Could China and India go to war over Tibet?

[Gagan]

The Japanese and the South Koreans would understand the Chinese just the way we understand the Pakistanis.

The chinese are the South Koreans+Japanese's Pakis.

I lament the fact that although we need pay more attention to the Chinese, than the pakis, we are held back by our inability to understand chinese. Go to their discussion boards and understand and post articles from china just as we post articles from TSP.

TSP still has some amount of press freedom much to the comic relief of us on BRF, but the chinese would be a different type of comedy with tightly controlled state and private media.

[Masaru]

Chinese World View
The babus in-charge of Indian foreign policy should for once earn their perks and seriously try to understand China and its world view. The Chinese party wants to take China to its days of ancient glory (whatever that means) and they see Tibet and Taiwan as part of Greater China. Of course that also includes parts of India. But then a lot of this Indian territory was simply annexed by the British (damn them!) and transferred to India after '47. Indians had little or no conception of these lands as an 'integral part of India'.

India should reject any such self righteous positions on Tibet and do what suits our broader national interests best. If that means exiling Dalai Lama to make peace with China then so be it.

I totally understand why China would hate India for this reason alone.

Err reading 'peacemaker's' views reminds one of the great appeasement game going on in the 1930s to accommodate the rising Third Reich. Such was the fear that both the UK and USSR were busy cutting deals with Hitler outdoing each other in the appeasement game. Eventually they had to stop and fight as the appeasement made the problem only worse.

From a more practical standpoint, once H H Dalai Lama is put to rest as per the wishes of 'peacemaker' by the PLA and his organs are duly harvested and auctioned off to the noveau riche/ party faithfuls, who would enforce that PRC is not slipping a nuke or two for the benefit of their deeper than ocean friends ? Will the pakis line up like obedient school kids to give up the ones they already when the Taller than mountain friends order?

Does 'peacemaker' then propose that India run to IAEA / UN to ensure no more n-proliferation happens? Or this end of the bargain would purely rest on the magnanimity of the shrewd PRC mandarins and good will of their 'all weather' friends, who would promptly demand another round of appeasement to enforce it? This will likely lead to the appearance of peacemaker mark - II who will mumble that to retrieve the sunken costs India needs to make another round of investment err appeasement!

On can see lots of inspirations from the standard propaganda (china's ancient glory/why china is hurt/upset, why H H Dalai Lama is == to assorted rabid terrorist etc.) in Global Times in the posts by 'peacemaker'. Is it not possible that 'peacemaker' is one of the drones deployed by the PRC's famed Great Firewall Brigade to test waters in BRF?

[AnimeshP]

Peacemaker ... To me it looks like you feel that you are being the hard nosed pragmatic guy by advising India to "make peace" with PRC and others are being emotional ... However I think that you have based your arguments on some pretty wrong assumptions ... let me take a stab at countering those

Like I said earlier, the same reason we want Dawood Ibrahim and Let chief to be handed to India. And like said before, it doesn't matter if Dalai Lama is a God to you, he is a devil to China.

see here you want to draw an analogy between Dawood Ibrahim & LeT chief and HH the Dalai Lama ... which would have been correct if any one of the following were true:
- Dawood Ibrahim was a legitimate ruler of the independent country of Mumbai who was forced to flee when the Republic of India invaded Mumbai to annex it into the "motherland"
OR
- HH Dalai Lama was an underworld Don in Shanghai who decided to carry out serial bomb blasts and killed around 300 of the majority Han chinese for some riots that happened in China
OR
- HH Dalai Lama wanted to fly the flag of Buddhism on top of the Forbidden Palace in Beijing for which he ran a 2-decade long terrorist campaign which resulted in thousands of Chinese deaths (both Han & Tibetian). His latest act was to send a squad of Tibetian suicide bombers into Shanghai by boat to cause mayhem and murder for around 3 days resulting in the deaths of about 170 Chinese and Foriegn citizens. Also, all this while HH Dalai lama was directing these guys over the phone as to who to kill and how.
Do you see any of the scenarios to be true? If yes, then there is no point in trying to convince you .... If no, then how does the Indian demand for Dawood Ibrahim & LeT chief equate to China's protestations about HH Dalai Lama?

No, the Indian soldier fights for the Mother Land aka Bharat Mata because that's what his Dharma is. 

Unfortunately, the Dharma of a soldier is decided by a politician or a babu. And it would really help the Indian soldier if the Indian foreign policy makers read up a bit on Chanakya.

Chanakya's wisdom is "Don't be upright in your dealings because the upright trees in the forest fall first while the crooked ones survive"

You seem to be a big fan of Chanakya and are dismissing other's arguments about Dharma as being unrealistic and un-pragmatic .. Fair enough but seem to me that you are applying the wrong learnings from Chanakya here ..
True chanakya-neeti would dictate that India should have a handle on China for the simple reason that it is a neighboring state which has a serious capability of harming us ... Forget the intention, I'm just talking about capability here ... intentions can change overnight, capabilities take longer to develop ... Therefore, as a true student of Chanakya you should be advocating the opposite ... that under no circumstances should India give up the Tibet card it has with it (even if we become the best of friends with China tomorrow)

Secondly, your statement about the Indian Soldier and his Dharma tell me that you have neither any idea of what is "dharma" nor about the indian soldier ....

To me it sounds more productive than letting China & Pakistan screw us from behind while we go out looking for alliances with the unreliable Americans to start cold war 2.0.

