Global threat from artificially created nations : China, Pak

[brihaspati]

The currently existing state of People's Republic of China came into being after WWII, by occupying areas left vacant by the warring international powers of Russia, Japan and USA. The 8th Route Army of the Chinese Communist Party that went on to displace the Kuo-Min-Dang led nationalist army from north, central and south mainland China in a civil-war - could not actually occupy any significant portion of mainland China during the WWII, and could only manage to enter Manchuria after the Japanese surrendered there to the Russians.

Prior to this, even under the first "republic" China was a motley collection of areas ruled by warlords, and China was unable to resist the European hold on coasts and coastal trade and ports or enclaves. Its main seat of power and the emperor was burned down by European forces and its ruler forced to escape.

Historically the Chinese were never really a homogeneous "nation", even culturally, and with periodic regularity as and when climates worsened, wars broke out and the people divided up into territories, kingdoms and the overall reach shrank in territorial terms. If any core can be identified it existed only in the lower reaches of the great rivers that spread out from eastern knolls of Pamir knot and the north-west of Himalayas.

Pakistan even as an idea or terminology did not exist in any real regime, land or cultural terms before the second decade of the 20th century.

In almost every sense both these entities are artificially created states that came into being becuase of a complex dynamic of power and pursuit of global dominance between the "west" and Russia, as well as the continued British desire to retain a backdoor of influence into parts of Asia they once exploited under colonial regimes.

The artificiality of these creations has led to overt militarization and coercive attitudes towards their neighbours - as any nation that lacks strong cultural foundations will increasingly rely on coercion to exist. Each of these artificial states have therefore chosen a totalitarian ideology to try and fill up the vacuum left by the lack of culture and a national cultural identity. Each of these totalitarian ideologies have led to arbitrary and authoritarian governments and bitter conflicts.

They have also naturally found themselves as allies and at least in one direction they have found a common target - India. These two artificial states have collaborated to blackmail India with nukes under the cover of which they sponsor terrorism throughout India, from north-west to the north-east.

But the problem is that having unleashed the forces of Islamist and Maoist terrorism, these forces are not confined to India as a target alone. They have now targeted non-Indian regions too, and gradually have become a global problem.

I hope BRFites bring up every bit of information behind the artificiality of these two claimed nations, and their role in global destabilization and terrorism, including such specific destabilization methods like production and dissemination of drugs.

[Pranav]

As far as TSP is concerned one sees no hope, but China can become a legitimate nation by going back to its Buddhist-Confucian roots. It is a mixed picture at present -

Signs of change emanating within China: Dalai Lama

http://www.hindu.com/2010/05/28/stories ... 681600.htm
Shoumojit Banerjee

Patna: “There have been many incidents in the recent past which are indicative of strong change within the People's Republic of China,” said the Dalai Lama on Thursday.

In Patna to inaugurate the Buddha Smriti park set up to commemorate the 2550 {+t} {+h} year of Lord Buddha's ‘Mahaparinirvana,' the Tibetan religious leader noted that there were strong signs of socio-political change emanating from within the country.

Alluding to China's revised policy on minorities to substantiate his theory of changing political currents within the country, the Dalai Lama further stated that during the last two years, more than 200 Chinese writers had authored almost a thousand articles which were supportive and sympathetic to the question of Tibetan autonomy.

“Historically, China was a nation with strong Buddhist affiliations,” he said, speaking to journalists after the event. “There are more than 200 million Chinese Buddhists, which is more than the total number of Buddhists residing in India,” he noted, remarking that “even leaders of the Kuomintang (the Chinese Nationalist Party), including Chiang Kai-shek, had had Buddhist relatives.”

Commenting on China's rapid global progress, the Dalai Lama said China's economy had come a long way since Chairman Mao's Communist era. Remarking that Tibet faced a much different political scenario in contrast, he attributed Tibet's lack of progress to the “old Tibetan feudal system” as compared with China's speedy development.

