather than the argumentive mode. While you might believe that heech is painting an incorrect picture, the picture he is painting is still a lot more balanced than what most PRC posters typically paint.


+1 to that, VikramS !
May I add that we could use other threads to discuss the Indic view of China and leave this one to discuss the CPC's view of China? btw, i like to see heech's participation in this forum as well ! he is, certainly, amongst the more articulate. wonder if he writes a blog somewhere?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2012 16:44 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Apr 2005 23:50
Posts: 597
Acharya wrote:
I dont think anybody in the board is looking for Moral victory over Heech implying the same with PRC. In international relation morality does not matter.

We want Heech to tell us how personally he feels about his country and his fellow people


My point was to point out the problems involved, which cannot be wished away.

A certain kind of relationship exists between TSP state and PRC. It requires a fundamental change (even though a lot of damage has been done).

If heech (assuming that he has some idea of what that relationship involves), and only be made aware of it BUT is in no position to voice it as a criticism of Chinese policy due to the existing system in China, well where does it leave us, with all the articulation?

I feel if Chinese system allowed for more free speech (or whatever you want to call it) they would prefer a relationship (more positive) with India rather than TSP. For that some information that is critical of the TSP-PRC relationship has to be in their public domain and part of their discourse. That is the hope for change.

Looking for bi-directional learning process.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2012 22:31 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31
Posts: 13262
ManuT wrote:

A certain kind of relationship exists between TSP state and PRC. It requires a fundamental change (even though a lot of damage has been done).


This relationship is only a geo political relationship and is focused on only one thing.

To make sure that India does not get the geo political advantage in the region and also upper hand against China.

This bottleneck also India will overcome soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2012 22:47 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Posts: 12254
VikramS wrote:
brihaspatiji:

I have no disagreement with what you are saying. You know a lot more about China than I do.

For some one with a lower level understanding his perspective is definitely refreshing. He also initially mentioned that he would like to keep the current boundaries of the PRC etc. out of the discussion. From the point of view of learning more, I think it would be better to respect that. Otherwise, we invariably end up with Tibet, TSP, human rights etc. and the opportunity to learn is drowned out.

In the economic forum, chola has been repeatedly saying that Indians might be too focused on the tree and missing the forest, when it comes to understanding the PRC.

With heech, I would like to stay in the listening mode, rather than the argumentive mode. While you might believe that heech is painting an incorrect picture, the picture he is painting is still a lot more balanced than what most PRC posters typically paint.


The question was about whether we can learn about China from Heech's representations about Chinese thought. What good does knowing Chinese Communist party's views - which again need not be real views but deception - give us? [When there are better ways of knowing about CPC propaganda].

I would be so delighted to see single item of empathy that any Chinese poster shows towards Indian or Tibetan or other "subnational" aspirations on its frontiers. Why avoid a territorial discussion? I also find the representation of Chinese history and blanket claims like that of no-past-contact-across-Himalayas quiite aligned to the offficial CPC version of Chinese history. So I do not see any realistic view from China. Is that what the common people think? Is that what even the CPC thinks?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2012 23:16 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Posts: 15359
Location: Deepest & Highest
Moral victory over thugerry is easy to achieve, it is more important to work out good protection against thug and its clever methods of robbing and hurting others. With China, India get better served by playing waiting games . No one doubt that India is Superpower in Patience when it comes to dealing with devious Devils.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Feb 2012 01:26 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 May 2008 11:38
Posts: 669
ManuT wrote:
My point was to point out the problems involved

Which was your point? Are you VikramS?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Feb 2012 03:00 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31
Posts: 6298
Moderation note:

Would everyone please take a moment to contemplate that this thread is titled PRC, but that the last dozen or so posts constitute people arguing among themselves as to how to deal with posts by Chinese posters ? There's more than a little deja vu of the argumentative Indian idea and shiv's pisko analyses in the above posts.

Please continue your debate on the matter in an appropriate thread, like the forum feedback, nukkad or a 'how to piskoanalyze & handle Chinese posters' thread. Using a thread about a country to debate how to deal with posters from that country just adds noise. There are plenty of interesting happenings in PRC that are better suited to being documented and analyzed here now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Feb 2012 07:50 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27
Posts: 9294
China's 'Come to Jesus' Moment: How Beijing got religion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Feb 2012 09:14 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 15413
Location: Chennai
A month after border talks, Chinese paper says Aksai Chin is a closed chapter
Quote:
A month after India and China held the fifteenth round of border talks, a commentary in a Chinese newspaper has questioned India's claims on Kashmir and asserted that the only dispute was over the status of Arunachal Pradesh.

An article in the Communist Party-run Jiefang Daily , or Liberation Daily newspaper said the disputed western section of the border — including the Aksai Chin region which is now under China's control — was not part of the dispute, underscoring how far apart both countries' positions remained even after 15 rounds of negotiations.

