Bharat Rakshak

Manish H, First, Please put a disclaimer since the Map is showing AP as part of China.

Looking at the Railway line which is elevated in Tibet section due to Permafrost in Tibet, it seems to be well with Prithvi, Brahmos range from Arunachal, One strike on the elevated line and the railway link to Lhasa is crippled.

PLA APC in Ganzi, West Sichuan. Banner reads "Tibetans and Han are One Family”. Yeah right - Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai.

Mountain Phonenix over Tibet blog

For Chinese, Tibet has always been an alien land. They cannot pronounce most Tibetan place names, so they split the names and approximate the fragments with Chinese phonemes. Eg. Dondrup Ling, in Tibetan, means something like “island of the one who established the purpose”. Chinese characters used to phonetically express the Tibetan: dong (“east), zhu (“bamboo”), lin (“forest”) => Dongzhulin. So Government tourist books actually call this place as "Eastern Bamboo Forest", even in english.

This is systematically followed as part of a plan to deracinate the Tibetan people; disconnect them from their own heritage and impose an alien colonizing culture.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-16977615

10 February 2012 Last updated at 06:11 ET

China dissident Zhu Yufu gets seven years jail for poem Continue reading the main story

heech: Thanks for the information. It does seem that the political continuity from Mao's & Deng's era ends with Hu Jintao, with Xi Jinping and Li Qeqiang being appointments by committee. It isn't necessarily a whole lot different from the Indian context - intra party democracy isn't as much the case as electoral democracy in choosing which one.

Wiki has a nice timeline on PSC composition history.

Here's an interesting story on the Cantonese vs Mandarin and mainland vs HK issues:
Hong Kongers Sing “Locust World” Harassing Mainland Tourists

I've actually seen a lot of Chinese talk about this topic here from time to time... but I can also understand why many of you are skeptical of what we have to say, since deep inside many of you suspect we're still some how employed or managed by the state to spread mis-information.

But from the bottom of my heart, I mean this: India is very, very low on the list of strategic rivals for China. That's not to say we aren't rivals... it wasn't all *that* long ago that we fought a border war, after all. But if you dropped in on any Chinese bulletin board or browsed any Chinese bookstore, or you flipped through PLA/military newspapers, you'd see this is absolutely the truth. If I were to rank China's rivals, in terms of who the Chinese public are most concerned about / ready to go to war over, it would probably look like:

top-tier: Taiwan / United States, Japan
second-tier: Vietnam, Russia
third-tier: Indonesia, Korea, and I guess India.

Look, the popular perspective is that India has done little wrong to China. Indians didn't invade China or occupy Chinese territory; India itself was a 'victim' of imperialism and colonialism, which remains the primary hot point for all Chinese. The war in 1962 was as much about the global political situation with the Soviet Union, as it was about India or Tibet. And besides even though Tibet remains an issue even today... the Dalai Lama has been in India for 50 years now, he hasn't been able to achieve much *from* India. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say the Dalai Lama's primary power-base is really in the US or Western Europe today. If India was actively promoting the Dalai Lama and/or the Tibet issue, then perhaps we Chinese would feel differently... but that hasn't happened. And the remaining border issues today are really unpopulated mountain ranges without any resources; there's really not that much for China and India to fight over. Think of it this way: how many wars did imperial China fight with imperial India (or whatever you want to call it) before the 20th century? That tells me even if our borders technically touch on a map, we aren't close enough to be natural rivals / enemies.

You can contrast that with the United States and Japan. Japan to us is like Pakistan to you... but I'd argue, far worse. Japan engaged in a genocidal war of conquest with China for over 60 years. And, in contrast to Nazi Germany, many Chinese feel Japan was never really punished for its excesses after WW2. Far too few Japanese war criminals, and the Japanese imperial system received a free pass. Imagine how the Israeli's would feel if Adolf Hitler was allowed to live on in "symbolic" retirement in Germany, after that war. But of course, Japan was too convenient as a military base and strategic ally to the Americans in the new cold war. And looking forward, Japan and China have huge issues to fight over in terms of energy resources in the East China Sea. The United States... we've fought one open war with the US, and our relations obviously remain hostile. Many in the US perceive China as a long-term threat, and treat it with hostility. And of course the issue with Taiwan is obvious, but fortunately we seem to be headed in the right direction.