Now, I'm no big fan of the Americans ... as you said they are unreliable but what makes you think that China will drop Pakistan like a hot potato once India China manage to fix all their issues ... See you may not have learnt the correct lessons from chanakya but I'm sure our Chinese friends have ..
after all if friendship and alliance with Pakistan brought them dividends in the form of India giving up its trump cards, why not keep the alliance with Pakistan going ... who knows when those pesky Indians might start acting up again ...

So my friend, if you want to be pragmatic and realist, by all means do so ... but then base your judgments by figuring out what is the worst behavior the other person can do and how you should counter that ... not by hoping that the other guy will suddenly turn good just because you gave up your gun ...
And lastly, regarding India-China friendship I would like to quote your favorite philosopher ..

He who befriends a man whose conduct is vicious, whose vision impure, and who is notoriously crooked, is rapidly ruined

[harbans]

On can see lots of inspirations from the standard propaganda (china's ancient glory/why china is hurt/upset, why H H Dalai Lama is == to assorted rabid terrorist etc.) in Global Times in the posts by 'peacemaker'. Is it not possible that 'peacemaker' is one of the drones deployed by the PRC's famed Great Firewall Brigade to test waters in BRF?

Right, and see the way he employs Chanakya to say crookedness works and uprightness fails. He pretends to go by real politik but proposes appeasement and bending over of the worst kind. I'd propose, judging by his comments, peacemaker can sell his mother, sister or soul and live with it. After all if someone more powerful comes along and demands to satiate his lust, why not bend over than be upright? Makes sense..

All i am a bit petrified if he's one of our policy makers proposing this on BRF as a sounding board. I won't be surprised if someone high up in GOI is proposing an Aman Ka tamasha types with our Northern neighbours and this is what they proposed as a first step. So the feeling/ thinking that if that happens the Han will have great respect.

Well, appeasementmaker, if you propose handing over the Dalai to the Chinese, India will never EVER have any respect from any country in the world. Even states in India will recoil from the union in disgust. Who'd want to be part of a country that gives up HH, a non violent person to a totalitarian beast?

This is someone who hates India to the core, if he's Indian. Much more deeply than the Chinese drones of PRC who just mouth words after years of brainwashing by PRC.

[A_Shankar]

The ROW already thinks India is a soft puppy. When BDR killed 15 of BSF jawans near the Kakripara and all India did was file an FIR was the starting point. Kandahar, Kaluchak, Kargil and 26/11 only reinforced it.
Unless the Indian leaders make Army training compulsory for every citizen like Israel, the soft and weak thinking of general public will continue to be reflected in its leaders.

Totally agree with that. Indian leaders get paralyzed when in military crises. One (Lal Bahadur Shastri) is also known to have a heart failure (don't want to start another debate on the cause of his death). Of course there were exceptions like Indira Gandhi who was at least firm and decisive if not the greatest of visionaries.

HH Dalai Lama may be a devil to you but for Indians he is God, so there is no meeting point of views here. But to compare with Dawood Ibrahim and LeT/JeM shows intellectual bankruptcy of your thought process.

Ironically you call yourself Chanakya. If you were half a student of Chanakya you would use Dalai Lama as a bargaining chip and get the maximum leverage out of the situation with China before he departs for heaven. A separatist is a separatist whether he is doing it with civil disobedience or guns and 'terrorism'. Same reason most of us hate Raj Thackeray - before you know the Marathis may be asking for a separate state.

If India was half the world away from China like the US, maybe the moral high ground would have been worth the trouble. But we have a huge eastern border with these guys and an ugly aggressive suicidal death cult following enemy on the west which is bolstered by a rather pointless China-India hostility.

Whether the Chinese are up for the deal or not depends on their calculations. But in my mind moral bankruptcy is a low price to pay for cutting the legs Pakistan claims to stand on these days.

[abhishek_sharma]

But in my mind moral bankruptcy is a low price to pay for cutting the legs Pakistan claims to stand on these days.

I think Pakistanis get their foreign aid and F-16s from the Americans. The transfer of nuclear and missile technology (from China and N. Korea) is complete. It can't be reversed.

[abhishek_sharma]

It is not that the Indian Govt is not talking to the Chinese. There have been many visits and many rounds of negotiations.

[abhishek_sharma]

Indian leaders get paralyzed when in military crises.

Really? What makes you think so?

[abhishek_sharma]

Ironically you call yourself Chanakya. If you were half a student of Chanakya you would use Dalai Lama as a bargaining chip and get the maximum leverage out of the situation with China before he departs for heaven.

If he departs for heaven, someone else will take his place.

If India was half the world away from China like the US, maybe the moral high ground would have been worth the trouble.

When countries have ICBMs, distance doesn't matter.

[harbans]

If you were half a student of Chanakya you would use Dalai Lama as a bargaining chip and get the maximum leverage out of the situation with China before he departs for heaven. A separatist is a separatist whether he is doing it with civil disobedience or guns and 'terrorism'.

You keep repeating the same stuff without any value add and , time and again been refuted here. Your irony/ hypocrisy in using realolitik/ Chanakya and appeasement is evident here.

A separatist is a separatist whether he is doing it with civil disobedience or guns and 'terrorism'.

What is wrong with Tibetans wanting to separate from China? Was Jinnah a terrorist? Was Mahatma Gandhi a terrorist? Is Taiwan a terrorist nation? Do you not have an iota of a normal functioning brain to distinguish between HH and Dawood type of characters? Are you aware there's a pending UN resolution on self determination on Tibet, thats not been fulfilled by the Chinese?

But in my mind moral bankruptcy is a low price to pay for cutting the legs Pakistan claims to stand on these days.