The commentary said: “The Indian side believes that the border dispute between China and India covers not only the eastern region of 90,000 sq km but also the western region of 30,000 sq km and the western region is India's too. This wrong argument, which totally disregards the history, still has supporters in India.”

The article, written by an India scholar in the Shanghai Institute of International Studies, Wu Yongnian, was the first Chinese reaction to last month's border talks, and it underscored a hardening in China's position over the western section over recent years, analysts and officials said.

In New Delhi last month, National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon and Chinese State Councillor Dai Bingguo, the two Special Representatives, discussed a framework for the settlement of disputes in all three sectors — western, middle and eastern. This was in keeping with the 2005 agreement on Political Parameters and Guiding Principles, which marked the ending of the first of three stages of negotiations.

According to Article III of the agreement, the boundary settlement would be “final, covering all sectors of the India-China boundary.”

While this continues to remain the official position, both sides have repeatedly stressed their claims on the territories under their effective control — Arunachal Pradesh in the east and Aksai Chin in the west — ruling out any concessions, resulting in a stalemate.

There were two different disputes in the western sector — Aksai Chin and the territory from a 1963 Chinese-Pakistani agreement, said M. Taylor Fravel, Associate Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has written extensively on the border dispute.

Under the 1963 Sino-Pakistan treaty, which, he said, “contrary to the conventional wisdom in India” favoured Pakistan, China kept around 5,300 sq km of land that Pakistan claimed, but transferred to Pakistan 1,942 sq km of land in the Oprang Valley and dropped claims to an additional 1,554 sq km of land.

“So, China acknowledges a dispute with India in the Western sector of Aksai Chin, but does not acknowledge a dispute with India over its border with Pakistan adjacent to Kashmir. The Jiefang Daily report is not specific enough on this point,” he noted.

Multi-party system

The article said “the main barrier” to settling the boundary dispute came from India and its insistence “that the border line between China and India should be based on the McMahon Line left by British colonists.” It also pointed to India's multi-party political system — where different parties “have different understandings on the China-India border issue” — and India's insistence that China should make a concession rather than have “mutual accommodation” as other sticking points.

It called for both governments to “take a broader perspective, to enhance mutual trust and eliminate the problems” and “to creatively draw a beautiful blueprint for the final settlement of the China-Indian conflicts and problems.” It did not, however, spell out what China would view as an acceptable settlement.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Feb 2012 11:34 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Posts: 1245
These Chinese newspaper reports are not worth even the paper that it is printed on. Few months later we will see some CPC official saying exactly the opposit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Feb 2012 12:35 
Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 7095
abhishek_sharma wrote:


Hope this succeeds and some of these Chinese go and preach in our neighbor to the West and achieve some success.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Feb 2012 05:27 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Posts: 157
Location: California, USA
Interesting to see that I became a topic of conversation, ha!

As far as Tibet, there are two things we can discuss. The political *history* of the issue, and the social *future* of the issue.

On the political history aspect, I've read all of the major Western books on Tibet's history; I'm not sure how many here have done the same. For those looking for a (more or less) comprehensive view, you can read Grunfeld's "The Making of Modern Tibet" and Tsering Shakya's "Dragon in the Land of Snows". Tsering Shakya is an exiled Tibetan educated in the West, and working in a US think-tank. Grunfeld is an US academic that some exile Tibetans accuse of being a PRC sympathizer. If you read both, you'll have a good grasp of the situation.

My interpretation of the political history is that for the past 800 years, Tibet was certainly not an independent kingdom, nor was it an ordinary Chinese province. The concept of nation-hood and borders is itself a new creation, and something every Asian nation (including India, of course) has been struggling to adapt to historical patterns. From 1911-1949, Tibet was de-facto outside of any Chinese government control, and I have no problems stating that it was de facto independent. But let me also point out that, at no time, has any Chinese government ever accepted any legal agreement, any border agreement in which Tibet would have been held independent of China. Not the Qing, not the early Republic of China, not the warlords who followed the early Republic of China, not the later Republic of China under Chiang Kai-Shek, and not the People's Republic of China after 1949.

By the way, I've read a lot of comments here about how the Indian government some how "gave" Tibet to China... let me point out one rather important fact, sort of the mirror to the Chinese position on Tibet: never, ever, ever has any Western government formally recognized an independent Tibet. Not before the fall of the Qing dynasty in 1911, and never in the subsequent 50 years of de-facto independence. Now, several Western governments absolutely considered whether they should do so, but the conclusion remains the same. (This is obviously very different from the situation in Taiwan, today... where as least Taiwan could argue decades of recognition from the West, not to mention on-going recognition by 10-20 different nations.)

So, how should the Tibet situation have been resolved in 1951...? Considering 4 decades of de-facto independence, and a tremendous amount of cultural/social/religious distinction between Tibet and the rest of China, what would have been the right solution for Tibet? To even answer that question, we have to ask... "right" in what sense? From a legal perspective? I think China was well within its right; Tibet was never a legally independent entity, and its previous internationally recognized status was as a component of Qing China. From a moral perspective? Well, that's something people will probably be debating long after I'm dead and buried... let's put that aside.