On the second tier... Vietnam was a much more recent (and bloody) war than the Indian version. Historically, imperial China fought with imperial Vietnam on numerous occasions; we have a convenient land border. Vietnam is also just, generally speaking, much more hostile towards China. And Vietnam + China inevitably will have conflicts over resources in the South China Sea. Russia also had its imperial history, and responsible for "stealing" a lot of Chinese territory (including outer Mongolia) in the 19th-20th centuries. As the Soviet Union, the USSR and China were huge rivals... and for most of the past 50 years, most of China's military has been aimed directly at Russia. So, China is understandably weary about Russia, even though we seem to be on the same strategic page recently.

And in the last tier... Indonesia is also a rival in the South China Seas. And Indonesia has a nasty reputation for anti-Chinese sentiment, including purges + race riots that were widely reported in China. (None of that in India, right?) Korea not only shares a land border with China, but is also perceived as overly nationalistic... a sort of competitive cousin to China.

Now, China + India culturally are obviously very, very different people, so that does mean there isn't much mutual trust. It's very easy to turn on each other, or view each other with suspicion. I think most Chinese at heart feel like they understand (and therefore "like") Westerners better than they understand Indians, even if we anticipate another war (some day) with the West. (Keep in mind that a lot of which defines modern China, even Communism, has been imported directly from the West.)

Do I think China could turn hostile / nationalistic, especially in a moment of crisis? Absolutely. China is investing in its military for a reason. Do I think India is likely to be the target of that hostility? No, I truly do not.

What has happened to the police officer who allegedly spent a day at the US consulate? my grapevine in the land of the first emperor says the officer sought asylum. Meanwhile a new wave of unrest has started off in Tibet. An interesting side is that a section of the Chinese are trying to smuggle out vids and info on behalf of the tibetans. Can't say more than this. Already at least two nuns have immolated themselves. Some 13 dead on the first day. Cannot confirm.

heech: How does China compartmentalize its loathing of past treatment during the Japanese rule era while trading extensively with them ? As a case in point, Pakistan has had a long internal political kabuki play going on about widening trade ties with India - the hardliners insist on closing out the market to our exporters (we run a large surplus against them) until we 'solve the Kashmir issue' - i.e. hand it over to them.

China on the other hand, seems to be able to trade and still retain rancour. Why and how does this sustain itself ? You'd think that either you'd seethe and avoid having them benefit financially from trading with you, or you'd use trade and mutual development as a way to lessen the wounds of the past. China seems to do neither - it actively trades and fans the nationalistic flames of retribution for the actions of that era. Who drives this and why ? Does it come from the top ? From the bottom ? Both ?

I am not an expert here, but I think you miss/ignore that Indians fought hard against the barbarians who invaded India from the western borders and then southern borders. Otherwise you would see the same effect immediately on your western and southern borders. To miss/ignore it would be at China's own peril.

My 2 paise.

If we're talking about history... there's no way a civilization could have maintained some sort of link across the Himalayas a thousand, or even a few hundred years ago. There was minimal cross-Himalayan trade, for that matter. India as a sort of "buffer" for China is kind of a strange concept. Chinese trade with the Middle East and Europe came strictly through central Asia... silk road, right? In fact, outposts of the Qin and the Roman empires crossed paths 2000 years ago in central Asia. So, central Asia is where invaders could potentially have come from. In fact, it happened in the other direction... lots of Asian invaders heading into Europe.

heech,

You are quite right that there is no historical precedent as that of India and China, two huge imperial civilizations that had so little conflict (compared to Persia and Greece/Rome for example). However, its not like there wasn't any competition at all:

Indian and Chinese kingdoms did squabble over SE Asia. At that time India had gained the upper hand in terms of, both, hard and soft power dominance. Notice that all the way upto Vietnam, it is Indic culture that is dominant even today. China itself was a friendly receptor of that, though not in the same way as SE Asia.

As for the overland cross-Himalayan route - I agree, that would have been tough. But the main reason was that there was another intervening kingdom inbetween - Tibet, which became a cultural satellite of India. Before Tibet became Buddhist, they were pretty warlike, and China Proper usually bore the brunt of it. With the taming of Tibet, India did China a historic favour. Time to return the favour?

I think that's a very good observation. In fact, China is very conflicted here. There are regular calls for boycotts of Japanese goods amongst the public. At the same time, Japan's strength as a modern industrial nation that has successfully conquered Western markets can not be ignored. China absolutely needs Japanese capital and technology. So, the Chinese government has chosen to be (mostly) pragmatic when it comes to Japan. How do we compartmentalize? The Chinese government is masters of compartmentalization... it represses anything that disrupts the status quo, including popular nationalism.