Why don't you show us a personal example how your brand of appeasement realpolitik would work in your personal life if you have to sell your sister? That would be OK i guess going by your own logic.

BTW it's obvious you have little understanding of issues, including India China, China-Pak affairs. Neither you have any understanding of the Tibetan issue. Neither you seem to have noticed Pakistan going down the drain slowly and surely despite China, US and others trying to push it out of the sewer it's getting sucked into.

[A_Shankar]

I could think that chinese system is kept in power by PLA unlike India. Their system is inherently unstable without reflecting the will of its people. So India can do only ad-hoc business with them untill proper system is put in place by Chinese truly reflecting their will.

And peacemaker , it is in India you can voice your opinion so freely and debate it, in China things would have been different.

I wouldn't bet my money on China turning into a democracy. These suckers figured things out better than the Bolsheviks in USSR. And I do love my Indian freedom about as much as you or more.

All i am a bit petrified if he's one of our policy makers proposing this on BRF as a sounding board. I won't be surprised if someone high up in GOI is proposing an Aman Ka tamasha types with our Northern neighbours and this is what they proposed as a first step. So the feeling/ thinking that if that happens the Han will have great respect.

Are you a 10 year old girl who loves make believe? Just look around the rest of the world http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... Tibet.html. Obama recently refused to meet Dalai Lama. Do those developments mean anything to you?? Probably not because you are so smug in your self righteousness. To me it says that the RoW is willing to give up its empty rhetoric and wants to be on the right side of China. While India which has the most to gain is hurting by the status quo.

I am only proposing a point of view based on the assumption that Indian policy makers are not the most shrewd people around and are quite likely responsible for blowing up the China bogey out of proportion. I don't see what's so unreasonable about that. I am talking about a "deal" not "appeasement". A deal gets you something in return.

True chanakya-neeti would dictate that India should have a handle on China for the simple reason that it is a neighboring state which has a serious capability of harming us ... Forget the intention, I'm just talking about capability here ... intentions can change overnight, capabilities take longer to develop ... Therefore, as a true student of Chanakya you should be advocating the opposite ... that under no circumstances should India give up the Tibet card it has with it (even if we become the best of friends with China tomorrow)

So my friend, if you want to be pragmatic and realist, by all means do so ... but then base your judgments by figuring out what is the worst behavior the other person can do and how you should counter that ... not by hoping that the other guy will suddenly turn good just because you gave up your gun ...

If Chinese are hell bent upon destroying us and their assurances are dubious and there are little safeguards to their changing intentions then of course all bets are off. But a lot of that is predicated on judging their intentions. And what I am suggesting is approach the Chinese with an open mind.

I am highlighting the fact that we have this instinctive hatred/fear of China that doesn't seem to be healthy. And is quite likely to have been caused by the incompetence of our soft clueless unstrategic civilian leaders of the past in dealing with China.

Meanwhile India should keep arming itself to the hilt should the Chinese decide that the Pakistani attack dog strategy suits them best. In fact India should then double up on the Tibet rhetoric and start building bases in countries around China and officially declare itself as a US 'ally' - I am sure the Chinese know what that means.

Why don't you show us a personal example how your brand of appeasement realpolitik would work in your personal life if you have to sell your sister? That would be OK i guess going by your own logic.

No sir, the analogy of how nations behave and how an individual ought to act only goes so far. Compromising on Tibet can hardly be compared to selling my sister. You make suggestions like that and you expect me to respect your 'intellect'???

BTW it's obvious you have little understanding of issues, including India China, China-Pak affairs. Neither you have any understanding of the Tibetan issue. Neither you seem to have noticed Pakistan going down the drain slowly and surely despite China, US and others trying to push it out of the sewer it's getting sucked into.

That's an empty declarative statement that is intended to dismiss a differing point of view without discussing its merits. But that is exactly the problem I want to focus on. Indian attitude towards China is defined by a mix of fear, hatred, narcissism, humiliation that we are unable to look beyond our noses...

I will go back to work. Spent too much time arguing stuff I don't get paid for

[chaanakya]

Ironically you call yourself Chanakya. If you were half a student of Chanakya you would use Dalai Lama as a bargaining chip and get the maximum leverage out of the situation with China before he departs for heaven. A separatist is a separatist whether he is doing it with civil disobedience or guns and 'terrorism'. Same reason most of us hate Raj Thackeray - before you know the Marathis may be asking for a separate state.

If India was half the world away from China like the US, maybe the moral high ground would have been worth the trouble. But we have a huge eastern border with these guys and an ugly aggressive suicidal death cult following enemy on the west which is bolstered by a rather pointless China-India hostility.

Whether the Chinese are up for the deal or not depends on their calculations. But in my mind moral bankruptcy is a low price to pay for cutting the legs Pakistan claims to stand on these days.

And what makes you think that he is not being "used" by India. It certainly shows China in a pretty bad light. Already pointed out to you by AnimeshP ,going by Chankian logic, handle is needed to contain china , just because it is a rival bordering country sans buffer state. And what makes you think that after 14th HH DL there won't be any 15th HH DL , possibly from Tawang just as 5th HH DL. Love to see chinese reaction.

But what is it to you as you prefer moral bankruptcy over intellectual integrity.

But as a last try, you might get convinced by Sun Tzu

"The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete
accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him
regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger."


"Which of the two sovereigns is imbued
with the Moral law?"