The more interesting debate is probably about how China should treat Tibet, and Tibetans, in the year 2012 and beyond. I think the Chinese government has frozen its policies in the same mold that has held place since the wars of 1959-1962, and that's completely unacceptable. We should be well past the point where religious worship of the Dalai Lama is restricted in any way, shape, or form. We should be past patriotic education for monks, we should be past large religious/political "movements". I am even against the rule that government officials/employees must be agnostic and unable to practice their religion. All of those rules should be rolled back and changed immediately.

On the other hand, I believe China should have the confidence and wisdom to believe in a fair, secular system ruled by law. I think separatism should be made illegal. I absolutely think (and this is a controversial view) *all* children should be forced to attend secular school (which teaches in Tibetan as well as Mandarin Chinese), rather than being able to attend the Tibetan version of Islamic Madrasah.

By the way... I personally have donated something like $50,000 USD over the course of my life towards paying for the education of Tibetan girls. I firmly believe education is the solution to many problems.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Feb 2012 05:54 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51
Posts: 2460
Would that be education in state run schools with mandatory sessions on Mao the Messiah?

Where the evils of splitists are denounced?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Feb 2012 06:44 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55
Posts: 6211
http://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/campaign-02172012144813.html
Quote:
Chinese authorities in the troubled northwestern region of Xinjiang have launched an ideological campaign amid ethnic tension between the Muslim Uyghur ethnic group and the rapidly growing Han Chinese migrant population, official media reported.

The campaign will focus on preventing "illegal religious activities" through the use of "patriotic education," the ruling Chinese Communist Party mouthpiece, the People's Daily, reported on its website
.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2012 09:41 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Apr 2005 23:50
Posts: 597
Heech

Secularism means different things to different systems.
What is the definition of Chinese secularism?

Have you watched a doucmentary called 'Sun behind the clouds'?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2012 20:08 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02
Posts: 1306
heech wrote:
My interpretation of the political history is that for the past 800 years, Tibet was certainly not an independent kingdom, nor was it an ordinary Chinese province.

Thank you for accepting the fact that Tibet was always a part of China or Tibet is an inalienable part of China is a lie.

heech wrote:
The concept of nation-hood and borders is itself a new creation, and something every Asian nation (including India, of course) has been struggling to adapt to historical patterns.

I dont see India struggling to adapt to the nation state. Again heech we see the tendency to make wide sweeping statements not based on facts.

heech wrote:
From 1911-1949, Tibet was de-facto outside of any Chinese government control, and I have no problems stating that it was de facto independent. But let me also point out that, at no time, has any Chinese government ever accepted any legal agreement, any border agreement in which Tibet would have been held independent of China. Not the Qing, not the early Republic of China, not the warlords who followed the early Republic of China, not the later Republic of China under Chiang Kai-Shek, and not the People's Republic of China after 1949.

So we have a condition where a nation/state considers a territory, i.e. Tibet, which was never under its rule as it right. Hmmmm. Reminds of few other examples. Let us see the nazis, the soviets, and in India's case Pakistan. But wait I have another example very near to China's border. Nippon. Go figure.
Qing Dynasty, rule 1644 to 1912, i.e. 268 years
Republic of China, rule 1912 to 1949, i.e. 37 years
PRC, rule 1949 to present, i.e. 63 years and counting.
So let us assume that for say 350-400 years China has considered Tibet to be a part of itself. Let us turn that around and see how long in these so called 400 year, did China actually have sovereignty over Tibet. And how many years did the Tibetans actually saw themselves as under Chinese rule ? Oh yes there is a final kicker. What about before that?



heech wrote:
By the way, I've read a lot of comments here about how the Indian government some how "gave" Tibet to China... let me point out one rather important fact, sort of the mirror to the Chinese position on Tibet: never, ever, ever has any Western government formally recognized an independent Tibet.

So? We don't do what west does or tells us to do, at least in case of India. Nor do we consider it as a precedent or of any value. And yes we gave it away to you. We could have tied up with West to prevent Tibet's fall to PRC. At that moment our eyes were clouded by so called anti-imperialist agenda of our independence movement. Also we were undergoing a heart wrenching partition. So no we did not "gave" Tibet away, we "gifted" it away. That remains independent India biggest mistake. Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel was right.


heech wrote:
Not before the fall of the Qing dynasty in 1911, and never in the subsequent 50 years of de-facto independence. Now, several Western governments absolutely considered whether they should do so, but the conclusion remains the same.