China gets an ashram near Beijing
http://www.hindu.com/2010/10/27/stories ... 462200.htm
Ananth Krishnan

Art of Living foundation opens retreat for yoga and meditation that will offer a range of courses


Sri Sri Ravishankar, founder of the Art of Living, inaugurated an Art of Living ashram near Beijing on Monday.

BEIJING: On Monday, the People’s Republic of China got its first ashram.

Located a two-hour drive away from here and nestled amid the industrial suburbs of this fast-expanding metropolis, the 165-acre retreat for yoga and meditation was opened by Sri Sri Ravishankar’s Art of Living foundation. Billing itself as the first authentic Indian retreat in a country where spirituality is on the rise, the ashram will offer a range of courses.

“There is a yearning for spiritual thought in today’s China, and this centre will provide people [with] a path to have cleaner, calmer and happier lives,” Sri Sri Ravishankar told The Hindu.

This is his first visit to China. On Monday, he interacted with religious leaders as well as officials of the Communist Party, who had given sanction for the project. The centre will accommodate 160 students at a time. The teachers, who are from all over China, had undergone training in India.

On Sunday, the centre held a ceremony with dance performances and lectures. It was attended by around 500 people. The organisers said they could have received a greater audience “of more than 3,000,” but doing so would have required a special permission from the local authorities.

Interaction

Most of the questions from the Chinese audience in an interaction with Sri Sri Ravishankar on Sunday revolved round how people could deal with the stress of modern life and preserving family values in a society that is being increasingly influenced by Western ideas.

Among those who attended was Man Hu, a middle-aged entrepreneur from Shanghai, who runs a manufacturing plant. “Like everyone else in today’s China, I am under great stress and looking for a way to manage by life in a better way and find some purpose,” she said.

Those connected with the project said they were surprised by the positive response from the authorities, who are usually careful about allowing foreign institutions, particularly those with spiritual leanings, to spread their word in China.

On Monday, Sri Sri Ravishankar met with Chen Haosu, a former vice-minister in the Propaganda Department and the president of the Chinese People’s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries (CPAFFC), which invited him to China. “India and China are naturally close, in culture, family values, music and dance,” he told Mr. Chen. “The East has a lot to offer to the world to counter the stress and ills of society that the West is facing.”

“Great expectations”

Mr. Chen said he had “great expectations” of the visit. “We hope this will bring happiness to people. Chinese people have an enthusiasm and passion for Indian culture. In the past 30 years, we have seen fast development of the Chinese economy. Now, people will also require more spiritual activities.”

Sri Sri Ravishankar said the centre would look to engage with the Chinese civil society, and even involve itself, as it has in the United States, Canada and Germany where it has centres, in environmental campaigns such as tree-planting drives. It is also in talks with the local police here to involve itself in a drug rehabilitation programme.

As Sri Sri Ravishankar left Monday’s meeting with Chinese officials, he was surprised by a gift he did not quite expect, and one that was at odds with the message of peace he was looking to bring to China — a bamboo panel with engravings from Sun Tzu’s Art of War.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu

[shiv]

Pakistanis and Chinese are "natural partners". The Chinese have brutally killed Uighurs and have forcibly increased the Han population of Xinjiang from 6% in 1949 to 41% in 2000. Check the details in the link

http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?o ... Itemid=206

A research paper published by the Bingtuan in August 2003 said that study of the Uighur language was useless.

"Our long-term aim is to Sinicise the local population. We must first destroy the Uighur language. We must encourage large-scale migration." The report stated. It advocated the Israeli example and establishment of large Bingtuan settlements in the five areas of Xinjiang where the Uighurs account for more than 50 percent of the population, including Hetian and Kashgar, where support for the ETR is strongest. "The Bingtuan method is to choose places where no-one is living, to avoid giving Uighurs the idea that we are stealing their land. Introducing water will improve the local economy and living standards of Uighurs and block the growth of terrorism."

Islam and the people of God are being eliminated from Xinjiang. Pakistan has a direct link with Kashgar . Shouldn't Pakistanis understand the suffering of their Muslim brothers in Xinjiang?

[brihaspati]

X-posting from the "legitimacy" thread :

rkirankr wrote
Let us discuss China. Is the china which is today really one country or many races /countries have been forcibly kept "in" as china.