China is not able to achieve the very first principle in art of war so they need people like you to argue to hand over HH DL. Indians would not like to descent to the level you would like to.

we don't need to cut legs of Pakistan, they are competent to do that and doing it very well while at it.We just need to encourage them a bit here and there and keep a cautious watch on our borders. Frankly speaking, I would like Pakistan to move away from abyss and allow democracy to thrive. Unfortunately in the entire history of Islam, democracy is not encouraged, so they have no other option but to come back to homeland., all in good times

I don't hate Raj Thackeray for the same reason I don't hate you, both have a viewpoint which we agree to disagree. Unlike China ,your dreamland, where contrarian view is met with hot lead in the head.

[abhishek_sharma]

Are you a 10 year old girl who loves make believe? Just look around the rest of the world http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... Tibet.html. Obama recently refused to meet Dalai Lama. Do those developments mean anything to you?? Probably not because you are so smug in your self righteousness. To me it says that the RoW is willing to give up its empty rhetoric and wants to be on the right side of China. While India which has the most to gain is hurting by the status quo.

It is true that Obama canceled a meeting with Dalai Lama.

It is also true that he is planning to meet him this year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world ... 0arms.html

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has approved an arms sales package to Taiwan worth more than $6 billion, a move that has enraged China and may complicate President Obama’s effort to enlist Beijing’s cooperation on Iran.

...

The relationship between the two countries may deteriorate more if Mr. Obama meets, as he is expected to, with the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama.

[chaanakya]

I wouldn't bet my money on China turning into a democracy. These suckers figured things out better than the Bolsheviks in USSR. And I do love my Indian freedom about as much as you or more.

Jury is still out on that.

Are you a 10 year old girl who loves make believe? Just look around the rest of the world http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... Tibet.html. Obama recently refused to meet Dalai Lama. Do those developments mean anything to you?? Probably not because you are so smug in your self righteousness. To me it says that the RoW is willing to give up its empty rhetoric and wants to be on the right side of China. While India which has the most to gain is hurting by the status quo.

I am only proposing a point of view based on the assumption that Indian policy makers are not the most shrewd people around and are quite likely responsible for blowing up the China bogey out of proportion. I don't see what's so unreasonable about that. I am talking about a "deal" not "appeasement". A deal gets you something in return.

While refusing to meet HH DL, Obama sanctions $6.4 Bn arms to Taiwan. SO perhaps India ask HH DL not to go to AP and recognise Taiwan or supplyl Arjum MBT.

If Chinese are hell bent upon destroying us and their assurances are dubious and there are little safeguards to their changing intentions then of course all bets are off. But a lot of that is predicated on judging their intentions. And what I am suggesting is approach the Chinese with an open mind.

I am highlighting the fact that we have this instinctive hatred/fear of China that doesn't seem to be healthy. And is quite likely to have been caused by the incompetence of our soft clueless unstrategic civilian leaders of the past in dealing with China.

Meanwhile India should keep arming itself to the hilt should the Chinese decide that the Pakistani attack dog strategy suits them best. In fact India should then double up on the Tibet rhetoric and start building bases in countries around China and officially declare itself as a US 'ally' - I am sure the Chinese know what that means.

There is nothing wrong in approaching the issue with an open mind. But if china perceives Indians arming to the teeth against chinese or setting up bases around it as you happen to suggest, would they accept our overtures of friendship. I don't think Chinese are hell bent upon destroying us nor are they capable of doing it without hurting themselves badly in return but their assurances are certainly dubious.

[harbans]

Obama recently refused to meet Dalai Lama. Do those developments mean anything to you??

Yes and it has not helped US's image one bit. Neither it has held the US very respectable in the eyes of the Chinese. Appeasing in that manner, does not help and has been proven repeatedly in history as pointed out here. India-China history. Relations with Nazi Germany, relations with Pakistan etc.

No sir, the analogy of how nations behave and how an individual ought to act only goes so far. Compromising on Tibet can hardly be compared to selling my sister. You make suggestions like that and you expect me to respect your 'intellect'???

You are not proposing a deal. You are proposing a sell out of the post most revered person in Tibet. A person who has seeked refuge in our house escaping a barbaric totalitarian regime. You don't make deals like what you propose unless you are as depraved in your personal life too. The analogy is perfectly valid. Depraved people will run their nations along those lines also. Enlightened states would also run their nations along enlightened lines. That's why we have a constitution guaranteeing fundamental rights to citizens of this country, visitors etc. The values on which this country runs does not permit selling a person as revered as HH to PRC. If this nation was run by people who would sell their sisters or mothers, then indeed your premise might be worth consideration.

I am highlighting the fact that we have this instinctive hatred/fear of China that doesn't seem to be healthy. And is quite likely to have been caused by the incompetence of our soft clueless unstrategic civilian leaders of the past in dealing with China.

You are highlighting the fear you have. You are yourself proposing something 'soft', 'clueless' and absolutely unstrategic by saying we should hand over HH. And at the same time hyporcitically assigning that on others. You are the one that's running scared and ready to sell your sister. Most here are ready to stand up the bully and defend our core values and land.

In fact India should then double up on the Tibet rhetoric and start building bases in countries around China and officially declare itself as a US 'ally'

Did you notice Pakistan is a tenth the size of India, a seventh of it's population. China is about the same population and maybe presently 3.5 times it's economic size. India has the capability and strength to ward off any border designs by China.

By 2020 we should be a 5 Trillion USD economy and powerful in our own right. We don't need the US to ally with us or be it's lap dog as you suggest. US has it's reasons to suck up to China, but that will not help them ultimately. Look at Australia how much the Rudd Govt sucked up to China..and end result. They've snubbed Australia whenever they got half the chance. A Bully never learns to respect till he's stood upto and looked in the eye.