This so called conclusion itself is flawed. It is not based on any logical or valid arguments. It is just old stale wine, hell even the bottle is the same old rusted one.

heech wrote:
So, how should the Tibet situation have been resolved in 1951...? Considering 4 decades of de-facto independence, and a tremendous amount of cultural/social/religious distinction between Tibet and the rest of China, what would have been the right solution for Tibet? To even answer that question, we have to ask... "right" in what sense? From a legal perspective? I think China was well within its right; Tibet was never a legally independent entity, and its previous internationally recognized status was as a component of Qing China.

China was not within its right to invade and occupy Tibet. It was analogous to what the Nipponese did to Manchuria and other parts of China. It was what Iraq did to Kuwait, it was what Stalin did to Estonia and what Hitler did to Poland and Austria. It is the greatest ironies of all times, that after fighting the Nipponese for so long, the Chinese themselves became like the Nipponese. This is unlike India, which fought off British imperialism, but did not become British, not by any yardstick.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2012 21:04 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Posts: 12254
heech wrote:
Interesting to see that I became a topic of conversation, ha!

As far as Tibet, there are two things we can discuss. The political *history* of the issue, and the social *future* of the issue.

On the political history aspect, I've read all of the major Western books on Tibet's history; I'm not sure how many here have done the same. For those looking for a (more or less) comprehensive view, you can read Grunfeld's "The Making of Modern Tibet" and Tsering Shakya's "Dragon in the Land of Snows". Tsering Shakya is an exiled Tibetan educated in the West, and working in a US think-tank. Grunfeld is an US academic that some exile Tibetans accuse of being a PRC sympathizer. If you read both, you'll have a good grasp of the situation.

My interpretation of the political history is that for the past 800 years, Tibet was certainly not an independent kingdom, nor was it an ordinary Chinese province. The concept of nation-hood and borders is itself a new creation, and something every Asian nation (including India, of course) has been struggling to adapt to historical patterns. From 1911-1949, Tibet was de-facto outside of any Chinese government control, and I have no problems stating that it was de facto independent. But let me also point out that, at no time, has any Chinese government ever accepted any legal agreement, any border agreement in which Tibet would have been held independent of China. Not the Qing, not the early Republic of China, not the warlords who followed the early Republic of China, not the later Republic of China under Chiang Kai-Shek, and not the People's Republic of China after 1949.

By the way, I've read a lot of comments here about how the Indian government some how "gave" Tibet to China... let me point out one rather important fact, sort of the mirror to the Chinese position on Tibet: never, ever, ever has any Western government formally recognized an independent Tibet. Not before the fall of the Qing dynasty in 1911, and never in the subsequent 50 years of de-facto independence. Now, several Western governments absolutely considered whether they should do so, but the conclusion remains the same. (This is obviously very different from the situation in Taiwan, today... where as least Taiwan could argue decades of recognition from the West, not to mention on-going recognition by 10-20 different nations.)

So, how should the Tibet situation have been resolved in 1951...? Considering 4 decades of de-facto independence, and a tremendous amount of cultural/social/religious distinction between Tibet and the rest of China, what would have been the right solution for Tibet? To even answer that question, we have to ask... "right" in what sense? From a legal perspective? I think China was well within its right; Tibet was never a legally independent entity, and its previous internationally recognized status was as a component of Qing China. From a moral perspective? Well, that's something people will probably be debating long after I'm dead and buried... let's put that aside.

The more interesting debate is probably about how China should treat Tibet, and Tibetans, in the year 2012 and beyond. I think the Chinese government has frozen its policies in the same mold that has held place since the wars of 1959-1962, and that's completely unacceptable. We should be well past the point where religious worship of the Dalai Lama is restricted in any way, shape, or form. We should be past patriotic education for monks, we should be past large religious/political "movements". I am even against the rule that government officials/employees must be agnostic and unable to practice their religion. All of those rules should be rolled back and changed immediately.

On the other hand, I believe China should have the confidence and wisdom to believe in a fair, secular system ruled by law. I think separatism should be made illegal. I absolutely think (and this is a controversial view) *all* children should be forced to attend secular school (which teaches in Tibetan as well as Mandarin Chinese), rather than being able to attend the Tibetan version of Islamic Madrasah.

By the way... I personally have donated something like $50,000 USD over the course of my life towards paying for the education of Tibetan girls. I firmly believe education is the solution to many problems.


Why should political be only in the history and social only in the future? Can you really separate politics from the social? You do not support the compulsory "reeducation" of Buddhist monks, but you want compulsory "secular" education for all Tibetans. Why cannot secular education be still given in an independent or separatist Tibet?

Given your reluctance to accept a separate and independent Tibet, while you support "compuslory" supposedly "secular" education for all Tibetans, and your insistence on the "political" identity of Tibet be kept in the past - only the "social" identity of Tibet be an issue for the future - it implies that all that you want is the imposition of Chinese state driven ideological "re-education" of Tibetans.

Given the huge insistence on Sinification of everything, pushing for submergence of all state-disapproved identities under the demand for "harmony", refusing to recognize the political aspirations of Tibetan identity - itsimply is equivalent to imperialist hunger for enforced assimilation. Well that has already been attempted by the Chinese government - to introduce state engineered demographic changes, by bringing in more reliable "proper Chinese" to settle and hold the castle in Tibet.