What is their legitmacy in illegally occupying Tibet, parts of India as aggressor in 62 and hankering for more in AP.
Do those regions which are now part of China , can they be sustained if CCP, PLA crumbles as similar to SU.

If India is a country because of British as per "intellectuals", then how can Hongkong be part of China. I believe Hongkong has some different set of laws. So should we give stapled visas to people of Hongkong origin.
Let us dig up some history and see whether there was/is any "idea" of china

shiv wrote
China is a geographic marker like "North Pole" and "South pole". It is far east. North pole and South pole are white. East is red. Of course.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z4-X7jR ... QL&index=1

Marten wrote
China needs to give up its racist domination of Tibet, Xinjiang, Mongolian lands, Macao, Hong Kong. There is no question they are not a legitimate nation as their borders stand.

Victor wrote
The entity called China has 55 distinct ethnic nationalities and up to 200 languages. This is more than India. The only official language allowed however is Mandarin, the language of the ethnic majority Han.

Manny wrote
No. China is not legitimate nation. Its an entity of wolves
+ hens and rabbits. The wolves have taken military control and are running the show.

A Nation is an entity where its people govern themselves by consensus for the most part.

Bade wrote
China can be best described as a Nationalist Corporate at best. A nation has to take care of the interests and aspirations of its people first. But, in China we have a bloated Corporate with pliant employees since they have nowhere else to go and completely believe in their own cool-aid.

We need to appoint Arundhati Roy as the Indian Cultural Ambassador to PRC in recognition of her services to humanity and hope to reform China too.

PS: The chances are high that AR will get reformed with a stint in Beijing, than the other way around.

[ramana]

Bji, Have you read the chapter on China in Hegel's book "Philiopshy of History"?

[brihaspati]

Yes! You have given me an idea actually - some other stalwarts and masters of communism too made some most interesting observations about "China". later!

[ramana]

All others, atleast read Part I Section I

Hegel's Philospohy of Historypdf

[brihaspati]

In 1950, the communists had to make the following statement :

http://dlib.eastview.com/browse/doc/13688001

FOR PRESERVATION OF FULL TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY AND SOVEREIGNTY OF CHINA.-Statement by Chang Lan, Representative of Democratic League of China. (Izvestia, July 6, p. 4. Complete text:) Peking (Tass)-The newspaper Kwang Ming Jih Pao published a statement from Chang Lan, the representative of the Democratic League of China, on the Truman statement. The statement says: "Truman in his June 27 declaration openly ordered the fleet to give aid to the Chiang Kai-shek bandits in control of Formosa (Taiwan). He declared: 'I have given orders to the Seventh Fleet to ward off any attack on Formosa.' The whole world knows that Formosa is Chinese territory. This is recognized by everybody, including the U. S. A. After the capitulation of the Japanese usurpers, China, on the basis of the Cairo and Potsdam declarations, received back the Northeast and Formosa and re-established sovereignty over them. After the victory of the people's revolution in China, the fictitious Nanking government failed and the bandit Chiang Kai-shek escaped to Formosa. The change of government as a result of the revolution in China, however, in no way affects the territorial problem and the problem of sovereignty. Truman has dared to order the Seventh Fleet to prevent the liberation of Formosa and has openly declared that 'a decision on the future status of Formosa must be put off until the restoration of security in the Pacific Ocean, until the conclusion of a peace treaty with Japan or until consideration of this question by the U. N.' There is no doubt that this is an act of forcible encroachment by the U.S.A. on our territory.

"In the interests of the preservation of the territorial integrity of China and in the interests of the strengthening of peace throughout the world, as Chou En-lai has declared, 'all the people of our country will fight as one man for the complete liberation of Taiwan from the American aggressors.'"...

Here the communists show that they are aware of a crucial problem in the legitimacy of the PRC : that PRC was formed by a "revolution" and civil war, not by a democratic process, not a referendum, monitored and observed by interntaional "observers" - and simply overthrew by war a government which was at least formally founded on Republican principles and recognized internationally as such. Actually at one point, the communists had joined the Kuo min dang and participated in its government - it was not a fictitious government then!