Like what MMS did by allowing HH to visit ArP and meanwhile bringing more divisions and activating more airfields and aircrafts in that area. China whimpered, but oit's bully statements sort of stopped. That's what they understand the language of strength and not the appeasement you recommend.

Since your knowledge base, value systems have been so compromised, i would remind you that we have numerous citizens within this nation in Lashak, Leh, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim and friendly countries like Bhutan, Nepal that consider HH a reverred monk and leader. Also include in that list lots of Indians and people around the world believe in him as a spiritual guide.

Going by your logic, one may just put Sharia Law in India and have the Capital in Islamabad. We can merge Pakistan and India and the Kashmir/ China problem and all other problems just vanish. Viola. Brilliant. There's no need of any value systems when we run and conduct ourselves as a nation. Brilliant indeed, where do you guys crawl out from?

[AnimeshP]

Ironically you call yourself Chanakya. If you were half a student of Chanakya you would use Dalai Lama as a bargaining chip and get the maximum leverage out of the situation with China before he departs for heaven. A separatist is a separatist whether he is doing it with civil disobedience or guns and 'terrorism'. Same reason most of us hate Raj Thackeray - before you know the Marathis may be asking for a separate state.

If India was half the world away from China like the US, maybe the moral high ground would have been worth the trouble. But we have a huge eastern border with these guys and an ugly aggressive suicidal death cult following enemy on the west which is bolstered by a rather pointless China-India hostility.

Whether the Chinese are up for the deal or not depends on their calculations. But in my mind moral bankruptcy is a low price to pay for cutting the legs Pakistan claims to stand on these days.

Well peacemaker ... you seem to have side-stepped my arguments and are again going on claiming to be the only one here who understands Chanakya ... so here I go again ..

You seem to be a big fan of Chanakya and are dismissing other's arguments about Dharma as being unrealistic and un-pragmatic .. Fair enough but seem to me that you are applying the wrong learnings from Chanakya here ..
True chanakya-neeti would dictate that India should have a handle on China for the simple reason that it is a neighboring state which has a serious capability of harming us ... Forget the intention, I'm just talking about capability here ... intentions can change overnight, capabilities take longer to develop ... Therefore, as a true student of Chanakya you should be advocating the opposite ... that under no circumstances should India give up the Tibet card it has with it (even if we become the best of friends with China tomorrow) ...

and regarding your assertion about cutting Pakistan's legs ... again true Chanakya neeti (this time from a chinese POV) would dictate that

after all if friendship and alliance with Pakistan brought them dividends in the form of India giving up its trump cards, why not keep the alliance with Pakistan going ... who knows when those pesky Indians might start acting up again ...

So my questions to you are:

• So why should India give up the Tibet card at all??
• What guarantee is there that China will stop aiding Pakistan against India once we "make peace" with Chinese even at their terms

[RamaY]

Mods,

Could you pls change the handle "peacemaker" to something human?

TIA

[Karna_A]

Harbans,

What respect are you talking about?
How much respect did India gain by expulsion of Taslima Nasreen from India? She is just a non-violent feeble powerless woman, not threatening any person leave alone any country.
What peacemaker is trying to say is simple: Either have the balls to stand up, or shut up and compromise.
There can be only 2 arguments here:
(a) what can be done to make India have balls
(b) or else what can India do to compromise from the lesser evil.
Anything else is just useless shouting.

Well, appeasementmaker, if you propose handing over the Dalai to the Chinese, India will never EVER have any respect from any country in the world. Even states in India will recoil from the union in disgust. Who'd want to be part of a country that gives up HH, a non violent person to a totalitarian beast?

[Lalmohan]

appeasement does not work. the aggressor sees it as a sign of weakness and only wants more. it has never worked and it will never work. it is human and animal nature. the chinese through history have not been a civilisation to turn the other cheek or to back away from anything. nor have they particularly honoured unfavourable treaties (to them)

india will never be a great nation as long as it hankers for some elusive idealistic peace - because to surrender means there will never be any peace at all

[harbans]

What respect are you talking about?
How much respect did India gain by expulsion of Taslima Nasreen from India? She is just a non-violent feeble powerless woman, not threatening any person leave alone any country.

karna, i read you. India gained no respect from Taslima's expulsion. It did not placate the Jihadi's. It encouraged them further. It showed India as a bullied nation. Now your friend 'peacemaker' want us to expel HH DL to China itself and strike some deal which he says there is no guarantee off. Please ask him and NOT me this question. I am all for non-expiulsion of Taslima and granting her refuge in India itself.

What peacemaker is trying to say is simple: Either have the balls to stand up, or shut up and compromise.


If you quoted Talsima's example you might just as well realize the 'compromise' of shunting Taslima away from India and not granting refuge did'nt work with the Jihadi's.

I will tell you what this soul seller is hawking here. A mindset change, where people accept mentally that bargaining an old HH DL for some peace should be an option. It's amongst the most dangerous thought processes to EVER have been peddled on this forum and got away with. The fact that you just don't get it surprises me. Instead of arguing now on the merits of China's occupation to Tibet, we have been now arguing on the pro's and cons of giving HH DL to the rogue regime that will execute a man revered by millions of Tibetan, Sikkimese, Nepalese, Bhutanese, Indian Buddhists and Hindu's alike. He is peddling revolution within India and a complete breakaway of states like Bhutan, Sikkim, Ar P and a 'deal' (obviously of which as he stated there is no guarantee, Chinese will honor) so deplorable that a person who only can sell his mother or sister will honor.