This is a very clever, pseudo-secular cover for imperialism. Bythe way, I have reasons to be acquainted with module/course creation in joint international collaboration campuses in China. I can see inevitably a substantial portion of earlier years being spent on Mao and Deng "thought" as well as "social education" components [sometimes making up some 75% of the total course load for two years]. If this is the "social education" being called fro by you - on Tibetans - I can only understand why you are so keen on restricting the future of Tibetans to "social" onlee under the "political" control of the CPC almost dynastic-now warlord/regional satrap system.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2012 21:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 22 Dec 2010 21:24
Posts: 5198
Quote:
China's 'Come to Jesus' Moment

"There's a fair amount of overlap between the (Communist) government agenda and the Christian agenda".

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... _awakening


Confirms the theory that job of Communism, being Christian heresy, is to transform a spiritually fertile land to a barren land so that Cactus of Christianity can be planted in it.


Last edited by Sushupti on 19 Feb 2012 21:28, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2012 21:19 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14620
Sushupti wrote:
Quote:


Confirms the theory that job of Communism, being Christian heresy, is to transform a spiritually fertile land to a barren land so that Cactus of Christianity can be planted in it.

Actually anything can be planted. The Planters simply need to be organized, motivated and have some influence there!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012 02:47 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31
Posts: 4485
Location: Tejo Mahalaya
Uighur protests as China's Xi visits Turkey
Quote:
Ankara - Activists from China's Muslim Uighur minority burnt Chinese flags in Ankara on Tuesday as China's leader-in-waiting Xi Jinping began talks with Turkish officials on regional issues.

About 60 Turkic-speaking Uighurs from China's northwestern Xinjiang province protested outside the hotel where Xi was staying in the Turkish capital on the last leg of a trip that also took him to the United States and Ireland.

Xi, almost sure to succeed Hu Jintao as Chinese president in just over a year ...

Waving the flag of East Turkestan, pale blue with a white star and crescent, the protesters burnt a Chinese flag and a poster of Xi before police moved in to disperse them.

Rights groups accuse China of abuses during a crackdown after Uighur riots in 2009 and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan then described the events as a “genocide”. Turkey is home to thousands of Uighurs who have fled Xinjiang since the Chinese Communists took over the region in 1949.

Xi said China had made great strides to raise the living standards of all ethnic groups in Xinjiang.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012 05:24 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Apr 2005 23:50
Posts: 597
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-17055783

20 February 2012 Last updated at 20:16

China keeps close eye on government opponentsBy Michael Bristow

BBC News, Chengdu, Sichuan province

....
China's security machine was watching the BBC - just as it monitors other foreign journalists, activists and potential enemies of the state.

Keeping tabs on these people is just one part of a vast domestic law enforcement apparatus that now costs more than the military in China.

This army of security personnel is charged with maintaining "harmony and stability", two key watchwords under President Hu Jintao. :P

China's internal security system was expected to cost 624bn yuan ($99bn, £63bn) last year, slightly more than the 601bn yuan earmarked for the military.

This is the first time these operations have cost more than the armed forces.

The money is not only spent on the police, courts and jails, but also on government organisations that are charged with keeping an eye on those who are thought to threaten the Communist Party-ruled state.

The Ministry of Public Security is responsible for day-to-day police activities, although it is also involved in watching activists.

There is also the Ministry of State Security, a far more secretive organisation that does not have its own website, even in an age when the Chinese authorities have embraced the internet.

There is little public information about this ministry.

One website, run by the Communist Party newspaper the People's Daily, has some details in a section about China's government departments.

Unfortunately, the most recent article here dates from 2007, announcing the appointment of a new head for the ministry, Geng Huichang.

Baidu, a Chinese web portal, has a little more information.

It says the ministry is divided into 16 sections, with the Ninth Bureau responsible for "monitoring internal reactionary groups".

'Little accountability'

Another organisation in charge of internal security is the People's Armed Police, a part of China's armed forces. It has 660,000 personnel, perhaps more.

This force is often at the forefront of controlling unrest in Tibetan areas and Xinjiang, a region in the far north-west of China with a large Muslim population.

The BBC's trip to Sichuan offers an example of just how many government departments can get involved in monitoring undesirable elements.

We were stopped in one county by a gang of watchers, who had come from the local public security bureau - the police - the propaganda department and the foreign affairs department.

Different countries at different times have identified and monitored citizens who they believe are a threat to the state.

But Murray Scot Tanner, an expert in Chinese security issues at the US research institute CNA, said there are some major differences in China.

"One of them is the vast difference in transparency and accountability compared to Western democracies," he said.

The laws that Chinese dissidents are often charged with also offer scope for abuse.

"These are some of the least well-defined and least clear in the Chinese legal system and so are subject to arbitrary law enforcement," he said.