Heech 

This is where it gets complicated.

Some here will say China doesn't need to because it has TSP (as a willing pony) to tangle with India. (Unless you consider TSP to be a responsible state in international arena.)

You can follow the details on other thread for the reasons, but can India overlook those factors in framing policy with PRC? That is the problem.

In addition to a history of 'bad' policy, what Indians see is an incapacity of the current system in China in dealing with criticism/ dissent.

Re: China - Japan

Several American nationalists are of the opinion that Japan has used China to hollow out America's own manufacturing industry and "take revenge" for WW-II. When China's trade relationship with the US started 3 decades ago, it was the Japanese who immediately moved into China and set up rows of SME's targetted at US markets. In anticipation of the tiered system they were working towards, it was the Japanese at that time who were world leaders in factory automation and robotics, when everyone thought they were just nerdy experimenters. Thus, they maintained their own industrial and manufacturing clout in ghost factories, while destroying America's manufacturing industry.

So if we look at it in that perspective, we can see that between the US, China and Japan... all 3 share a deep vengeance against each other as well as a fatal attraction. Their ruling elites publicly fan one or the other, depending on underlying strategy of creating mutually beneficial tiers using each other's subject populations as consumers or producers.

I find it rather hard to believe. Historically, the Chinese appear to have been quite eager to gain political alliances with at least two principalities in India - Kashmir and the Chola empire. The political alliance was sought to counter the Islamic take-over of CAR and IOR trade networks.

Further at that time Tibet was independent and the Chinese apparently found it difficult to control them. Hence the attempt to coopt Kashmir. In the south it was to counter the increasing penetration of Islamic influence in Indonesia and penetration even to Canton. These are stories of the 10th-14 centuries.

There was an almost continuous cultural exchange which appears to have been primarily one way only - from India to China, through Buddhist networks. This flow went across the Himalayas. Moreover, there is evidence that with the islamic stopping of Chinese penetration into Indian Ocean and Central Asia [something that will happen again where the islamic countries will/are using Chinese resources to gain the power to ultimately roll China back and take over the east-west trade back again], the India-China trade shifted to the Bengal-Assam China route - again across the Himalayas.

By the way, if the chinese have reasons to resent and hold on to Japanese induced trauma over colonialization, I think the Japanese have ample historical reasons to think the same of China. China even now tries to claim a certain point of the Japanese islands based on near mythical historical colonizing claim. Kublai twice attempted a conquest of Japan. China also played a lot through the Korean peninsula in its colonizing and territory grabbing bid.

I am not denying the possibility that these are historical reconstructions by possibly interested imperialistic perspectives on both sides. But China appears to have started the colonial trauma game earlier - it attempted the same on Vietnam in the ancient period and got its a** kicked soundly. It tried the same on Tibet and initially failed. In fact for most parts of its history, the main Chinese "national" space seems to have been confined to the south of the older walls and to the south east. It periodically tried to expand and imperialistically absorb territories on its frontiers but never managed to hold on for a long time. Compared to that it is only 60 years by the current regime.

People miss a point here. Historically, India and China did not have a common border. There was a buffer state called independent Tibet between them, and hence no direct war. As soon as PRC annexed Tibet, we had a war, and the threat of war is there as long as Tibet is part of PRC. As PRC increases military presence in Tibet and construction of rail connection to the border area for military movement, the chances of future war increases. For lasting peace of the past, we need independent Tibet.

Heech unlike most drones seems not to load up on hooch before posting. Truly welcome respite from crude propaganda

I wonder if most Chinese know there is a fully functioning Tibetan government in exile in India? I won' t be surprised if the wisemen of the CCP have neglected to mention this factoid.
I wonder if that would help elevate India in the desperately sought Chinese esteem.

That picture of the armored personnel carrier with the Tibet Han slogan is just so reassuring. I believe cognately astute people have a well developed sense of humour and especially irony.

Uhm, this is a strange interpretation of history. Even if we agree Tibet was once a decent sized kingdom... there's not much doubt it was no longer an "independent kingdom" by 1200 AD, by the point the Yuan dynasty was established. I'm not going to get into a scholarly debate about what it was exactly during the Ming and Qing dynasties... let's suffice it to say it wasn't a normal Chinese province, but it was also *not* an independent kingdom outside China's control. But really, even if I were to agree with you... if what India and China really need are buffer states to be at peace, rather than we give up Tibet, how about you voluntarily give up Kashmir and the NEFA? Done!