Taslima Nasreen is not a spiritual and religious head of any muslim i know in India. she's an author that escaped prosecution and humiliation in BD. And i do support her cause for refuge in India. And you know how much rep we have by shunting her out. Yet HH DL is a different league. He's a symbol for a massive nation and millions of Indian citizens and friendly countries that border India-Tibet. Not only that millions of hindu's have deep regard for HH.

I am surprised you cannot sift and understand whats being peddled here.

[Karna_A]

karna, i read you. India gained no respect from Taslima's expulsion. It did not placate the Jihadi's. It encouraged them further. It showed India as a bullied nation. Now your friend 'peacemaker' want us to expel HH DL to China itself and strike some deal which he says there is no guarantee off. Please ask him and NOT me this question. I am all for non-expiulsion of Taslima and granting her refuge in India itself.

Well, India could be bullied by few jehadis with Ak-47s and not by China with TNWs!
I am not advocating expelling HH DL to China. What is required here is till he is alive, India has a chance to leverage it to get it something in return.
Chinese are pragmatic, a thing Kissinger told Nixon in 1971 when China had nothing to defend but a vast agrarian land.
Now with 2 trillion dollar reserve and world class cities, they have become even more pragmatic. What that means is unlike Islamic fasadis, you could negotiate with Chinese on a practical level, if one leaves ones idealism behind, just like Nixon did.
(a) China may agree to a Vatican like status for inner Tibet with HH DL as its head. That would require HH DL and ROW to give up outer Tibet.
(b) In return India could get permanent seat at UN, a Indus like Treaty for Brahamputra and unhindered access to Mansarovar apart from help on TSP issue.
(c) Of course if India really has balls, India should give few nukes together with AGNI 3s to Taiwan just as PRC did to TSP. The chances of that happening are next to nil, that's why the first 2 options become sensible and do-able.

In the present status-quo mile by mile India is losing territory to chinese and terror by terror losing its self respect to fasadis.

[vasu_ray]

if China is not losing on the status quo and as long as TSP is doing its dirty work, what reason does China have to accept/extend a hand of friendship?

we can only make friendship with a pragmatic China if the status quo favors us, list our advantages that can be exploited against China to influence the status quo

possessing balls doesn't mean supplying missiles to Taiwan, they have got enough help from US already, BMD system? US is also the arbiter of proliferation using its double standards, so we got to play safe

while the idea of entertaining China is not wrong since we don't consider US our enemy per se even though they contribute arms (nuke or otherwise) and unmonitored aid to TSP

China considers itself in the league of US, even if you humor China with its vanity, US will turn up the heat using TSP if it sees us as 'siding' with China, shadow boxing -> cold war and non-alignment are all issues we have heard before, hopefully we do not become militarily dependent on US to solve the China problem and solve the TSP problem to change the status quo

[RayC]

Why is There No Chinese International Relations Theory?
QIN Yaqing

Mindset!

One could go through this article to understand some issues.

[Karna_A]

if China is not losing on the status quo and as long as TSP is doing its dirty work, what reason does China have to accept/extend a hand of friendship?

The reason is that China is a pragmatic power, although the PLA is full of low quality staff. Any chinese would tell you that only the dumbest of dumb join PLA, unlike in India which has NDA etc. that selects very fine officers.

What is the reason there is no China sponsored terrorism in Taiwan? It's not that they are not capable of.

Chinese leaders prefer India as its neighbor anyday than TSP, though for PLA it's still other way around. Its only a matter of time when jihadis would take up Xinjiang as their next pet project and China is acutely aware of that.

[AnimeshP]

if China is not losing on the status quo and as long as TSP is doing its dirty work, what reason does China have to accept/extend a hand of friendship?

The reason is that China is a pragmatic power, although the PLA is full of low quality staff. Any chinese would tell you that only the dumbest of dumb join PLA, unlike in India which has NDA etc. that selects very fine officers.

What is the reason there is no China sponsored terrorism in Taiwan? It's not that they are not capable of.

Chinese leaders prefer India as its neighbor anyday than TSP, though for PLA it's still other way around. Its only a matter of time when jihadis would take up Xinjiang as their next pet project and China is acutely aware of that.

doesn't this kinda put a bullet in the argument that India needs to settle all issues with China ASAP ...
I say this is all the more reason why India should bide its time and maintain status quo .... after all if Xinjiang does blow up, the last thing the Chinese would want is to antagonize India because of the incremental nuisance India can create in Tibet... that should be the time when India should negotiate any settlements/treaties with China ...
Self-professed experts on Chanakya should know that you should negotiate when you hold the upper hand if you want an outcome that is satisfactory to you ...

[RayC]

China is a very pragmatic lot.

One has to observe the manner in which she emerged from an impoverished country to being a challenge to the only superpower of the world.

China’s greatest asset is that it lulls the adversaries with double talk, peace etc, while working overtime to build their base. The Han pride, built over years of history, has given them a very strong and even fanatical belief that the world should revolve around them (Middle Kingdom) and not the other way around. Their method of assimilating people who are not Han but making them Han has what is the making of China as we understand today. It is not actually a homogenous whole, but even those who are not originally Han have been convinced to believe that they are Han and adopt the Han way of life.

The most simplistic explanation of Han imperialism is available in Wikipedia where the evolution of China has been enumerated in a concise and compact manner.