There are plenty of examples of security operations against Chinese activists that seem to have been based on shaky legal ground.

....

Over recent years, the Chinese government seems to have become more zealous in keeping control of government critics in the name of maintaining social stability.

It is a theme that President Hu has talked about often.

In a speech last February, he said the goal was to "solve prominent problems that might harm the harmony and stability of society".

Prof Joseph Cheng, of the City University of Hong Kong, said the current Chinese leadership used several levers to maintain control.

For the vast majority of people who support the government, it has provided rising living standards through economic growth and an enhanced social security network.

"But there is a deliberate scheme to demonstrate that the state has an effective machine to crack down on those that disagree with the party," he added.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012 20:19 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31
Posts: 4485
Location: Tejo Mahalaya
Interesting one:
China dragged into 'kill the pope' plot
Quote:
Whether there is any substance in allegations about a plot to kill the pope cannot be established, but China's name has been dragged into the conspiracy whirlpool. That's a leap of imagination: China is important to the Vatican as the new frontier of faith, but the Vatican means little to China. - Francesco Sisci


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2012 00:21 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35
Posts: 1150
Interesting to note from a recent article that China spends more on keeping tabs on it's citizens than on it's military. Gives a fairly clear insight into where exactly China's weakness lie . I get suppressing protests which break out and trying to keep violent elements off the streets by using necessary force but This is a whole new thing what PRC is doing and I wonder how long they can keep it up. Especially given the increasing prosperity and new found voice of the Chinese people. The huge number of Chinese students in a "free speech" democracy like the US. How long till those people find their voices and question authority. We've seen from the SU days that mass suppression never works.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2012 10:37 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Oct 2011 09:42
Posts: 775
Location: Bay Area
Interesting paper by Mr. Bhaskar Roy (Chennai Center for China Studies).

An India – China Military Conflict – Part I

An India – China Military Conflict? – Part II

A comprehensive view of Chinese FP!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2012 20:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23780
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
When India and China dominated the world economy, this was the trade route.
Image

The image below represents the current world order. Like the Portuguese and later the brits with their naval dominance, the US has converted the East-West land routes used by China and India to a North South route used by the US alone.
2.5 billion people in India and China are now cut off from their traditional land connections.

If India and China cooperate to pacify Pakistan, the US can be neutralised or at least made to see the wisdom of open East west land routes.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Feb 2012 20:20 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Apr 2005 23:50
Posts: 597
Nihat ji

so you see, economic progress or no economic progress, problem onlee. 

HHDL or no HHDL, Bhudha agnostic onlee.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Feb 2012 22:04 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Posts: 607
Location: MERCED, California
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 92,00.html
02/24/2012
"Fleeing the People's Paradise
Successful Chinese Emigrating to West in Droves
By Wieland Wagner
Despite their country's stunning economic growth, many successful Chinese entrepreneurs are emigrating to the West. For them, the Chinese government is too arbitrary and unpredictable, and they view their children's prospects as better in the West.
Though the room is already overcrowded, more listeners keep squeezing in, making it necessary to bring in additional chairs for the stragglers. Outside on the streets of Beijing, the usual Saturday afternoon shopping bustle is in full swing. But above the clamor, in the quiet of this elegant office high-rise, the audience is intent on listening to a man who can help them start a new life, one far away from China.
Li Zhaohui, 51, turns on the projector and photographs flicker across the screen behind him. Some show Li himself, head of one of China's largest agencies for emigration visas, which has more than 100 employees. Other pictures show Li's business partner in the United States. Still others show Chinese people living in an idyllic American suburb. Li has already successfully arranged for these people to leave the People's Republic of China.
Li's free and self-confident way of speaking precisely embodies the Western lifestyle that those in his audience dream of. Originally trained as a physicist, Li emigrated to Canada in 1989. In the beginning, he developed microchips in Montreal, but he says he found the job boring. Then he found his true calling: helping Chinese entrepreneurs and businesspeople escape.
Of course, Li doesn't use the term "escape." Emigration from China is legal and, with its population of 1.3 billion, the country certainly has enough people left over.
Likewise, hardly anyone in the audience is actually planning to burn every bridge with their native country. Almost everyone in the room owns companies, villas and cars in China.
Many of them, in fact, can thank China's Communist Party for their success. But along their way to the top, they've developed other needs, the kind only a person with a full stomach feels, as the Chinese saying goes. It's a type of hunger that can't be satisfied as long as the person is living under a one-party dictatorship.
These people long to live in a constitutional state that would protect them from the party's whims. And they want to enjoy their wealth in countries where it's possible to lead a healthier life than in China, which often resembles one giant factory, with the stench and dust to match.
These longings have led many people in China to pursue foreign citizenship for themselves and their families. The most popular destinations are the US and Canada, countries with a tradition of immigration. "Touzi yimin" are the magic words Li impresses tirelessly upon his listeners. Loosely translated, it means "immigration by investment."
Benefitting at Home, But Hoping to Get Out
Several months a year, Li says he travels through the US selecting suitable investment projects for his clients -- construction projects, for example, that would qualify Chinese investors and their families for long-term American visas.
Li's clients value discretion. A hyped-up sales pitch would only scare them away or push them into the arms of competitors. There are more than 800 similar agencies throughout the country, all offering their services in procuring "touzi yimin." Some simply send their advertisements as text messages.
Zhang Yongjun, 41, and his family already have one foot out the door. Zhang sits at his company's long, leather-upholstered conference table on the 31th floor of Beijing's Overseas Plaza. Outside his window, the sun's rays barely penetrate the brown smog. In just a few weeks, Zhang plans to start a new life with his wife and two daughters in Vancouver, Canada.
It took the entrepreneur four years to obtain a "Maple Leaf Card," the Canadian equivalent of the American green card. Canada's permanent resident card also offers the option of applying for citizenship after three years. To obtain it, Zhang put the equivalent of €300,000 ($400,000) in a Canadian investment fund.
"I'm taking this step for my children's sake," Zhang says. The plan is for his wife to settle permanently in Canada with the children. There, they can breathe clean air and attend schools that will teach them to be more cosmopolitan. Zhang himself will hold onto his Chinese citizenship and commute between Beijing and Vancouver since he doesn't want to lose the source of his wealth back in China.
Zhang pushes his two smartphones back and forth on the table in front of him. He brings in several million euros worth of profit each year from making software and devices for the national lottery. Although he dresses modestly, he owns property in Beijing and two other cities. His wife is a homemaker. Urban couples are legally only allowed to have one child, but for a 60,000 yuan (€7,200/$9,500) fine -- an amount it would take a migrant worker three years to earn -- Zhang bought himself the right to a second child. "The expense was worth it," he says.
In January, the family celebrated Chinese New Year abroad, as they do every year. Zhang estimates that he was on vacation for about half of the last year........"
Gautam