Bottom line, defining Chinese/Indian peace as being contingent upon an independent Tibet is simply unrealistic.

[quote="heech"][/quote]
Only during the mongol empire, the chinese part of which was called the yuan did Tibet and China first time became a part of a combined empire, i.e. Tibet and China didnt become one empire. They were both seperately part of a mongol empire.

I have a hard time accepting that the Tibetan government in exile is "functioning". It's a cultural organization, little more. I'll accept it as functioning if/when it adopts any policy even slightly *against* the personal wishes of the Dalai Lama, and/or when *Tibetans* in exile are able to survive independently of the stuff that India is paying for: schools, hospitals, roads, etc.

But yes, most Chinese (who care about the issue) are fully aware the Dalai Lama has what he calls a "government" in India.

Just to be clear: that was 800 years ago.

Yes, even during ming, british occupations Tibet was a never a part of China. It was always a little "separate" with both Indian empires and Chinese empires extending influence.

It was completely for the first time occupied by China in 1959.

P.s: Vietnam was under Chinese control for over a thousand years.

Well.. there starts the conflict.

If Chinese occupation of Tibet is justfied because some Chinese dynasty was the overlord of Tibet some 800 years ago, India also has similar claims on Tibet. Kashmir King was an overlord of Tibet. One of the titles of Kashmir King is "Tibetadhipati" which means "lord of Tibet". However, Indians prefer an independent Tibet over a Tibet that is provence of India.

Let us have conflict. That is better. Indians need conflict to be united. China needs peace to rise. We can show China what it means to have a Pakistan next door and simultaneously develop a sympathy for our Paki brothers by behaving like them. Good fun. We only get a few decades of life to screw our neighbours - and there is little time to waste.

China was peaceful when it was confined to its old Beijing walls and the south-eastern plains onlee. I guess peace will only return when China is put back into its natural space. By trying to maintain buffers 10 times its own natural space - it upsets the whole region.

China has egged on Pakistan, and a host of islamists simply to needle and bleed India. Chinese patriotic about their communist party or the communist emperors from heaven, must be gloating over the blood of common Indians shed on Indian streets by the islamists their golden emperors support.

Indians should have little or no empathy for the Chinese who support and justify their communist government's policies and their state system. That support must be compensated for by the corresponding price to be paid by the Chinese commons who support the CPC and the Chinese government. The Tibetans have been massacred, tortured, raped by the Chinese police and army and communist party officials. Were the Tibetans equipped by India to carry out 26/11 type or similar blasts killing common Chinese? But the Chinese do support and protect Pakistan to carry out such attacks on the common Indian.

There can be no sympathy for the Chinese who express solidarity with their party and gov. We should simply copy the Chinese method, and support and encourage every possible pain and bloodshed on the common Chinese - preferably through the very same Islamists the Chinese themselves encourage and support. The barbarians once flayed the emperor's eunuchs alive - in the future that is the fate that awaits all the Chinese who support their current gov and party.

Just because for most part of the Republican India, a certain party and gov has blustered a lot but never really caused any serious pain to the Chinese communists and effectively held back militant resistance by the Tibetans against the Chinese occupation, by carefully neutralizing and removing HH Dalai Lama from the scene - does not mean future Indian regimes will be so cooperative in serving Chinese imperialist interests.

Real China is a small part of current territory it claims as its own. We want parts of China too. Especially the south west. So forget even talking about Arunachal Pradesh. That is ours anyway. We want more. China has to pay the price of supporting and maintaining Pakistan. Until that price is paid, there will be no stopping.

In the post above, cognate should read cognitive.

Heech how do you find the visiting functionary of a vassal of the Middle Kingdom, that is the Indian foreign minister or delegation member, proclaim and confirm the status of another vassal, Tibet, every six months or so.

Is there a shade of humour and irony here?

^^^
The day Indian foreign minister stops proclaiming that status, Tibet ceases to be a PRC territory.

Heech Ji. since the topic has come up. Can you share with us a legal basis on which Tibet is claimed by China, I ask this because just as I think Chinese do not understand as to why most of the rest of the world seems to think Tibet is different, same way we in India do not know as why China thinks Tibet is China.

What I know is, that Tibetans always thought of themselves as separate nation state independent of India and China. During initial days of Chinese occupation, the current Dalai lama was so convinced of the same that refused to flee and even joined the people's congress. He thought his claim is so slam dunk that if he engaged with the chinese at the wider level he will be able to convince them of Tibetan independence. But that was not to be. Eventually the fateful day when he was sent a letter by Chinese to please confirm which part of palace he resides so that they don't 'accidently' bomb him, he had to flee.