If fait-accompli's are the only justification - that defeat of opponents and military occupation of a piece of land is sufficient to legitimize "sovereignty" then the Japanese presence in China was not aggression but "legitimate soverignty". PRC leadership is still living in the 1950 argument of legitimacy by occupation. If they accept and base all their claims on military occupation - a time may come when other will occupy lands currently under its occupation - and gone Chinese sovereignty? Even in "legalism" term - does the CPC leadership realize the fallacy of their military-occupation-justifies-all argument?

[ramana]

IOW its modern founding is a right of conquest which is outlawed by UN conventions!

[brihaspati]

This was how Chinese communists began to obtain their "sovereignty" - through the backdoor and begging at Soviet doors. This is just the UN view of it. More on the actual process and how the Maoists really had to wait for Stalin's kindness even to enter Manchuria:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Na ... lution_505

The UN General Assembly Resolution 505 is titled Threats to the political independence and territorial integrity of China and to the peace of the Far East, resulting from Soviet violations of the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Alliance of August 14, 1945 and from Soviet violations of the Charter of the United Nations. The UN General Assembly adopted this resolution on 1 February 1952 during its sixth session after the Republic of China complained to the United Nations against the Soviet Union.— Excerpted from UN General Assembly Resolution 505 on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

505 (VI). Threats to the political independence and territorial integrity of China and to the peace of the Far East, resulting from Soviet violations of the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Alliance of 14 August 1945 and from Soviet violations of the Charter of the United Nations

The General Assembly,

Considering that it is a prime objective of the United Nations "to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained",

Noting that the Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics concluded on 14 August 1945 a Treaty of Friendship and Alliance which provides, inter alia,

(a) That the Contracting Parties "agree... to act in accordance with the principles of mutual respect for each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity and non-intervention in each other's internal affairs", and

(b) That "the Soviet Government agrees to render China moral support and assist her with military supplies and other material resources, it being understood that this support and assistance will go exclusively to the National Government as the Central Government of China"

Finding that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics obstructed the efforts of the National Government of China in re-establishing Chinese national authority in the three Eastern Provinces (Manchuria) after the surrender of Japan and gave military and economic aid to the Chinese Communists against the National Government of China.

Determines that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in its relations with China since the surrender of Japan, has failed to carry out the Treaty of Friendship and Alliance between China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of 14 August 1945.

369th plenary meeting,
1 February 1952.

[brihaspati]

Dulles early recognized the fact that the supposed territorial integrity of China was a construction of the "Open door" policy imposed upon the Chinese emperor in the late 19th century by which the European powers and Japan came to a mutually satisfactory agreement in controlling the trade and economy of the region. USA was a key mover of this idea of "integration" as survives in the numerous notes and documents and treaties made around the time (1899-1910) trying to expand its weight against the British empire's role in controlling global trade. However the outcome was entirely unexpected.

Dulles is quoted in "Subversion as Foreign Policy" pg 75 (Audrey R. Kahin, George McTurnan Kahin)

The preservation of unification of a country can have danger. And I refer (and I can remember this almost word for word) to China. The territorial integrity of China became a shibboleth. We finally got a territorially integrated China - for whose benefit? the communists.

Dulles here is making a statement of fact that the so-called "integrated China" concept was a propaganda put forward by the USA to counter and balance out the trade and colonial wars that raged in the region.

[TonyMontana]

Man, you guys are trying just a little too hard. Two threads already? This says more about your own insecurity then the legitamacy of China. And before someone points out that anything that p!ss off the Chinese is a good thing, I'm reading these threads with eager amusement.

[Mahendra]

Old jungle saying

"Jo Chengdu mein Gawndoo, woh Chicago mein bhi Gawndoo"

i.e He who sits in Chengdu and laughs at Chicago isn't doing the middle kingdom any favours

[naren]

People's Republic of China killed 400 million babies. PRC has no right to exist.