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2012 05:32 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36
Posts: 4932
Location: land of strip and search
China’s reality – Solitary Sex
Quote:
State engineered sex-deprivation is reality in most of the world – except India and Africa. Official media in China is worried about the consequences of sex-deprivation.


Interesting take on the subject.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2012 20:53 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Posts: 1753
China reacts sharply to Antony's visit to Arunachal Pradesh
Quote:
Saying that China advocates seeking a fair and rational solution through equal and friendly negotiations, Hong said, Bejing's stance on Sino-Indian border issues, including disputes regarding the eastern section, has been consistent and clear-cut.

"He also called on India to refrain from taking any action that could complicate the issue", the news agency report said.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2012 21:02 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33983
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
China has a continguous land border with Kazakhstan that the US cannot touch. a gas pipeline is already operational. it is making inroads into trade with CAR and hopes to develop sinkiang region as part of the process. this process is not vulnerable to US meddling. in between the US(turkey) and Sinic spheres here is Russia in azerbaijan, georgia,chechnya and dagestan and to some extent the CAR(uzbekistan/tajikistan).

via pakistan it hopes to reach the gulf if the US can be forced to withdraw its tentacles. this is currently somewhat blocked by the US. it has occupied POK to prevent any US meddling there in the wakhan corridor and control any headwaters of river for pakistan(ie take pakistans balls in hand forever)

the only guy at this table who has nothing is India. :(( :mrgreen:

I challenge you Shiv to show how cooperating with India to pacify Pakistan is any better for China than the current course it is following - using pakis as a cats paw to scratch everyone.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2012 21:21 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Posts: 4802
Location: Dehradun
China's reaction to Antony's visit..they are plain fingering India, outright claiming Dharmic heritage. We must make disputed North Tibet and by all means the Kailash and Mansarover region. Makes little to no sense just being defensive all the time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2012 22:01 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23780
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
Singha wrote:
China has a continguous land border with Kazakhstan that the US cannot touch. a gas pipeline is already operational. it is making inroads into trade with CAR and hopes to develop sinkiang region as part of the process. this process is not vulnerable to US meddling. in between the US(turkey) and Sinic spheres here is Russia in azerbaijan, georgia,chechnya and dagestan and to some extent the CAR(uzbekistan/tajikistan).

via pakistan it hopes to reach the gulf if the US can be forced to withdraw its tentacles. this is currently somewhat blocked by the US. it has occupied POK to prevent any US meddling there in the wakhan corridor and control any headwaters of river for pakistan(ie take pakistans balls in hand forever)

the only guy at this table who has nothing is India. :(( :mrgreen:

I challenge you Shiv to show how cooperating with India to pacify Pakistan is any better for China than the current course it is following - using pakis as a cats paw to scratch everyone.


I am not entering this challenge. If you are like me, nothing that I say will convince you when you have made up your mind.