Tibet and Xinjiang is in the process of this assimilation. However, since the world has changed and people are no longer rustic and illiterate, things are not working out as desired. Will they be assimilated, one wonders.

To lie moribund and supine is not the answer for India. China is planning to have overseas military bases including in Pakistan and Myanmar. She is aware that if any country that can challenge her hegemonic desires, it is India.

China is involved in the Maoist problems in India as also in the NE. Ghandy has confessed that he was in touch with the Maoists in Nepal and it is no secret that China is behind the Maoists in Nepal.

Note how clever is their claim that Arunachal is South Tibet.

Should India lie supine?

[sanjaykumar]

China’s greatest asset is that it lulls the adversaries with double talk, peace etc, while working overtime to build their base.


China's greatest asset is that it disregards human life-Korea, great leap forward, border conflicts, mass internal migrations, mass killings of opponents and minorities.

To civilised peoples this is hardly an asst, but it does produce results. But then so did Lenin and Stalin.Before stagnation set in with Brezhnev, the Soviet Union loomed equally large and unstoppable.

[RayC]

China’s greatest asset is that it lulls the adversaries with double talk, peace etc, while working overtime to build their base.


China's greatest asset is that it disregards human life-Korea, great leap forward, border conflicts, mass internal migrations, mass killings of opponents and minorities.

To civilised peoples this is hardly an asst, but it does produce results. But then so did Lenin and Stalin.Before stagnation set in with Brezhnev, the Soviet Union loomed equally large and unstoppable.

No doubt.

But read the theory of Legalism of China.

There is no mass internal migrations in China. It is just the opposite with their hukow system and their den wei system that keeps them under total control of the State!

The Chinese think they are civilised with all these repression. We may not. If they wish to be slaves and are ready to be so, can we complain?

I have no love lost for them. I only thought it would be interesting to take a rational view to a topsy turvy world so that we can beat them to the game!

What the Chinese are doing along our border is what is in a Chinese game called GO.

[sanjaykumar]

Of course in classical communism you need a passport to travel to the city and a party connection to travel abroad. But China has actually resettled people such as Yunan provincials in Turkestan and Han proper in Manchuria and Mongolia,

[RayC]

Of course in classical communism you need a passport to travel to the city and a party connection to travel abroad. But China has actually resettled people such as Yunan provincials in Turkestan and Han proper in Manchuria and Mongolia,

No, it is not classical Communism.

Hukou - China's government influences the pattern of urbanization through the Hukou permanent residence registration system, land-sale policies, infrastructure investment and the incentives offered to local government officials. The other factors influencing migration of people from rural provincial areas to large cities are employment, education, business opportunities and higher standard of living.

As far as Yunan, Ethnic minorities in Yunnan account for about 34 percent of its total population. Major ethnic groups include Yi, Bai, Hani, Zhuang, Dai and Miao.

In 221 BC, Qin Shi Huang unified China and extended his authority south. Commanderies and counties were established in Yunnan. An existing road in Sichuan – the "Five Foot Way" – was extended south to around present day Qujing (曲靖), in eastern Yunnan. In 109 BC, Emperor Wu sent General Guo Chang (郭昌) south to Yunnan, establishing Yizhou commandery and 24 subordinate counties. The commandery seat was at Dianchi county (present day Jinning 晋宁). Another county was called "Yunnan", probably the first use of the name. To expand the burgeoning trade with Burma and India, Emperor Wu also sent Tang Meng (唐蒙) to maintain and expand the Five Foot Way, renaming it "Southwest Barbarian Way" (西南夷道). By this time, agricultural technology in Yunnan had improved markedly. The local people used bronze tools, plows and kept a variety of livestock, including cattle, horses, sheep, goats, pigs and dogs. Anthropologists have determined that these people were related to the people now known as the Tai. They lived in tribal congregations, sometimes led by exiled Chinese.

During the Three Kingdoms, the territory of present day Yunnan, western Guizhou and southern Sichuan was collectively called Nanzhong. The dissolution of Chinese central authority led to increased autonomy for Yunnan and more power for the local tribal structures. In AD 225, the famed statesman Zhuge Liang led three columns into Yunnan to pacify the tribes. His seven captures of Meng Huo, a local magnate, is much celebrated in Chinese folklore.

In the fourth century, northern China was largely overrun by nomadic tribes from the north. In the 320s, the Cuan (爨) clan migrated into Yunnan. Cuan Chen (爨琛) named himself king and held authority from Lake Dian (then called Kunchuan [昆川. Henceforth the Cuan clan ruled Yunnan for over four hundred years. In 738, the kingdom of Nanzhao was established in Yunnan by Piluoge (皮罗阁), who was confirmed by the imperial court of the Tang Dynasty as king of Yunnan. Ruling from Dali, the thirteen kings of Nanzhao ruled over more than two centuries and played a part in the dynamic relationship between China and Tibet. In 937, Duan Siping (段思平) overthrew the Nanzhao and established the Kingdom of Dali. The kingdom was conquered by the Mongol Empire in 1253. During the Yuan Dynasty Kublai Khan appointed the first governor, Turkmen Sayid Ajall, in Yunnan in 1273. Before that, the area had been ruled by a local king and a Mongol prince under the Great Khan. Yunnan and Hunan were main bases for Mongol military operations in Indo-China. The Ming Dynasty destroyed the Yuan loyalists in 1381.

In 1894, George Ernest Morrison, an Australian correspondent for The Times, travelled from Beijing to British-occupied Burma via Yunnan. His book, An Australian in China, details his experiences.