[brihaspati]

Man, you guys are trying just a little too hard. Two threads already? This says more about your own insecurity then the legitamacy of China. And before someone points out that anything that p!ss off the Chinese is a good thing, I'm reading these threads with eager amusement.

Do you think it really matters whether you are amused or not?! Thanks anyway for providing the opportunity toe explore this old question! No wonder anyway - since the PRC goes about asking all under the sun to declare their support for the "territorial integrity of China" - from Armenia , Azerbaijan.....!

[SwamyG]

Bji: Why the words "artificially created" in the title?

[brihaspati]

People's Republic of China killed 400 million babies. PRC has no right to exist.

naren ji,
that is a "moral" basis of "validation". That question will bring in the question of culture/civilization etc., and will be valid if we were discussing the non-existence of "culture" in the region currently known as China. That is a valid question - no doubt - but maybe we should dispose off the "legal" basis first!

[brihaspati]

Bji: Why the words "artificially created" in the title?

PRC was "artificially created" because there was no legal, modern accepted procedure of transitions of governments or reformulation of states at the time PRC "formed". This was also a time when the United Nations had already come into existence and a certain core set of rules/principles by which such state reformulations could become acceptable had already been formulated.

It therefore took a formal legal procedure moved by the Nixon admin to give this formal stamp of approval - long after 1950 when Mao declared the formation of the PRC from the square where his one-time faithful junior commander and then later "enemy" - also did a "Mao" on the students gathered there.

The US moved step for recognition of PRC was "artificial" because it simply overtly gave approval to a state that still had not followed any normal procedure of state formation. There had been no referendum, and no constituent assembly - to have a representative voice of all sections of the people residing in the territory claimed to be China, to decide and approve the nature, structure and basis as well as foundation of the supposed state of PRC. It had been declared to be a state by a "chairman" (not many explain what that "chairman" really meant since the Tsunyi emergency meeting) of a communist party - whose memberships even were not elected by the non-member people of the region. This means that even if the dubious claims of elected positions within the party are accepted, the post-holders of the communist party still cannot be held to be representatives of all the people it claims sovereignty over!

As for Pak : it was given recognition by the British Parliament and created as an independent state. However, Pakis could not manage even a functioning start to a Constituent Assembly before its formation as a state.

From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituen ... f_Pakistan

The Constituent Assembly of Pakistan was formed to write Pakistan's constitution, and serve as its first parliament. It first convened on 11 August 1947, before the end of British rule on August 15, 1947. Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was the first President of this Assembly until his death on 11th September 1948. Subsequently Liaquat Ali Khan headed the constituent assembly for three years, but failed to produce any document. The only job that this assembly was able to do was to write a ten liner "Objective Resolution". It was dissolved on October 24, 1954.....After fresh elections were held, it was reconstituted on May 28, 1955 lasting until March 23, 1956

So it was formed as a state without the normal approval process from "bottoms-up" at least 9 years before any excuse of a Constitution and electoral representation could be given.

[naren]

People's Republic of China killed 400 million babies. PRC has no right to exist.

naren ji,
that is a "moral" basis of "validation". That question will bring in the question of culture/civilization etc., and will be valid if we were discussing the non-existence of "culture" in the region currently known as China. That is a valid question - no doubt - but maybe we should dispose off the "legal" basis first!

replied in off topic thread saar.

[shiv]

Man, you guys are trying just a little too hard. Two threads already? This says more about your own insecurity then the legitamacy of China. And before someone points out that anything that p!ss off the Chinese is a good thing, I'm reading these threads with eager amusement.

You know it is Indian insecurity. But yet you choose to read them and state that you derive amusement.

You derive amusement from Indian insecurity? That is a valid enough reason for Indians to feel insecure. An insecure people are always plotting - and that is why you need to read what is being said. If it was irrelevant, you would not have to read it. To you it is relevant enough to read and later dismiss as amusing.

Knowing that people such as yourself read the thread is a useful point of information. It is a way of pinging reactions. People who are amused will say they are amused because it increases pride to feel happy over the next guy's fears and expresing amusement is a "put down" that is supposed to cause the other guy loss of face.