China will not get a land route through Pakistan even if the US leaves. I am not going to offer any proof. That is simply what I think. India needs to work for a land route through Pakistan. it will be up to China to join IF India manages to do that and IF China desires.

Anyone is welcome to call me out on this but don't hold your breath. It will be a while before nothing happens and even longer before anything happens. Building a pipeline through Pakistan is easier said than done.

Speaking of challenges - have you looked at the Xinjiang-Abbotabad road in maps, videos and photos?

Here's a video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXNcbd-yq-c


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Feb 2012 15:09 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00
Posts: 6592
If this is actually true then it puts the GOI in an untenable situation!!

MMS, foolish at home and foolish abroad.


No appeasement

Quote:
The less we see of S.M.Krishna in China, the better, says N.V.Subramanian.

10 February 2012: If media reports are true, S.M.Krishna on his recent China visit offered to mediate to end the Tibetan uprising even while reiterating that Tibet was a part of China. This is extraordinary as it is foolish and dangerous.
China is a proud and arrogant civilizational state. So is India. But the pride and feeling of self-worth are missing. Since the Maoists came to power in 1949, China has gotten its way in world affairs. Its psyche is attuned to being the Middle Kingdom. This has sustained through its pursuit of hegemony in Asia and its expansionism in the region, most lately in the South China Sea.
India should know more than any other state that China is virulently opposed to internationalizing bilateral disputes. It won Hong Kong back from Britain on its terms. It won't countenance third party mediation on its border problem with India.
So why did S.M.Krishna take this grotesquely ill-conceived step of inserting India into China's Tibetan crisis? On the face of it, it looks like another form of appeasement of China, reminiscent of Jawaharlal Nehru's championing of the new communist state amongst Afro-Asian nations, surrendering to it India's UN Security Council opportunity, pushing luck on the corny Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai theme, and so on.
Last week, the director of the US national intelligence, James Clapper, told a Senate committee that India was preparing for a limited conflict with China. This is only half true. While the military is gearing up to prevent a repeat of 1962, there is no matching political will to deter China.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Feb 2012 20:05 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35
Posts: 1150
SM krishna is to the external affairs ministry what shivraj patil was to our home ministry, a spineless apologist who is scared of annoying anybody and so ends up trying to appease one and all.

The people of tibet have a right to protest and india has a right to its support (a right which we seem to have forgotten about).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 07:43 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36
Posts: 4932
Location: land of strip and search
SMK and its ilk can keep making guffaws at various places like a child geriatric person peeing wherever it wants.(apologies to geriatric people world over)
So the gerontoctrats are baiting chinese party to make it happen.
Gerontocrats are more clever than NVS or any other thinks.
It is part of being charmingly foolish enough to lull the opponent's defence. :(( 8)
china ruling maoists know that this is just a passing phase which will change, If they are clever they will keep quite.
If they make big noise, it gives fillip to more open upgradation of India's borders. More Indians become aware of maoists menace across its borders and threat to India.


China may keep shouting from rooftops about their consistent stand wrt Arunachal pradesh. It remains in India. remains democratic, Arunachalis fully Indian by any stretch of imagination.
Imagine the uproar when a panda(really INDIAN) citizen from Arunachal Pradesh becomes an important minister in GOI in future.
Everyday the panda will make noises in CCP run media, soon it will tire out. :mrgreen:
It can beat India in dossiers. :rotfl:


How much ever dlagon screams and spit fire over Himalayas it will NEVER melt the snow. :lol:
Lizard has the maximum fear related to India due to various factors. Lizard will strain and speak in differing voices at all levels so as to needle India. India having better diplomacy keeps its work quite and unobtrusive.
Ironically dlagon's fire hissing behaviour has created opposite behaviour in India.
Ground realities are different. Despite saying lot on Tibet, pandaland has trouble coming to terms with India despite the "spineless" gerontocrats ruling GOI.

whatever India does to Tiebtans in India, Tibet will always remain the achilles heel as long as Tibetans are present in any part of the world. India will be the major factor in facilitating the autonomous rule of Tibet in future.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 11:32 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31
Posts: 1705
I think what shiv means is that if India has the spine, it can ensure that the Chinese do not have a viable land route through the TSP. There are enough internal fault lines in the TSP to ensure that. But it will require India to have a spine.

I kind of find it funny that both India and TSP have so many fault lines but the PRC has very little it has allowed anyone to exploit. Perhaps times will change....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 13:51 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 07 Jun 2011 19:37
Posts: 53
Location: Chandigarh
Antony said Arunachal is an integral part of India as Jammu and Kashmir and as defence minister it was his right and duty to visit the state, which has recently celebrated 25th anniversary of its statehood. "I was surprised to see such a reaction.

Source:http://www.punjabkesari.in/punjab/fullstory/29020992_185904-


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 1055 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 27  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AniB, ArunK, Bing [Bot], debadutta, Exabot [Bot], Jayan Menon, schinnas, UlanBatori and 28 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group