Yunnan was transformed enormously by the events of the war against Japan, which caused many east coast refugees and industrial establishments to relocate to the province. It assumed great strategic significance, particularly as the Burma Road was constructed from Kunming to Lashio in Burma during this time.

Excerpts from Wikipedia.

[vasu_ray]

any reason why US has an obligation for Taiwan's self defense but not for Tibet?

[Arihant]

any reason why US has an obligation for Taiwan's self defense but not for Tibet?

It has to do with something called the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) (see: http://www.ait.org.tw/en/about_Ait/tra/ and the Wikipedia entry). It was passed by the Carter Administration after they switched recognition to the PRC, and was a sop both to the needs of realpolitik and the substantial pro-Taiwan lobby in the US. That lobby still exists, but is now diluted by the crowd that feels obliged to sign up with China despite instinctively disliking the Chinese system.

[Lalmohan]

the USA also has long standing political relationships with the KMT party (Chinese nationalists) who ended up in taiwan, therefore no surprises. they thought of a chinese nationalist government being their chamcha in asia around ww2 end, but it all ended in tears courtesy of mao

[Klaus]

Is there any chance we could combine this thread with the Tsangpo thread (Vivek Ahuja's) which is quite redundant by now? Its got some good collective gyaan which we rakshaks could go through and refresh before starting something afresh. Just my humble suggestion.

[Bheem]

Anybody who has lived in a Hostel, Jail or a Barrack should imagine living in China for a "whole life time". Note freedom is also an 'indicator' of quality of life but we Indians take it for granted.

[Arihant]

China’s greatest asset is that it lulls the adversaries with double talk, peace etc, while working overtime to build their base.


China's greatest asset is that it disregards human life-Korea, great leap forward, border conflicts, mass internal migrations, mass killings of opponents and minorities.

To civilised peoples this is hardly an asst, but it does produce results. But then so did Lenin and Stalin.Before stagnation set in with Brezhnev, the Soviet Union loomed equally large and unstoppable.

No doubt.

But read the theory of Legalism of China.

There is no mass internal migrations in China. It is just the opposite with their hukow system and their den wei system that keeps them under total control of the State!

The Chinese think they are civilised with all these repression. We may not. If they wish to be slaves and are ready to be so, can we complain?

I have no love lost for them. I only thought it would be interesting to take a rational view to a topsy turvy world so that we can beat them to the game!

What the Chinese are doing along our border is what is in a Chinese game called GO.

Sir, I agree with you that the Chinese have turned our world topsy-turvy. Repression is good - freedom bad. History disconnects from truth - and becomes an artefact of political convenience. And so on...

It is true though that they have engineered (commanded) mass migrations where necessary. I know Han Chinese from Urumqi whose families were moved to Xinjiang under duress, as part of a massive demographic engineering exercise.

[Karna_A]

To lie moribund and supine is not the answer for India. China is planning to have overseas military bases including in Pakistan and Myanmar. She is aware that if any country that can challenge her hegemonic desires, it is India.
?

RayC,
That is largely correct.
However, China is also aware that the only large future market is India for its export-driven economy.
I am more concerned about the fact that China is not allowing Indian exports while exporting its bonded labour products to India.
Although its just a wishful thinking but the free world should join hands and put a 20% tax on everything made in countries without proper democracy, as its easy to make cheap things out of Oliver Twist labour.

[RayC]

The game of GO.

Go is a board game for two players, noted for being rich in strategic complexity despite its simple rules.

The game is played by two players who alternately place black and white stones on the vacant intersections of a grid of 19×19 lines. The object of the game is to control a larger portion of the board than the opponent. A stone or a group of stones is captured and removed if it has no empty adjacent intersections, the result of being completely surrounded by stones of the opposing color.

Placing stones close together helps them support each other and avoid capture. On the other hand, placing stones far apart creates influence across more of the board. Part of the strategic difficulty of the game stems from finding a balance between such conflicting interests. Players strive to serve both defensive and offensive purposes and choose between tactical urgency and strategic plans.

One could compare Chinese actions with this game.

[Klaus]

The game of GO.

Go is a board game for two players, noted for being rich in strategic complexity despite its simple rules.

The game is played by two players who alternately place black and white stones on the vacant intersections of a grid of 19×19 lines. The object of the game is to control a larger portion of the board than the opponent. A stone or a group of stones is captured and removed if it has no empty adjacent intersections, the result of being completely surrounded by stones of the opposing color.

Placing stones close together helps them support each other and avoid capture. On the other hand, placing stones far apart creates influence across more of the board. Part of the strategic difficulty of the game stems from finding a balance between such conflicting interests. Players strive to serve both defensive and offensive purposes and choose between tactical urgency and strategic plans.

One could compare Chinese actions with this game.

Good that you've brought this up! Perhaps we could take sides and play the game to really find logical overtures and loopholes in the Chinese logic, these can then be expounded and taken advantage of.

Anyway, way to go for yindoo Gen Y!

[vasu_ray]

with Indo-Tibet border, each intersection on the board corresponds to a part of the border territory that's disputed so open to play, the white and black beads correspond to sectors occupied by either the Indian or the Chinese forces

the rules are the same, however not all combination's are possible as each intersection on the GO's 2-D board would have to be mapped to the disputed sectors with uneven shapes, which can perhaps be divided into a grid with sufficient resolution

there is a handicap rule that says not all positions can be covered by available beads/troops due to limitation of resources

firing by chinese happens if the rules of the game aren't followed? like withdrawal doesn't happen when surrounded by chinese troops/black beads?