That is an interesting reaction because if anything angers you (or someone else) or causes anxiety, we will not hear anything here because that would mean loss of face - especially after saying that you are amused. Sooner or later people will start saying things that are less amusing. Enjoy while it lasts.

Having said all that I must point out that I would like to see a thread that shows that the USA too was never ever a nation and ask if it can last much longer. Note that instead of a thread questioning the nationhood of China, if someone had started a thread questioning the nationhood of the US your reaction is unlikely to have been one that says "Hey you guys are insecure about the US and I am amused". That is because the Chinese are insecure about the US and its intentions. In fact we have had dozens of threads about Pakistan. Only Pakistanis take pride in the attention they get and are amused by the insecurity Pakistan causes to Indians. Your reaction to those threads was remarkable by its absence. It's only when it hits home that a thread arouses interest.

[Rony]

The han identity is a artificial identity.The "Hans" are not a homogenous people. They are all of different people with different histories to begin with. Once the Han dynasty colonised them, all the colonised people irrespective of their differences became "Hans". The 'Hans" are completely oblivious to this historical fact. Its the han dynasty which created han identity, not the other way round.

[brihaspati]

X-posting
shiv wrote
Post subject: Re: Islamism & Islamophobia Abroad - News & Analysis

China is the flavor of the month

One thing you've got to admire is the way the Chinese have handled Islam. They have simply crushed it.

http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?o ... Itemid=206

Wang Zhen, the man who did more than any other in history to bind Xinjiang to China. In 1944, with support from the Soviet Union, the Uighurs proclaimed the second East Turkistan Republic in three districts of northern Xinjiang. It lasted five years, until Wang's Communist army conquered the region. From October 1949, as Communist Party chief and military commander of the region, for each Chinese soldier killed, Wang ordered the execution of five men in the village where the killing took place. I love it. I love the Chinese way

In 1954, Wang set up the Production and Engineering Corps, in Chinese Bingtuan or military group'. They were demobilized soldiers who became militia farmers, similar to the Jews who migrated to Palestine before and after the establishment of Israel. They now number more than 2.5 million and produce much of the region's cotton, tomato, fruit and other farm crops. They have also developed mining and mine-related industry and have a dozen listed companies. The corps has its own education system, including two universities, a newspaper and television stations.

By 1964, thanks to Wang's policies, the Han percentage of Xinjiang's population had quadrupled from six percent, or 300,000, in 1949 to 32.7 percent in 1964. In 1949, the Uighur proportion was 75 percent.

Wang's brutality was too much even for Mao Zedong, who fired him from his post in Xinjiang in 1956. But Wang remained a senior figure in the Communist party and army and an advocate of military force in Beijing in May 1989. He remains a hero among the Han in Xinjiang. his ashes were scattered over the Tianshan Mountains north of Urumqi after his death in March 1993.

The Chinese way was "Are you a Muslim? Take that, Blam! Blam!" This method is, after all, how the "West" was won in the US from Red Indians. And China did the same thing. No wonder China is now challenging the US. No?

I tell ya we Indians know nothing about making this world ours as we sit in our dhotis worshipping yon hill and vale.

[Fidel Guevara]

Historically the Chinese were never really a homogeneous "nation", even culturally, and with periodic regularity as and when climates worsened, wars broke out and the people divided up into territories, kingdoms and the overall reach shrank in territorial terms.

I hope BRFites bring up every bit of information behind the artificiality of these two claimed nations, and their role in global destabilization and terrorism, including such specific destabilization methods like production and dissemination of drugs.

Brihaspati-ji, China's history has seen a lot of tides ebbing and flowing, with capitals shifting depending on political prerogatives. What were major cities became minor towns, and major chunks of territory passed between multiple warlords many times. This is no different from the history of India (e.g. what is Pataliputra, Nalanda today? No different from Nanjing or Xian...provincial centres at best).

In terms of the "authenticity of nationhood" question, the Chinese are actually more homogeneous than India in their genetics (90% Han), language, cultural memory, philosophy, and (for now) political-economic beliefs.

For that matter, what was "India" just a couple hundred years ago?