As far as why India gave him asylum goes? Well I am no fan of JLN, but really no Indian PM can say no to person of Dalai Lama's standing, whether geopolitics is involved or not. Most Indians including most Hindus will naturally bow in front of him. Where you see a political figure we see spiritual guru in some cases 'a reflection of Bhudha himself'. So in our psych he commands much more credibility then to say CPC.

Beyond that when we hear the China accuses him of being a terrorist, then such claims skirts our peek absurdity meter. He might not agree with China politically (which he has right to do) but calling the man terrorist is too far fetched.

I am personally confused on this matter because having interacted with few chinese I feel they come across as pragmatic realists. So if it's not only CPC propaganda there is more to it which is independently verifiable, I would like to know that.

What do you think is China's take on it?

Heech, thanks for a series of outstanding posts ...

[quote="heech Russia also had its imperial history, and responsible for "stealing" a lot of Chinese territory (including outer Mongolia) in the 19th-20th centuries. As the Soviet Union, the USSR and China were huge rivals... and for most of the past 50 years, most of China's military has been aimed directly at Russia. So, China is understandably weary about Russia, even though we seem to be on the same strategic page recently.

[/quote]

From Wikipedia:

The area of what is now Mongolia has been ruled by various nomadic empires, including the Xiongnu, the Xianbei, the Rouran, the Gökturks and others. The Mongol Empire was founded by Genghis Khan in 1206. After the collapse of the Yuan Dynasty, the Mongols returned to their earlier pattern of constant internal conflict and occasional raids on the Chinese borderlands. In the 16th and 17th centuries, Mongolia came under the influence of Tibetan Buddhism. At the end of the 17th century, all of Mongolia had been incorporated into the area ruled by the Qing Dynasty. During the collapse of the Qing Dynasty in 1911, Mongolia declared independence, but had to struggle until 1921 to firmly establish de facto independence from the Republic of China, and until 1945 to gain international recognition.

Its the Chinese who stole Mongolia!!

If India was so low down in the strategic calculus/priorities of China, why does China deploy hundreds of missiles in Tibet targeting India. Why did China arm Pakistan with nukes? You say Japan is a bigger priority, but I don't see China giving North Korea nukes or deploying its own troops in its territory like they do with Pakistan. This is the usual argument given by the Chinese whenever they are posed with such a question, but their actions don't mesh with their words. Besides Taiwan and maybe the US, I don't really see China spending half the amount of resources with any other adversary other than India.

Heech, Please read about 1947 partition(when a genocide was conducted against Hindus in Pakistan) violence and many thousands killed in Pakistani sponsored and Trained Terror attacks in India in the last 25 years. Pakistan uses the Nukes and Missiles delivery systems given by China as a guarantee (along with Chinese and western diplomatic support) that it does get punished for such barbaric attacks.

Why do the Chinese support a Terrorist state who uses Chinese developed Missile and Nuke tech without which it cannot carry such acts for fear of punishments?

And those Yahoos keep threatening a Nuclear war pretty often?

Personally I think it is stupid policy and China will one day pay for the mistake of arming the Pakis.

So in order to retaliate against that, China engaged in a genocidal occupation and ethnic cleansing in Tibet for over 60 years!

To adhere to Heech's analogy, India would have to drop two nukes on Pakistan to ensure parity in this discussion.
What a few million heads or a couple of cities to Pakistan or Heech or indeed the PRC?

Go on Heech, your opinion weighs more and more on this forum.

I haven't seen a response from heech as to *why* China continues to nurse such an exaggerated sense of victimhood against Japan despite decades of profitable trade and investment gains from them, while of course, continuing their own heavyhanded policies in Tibet and elsewhere that hardly show them in sympathetic light.

Heech was right, this "defection" is becoming big news:

A Chongqing man walks into a consulate ...

http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/201 ... t-mystery/

Apologies if posted before. Some more background on Wang Lijun. Ethnic Mongolian, apparently made a name for himself fighting crime in Chongqing -- the article mentions greater ambitions, that the criminal networks he was breaking down had deep political connections.

Who Will Tell the Truth About China?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 85970.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html
The myth of China as a harmless tiger
By Yu Jie, Published: February 13
Yu Jie is the author of several Chinese-language books, including “China’s Best Actor: Wen Jiaobo.” He left China last month for the United States, where he intends to study and write on religious freedom.

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.