Agree that China is a major threat; disagree that they are any more or less artificial than India or any other "naturally created" country...

[Rony]

In terms of the "authenticity of nationhood" question, the Chinese are actually more homogeneous than India in their genetics (90% Han), language, cultural memory, philosophy, and (for now) political-economic beliefs.

Boss, Han identity has nothing to do with genetics because 'Han' is not a racial or genetic term although the chinese nationalists use it that way in their propoganda. Northern Chinese are genetically more closer to the mongolian, korean and central asian groups than they are to the southern chinese. The southern chinese are more closer to the south east asians than they are to the northern chinese.

The Chinese language is only homogenous in terms of writing.But in terms of speech , China has numerous "dialects". They are dialects only in name.In reality they are actually different languages in Indian sense because the differences between any two chinese "dialects" is as equal or more than the differences between say Telugu and Bhojpuri.

disagree that they are any more or less artificial than India or any other "naturally created" country...

I think the purpose of this thread is to hammer that point precisely. There is a myth in china and it is a widely held myth that somehow India is a artificial state created by British while the Chinese are a natural state in existence since thousands of years.This thread should be like an education to the ignorant chinese.

[brihaspati]

Brihaspati-ji, China's history has seen a lot of tides ebbing and flowing, with capitals shifting depending on political prerogatives. What were major cities became minor towns, and major chunks of territory passed between multiple warlords many times. This is no different from the history of India (e.g. what is Pataliputra, Nalanda today? No different from Nanjing or Xian...provincial centres at best).

In terms of the "authenticity of nationhood" question, the Chinese are actually more homogeneous than India in their genetics (90% Han), language, cultural memory, philosophy, and (for now) political-economic beliefs.

For that matter, what was "India" just a couple hundred years ago?

Agree that China is a major threat; disagree that they are any more or less artificial than India or any other "naturally created" country...

This is nothing to do with perceptions of "Chinese" "threat". The time for doing an "equal equal" with India can of course come - but come later. The thread was inspired by a China-supporting poster raising the question of - since India was never really a nation in the past, will it go back to that past state of disintegration and disunity - etc.

It made me remember my own study of Chinese history - or more accurately the history of the region currently known as China, as known from the court records of various regimes in various parts of "China" at various time points as well as outside observers.

Every aspect of India that is raised by China-supporters or Pak supporters or even so-called "western scholars" as supposed pointers to non-existence of a "Indian nation" in the past, can be used - and used very very aptly to prove nonexistence of China or Pak historically. But even more than that India did have a certain framework of "nationhood" that was non-existent even culturally in the regions and entities now called China or Pak.

I disagree with the "equal equal" bit, but that is not directly relevant for the thread. I can indeed take it up later after we disprove the historical nationhood of China and Pak.

Its probably not a good idea to raise the issue of genetics. First, India does turn out to be a separate genetic cluster (intra group variation vs intergroup variation) even if it is close to East European clusters. Compared to that the Chinese are not really a homogeneous cluster of the same order. Even more interesting will be the issue of almost no significant gene flow from outside since around 6000 BCE into India, but substantial gene flows from "outside" into China until late medieval period.

However you may like to search up on the position of the Chinese gov on the origins of the Chinese people - directly from Homo erectus branch in Asia. They do not belong to modern humans at all by their claim - so the genetic theory as stated by you may not be even be acceptable from their side.

[brihaspati]

When the empire broke up in 1911, gradually the areas under the formal hold of the emperor split up into the following warlord ruled, mutually fighting regions in the mid 1920's:

Peking regime: Wu Pei Fu, Feng Yu-hsiang, Chang Tso-lin (in succession)
Manchuria : under Chang Tso-lin
Shansi : Yen Hsi-shan
Kiangsu : Sun chuan-fang
Chekiang : L u Yung-hsiang
Fukien : Chou Yin-jen
Eastern Kwangtun : Chen Chiung-ming
Kwangtung : Sun-Yat-sen' "Nationalists"
Kwangsi : Li Tsung-jen and others
Hunan : Chao Heng-ti
Yunnan-Kweichao : Tang Chi-yao
Szechwan : Yang Sen
Kansu : Lu Hung-tao
Sinkiang : Yang Tseng-hsin
Tibet : independent
Outer Mongolia : independent

[O. Edmund Clubb, Twentieth Century China, 2nd ed 1964, Collumbia Univ. Press]

An interesting detail from this period is the so-called July Manifesto of the CCP (July 10, 1922, second congress, Shanghai) released in its "minimum programme"

"...................
(3) the unification China, including Manchuria
(4) the recognition of Mongolia, Tibet, and Turkestan as autonomous states prior to...
(5) their reunion in a federated Republic [ ]
....................."
[Conrad Brandt, B. Schwartz, J. Fairbanks : A Documentary History of Chinese Communism. London, 1952 and Chen Kung-po: The communist movement in China. NY 1960]

Actually, in July 1921, the Soviets had defeated the "White" army in Mongolia, which had actually driven out the Chinese from there in 1920 [it had been always disputed territory between the two empires] and had formally drawn agreements with the regional rulers for Russian sovereignty.

So in 1922 the CCP acknowledges that "China" needed "unification" and that Mongolia, Manchuria, Tibet, Turkestan were not really "Chinese" and had to be recognized as distinct entities.

[svinayak]

When the empire broke up in 1911, gradually the areas under the formal hold of the emperor split up into the following warlord ruled, mutually fighting regions in the mid 1920's:

Peking regime: Wu Pei Fu, Feng Yu-hsiang, Chang Tso-lin (in succession)
Manchuria : under Chang Tso-lin
Shansi : Yen Hsi-shan
Kiangsu : Sun chuan-fang
Chekiang : L u Yung-hsiang
Fukien : Chou Yin-jen
Eastern Kwangtun : Chen Chiung-ming
Kwangtung : Sun-Yat-sen' "Nationalists"
Kwangsi : Li Tsung-jen and others
Hunan : Chao Heng-ti
Yunnan-Kweichao : Tang Chi-yao
Szechwan : Yang Sen
Kansu : Lu Hung-tao
Sinkiang : Yang Tseng-hsin
Tibet : independent
Outer Mongolia : independent

[O. Edmund Clubb, Twentieth Century China, 2nd ed 1964, Collumbia Univ. Press]

Can you identify which region are pure Han social and race group

One HK chinese told me that most of the leadership 90% come form the beijing district area and they form the central rule and control all the province. Everybody else has to foloow and if they do not they are crushed.

The minority provice of the western regions are the exception and they are trying to integrate but they have lost the old china and its society.
The new chinese - christian groups have become the dominant. what is the %age of the beijing - tall fair chinese who have converted to christians - Methodist or the baptist.

[brihaspati]

When the empire broke up in 1911, gradually the areas under the formal hold of the emperor split up into the following warlord ruled, mutually fighting regions in the mid 1920's:

Peking regime: Wu Pei Fu, Feng Yu-hsiang, Chang Tso-lin (in succession)
Manchuria : under Chang Tso-lin
Shansi : Yen Hsi-shan
Kiangsu : Sun chuan-fang
Chekiang : L u Yung-hsiang
Fukien : Chou Yin-jen
Eastern Kwangtun : Chen Chiung-ming
Kwangtung : Sun-Yat-sen' "Nationalists"
Kwangsi : Li Tsung-jen and others
Hunan : Chao Heng-ti
Yunnan-Kweichao : Tang Chi-yao
Szechwan : Yang Sen
Kansu : Lu Hung-tao
Sinkiang : Yang Tseng-hsin
Tibet : independent
Outer Mongolia : independent

[O. Edmund Clubb, Twentieth Century China, 2nd ed 1964, Collumbia Univ. Press]

Can you identify which region are pure Han social and race group

One HK chinese told me that most of the leadership 90% come form the beijing district area and they form the central rule and control all the province. Everybody else has to foloow and if they do not they are crushed.

The minority provice of the western regions are the exception and they are trying to integrate but they have lost the old china and its society.
The new chinese - christian groups have become the dominant. what is the %age of the beijing - tall fair chinese who have converted to christians - Methodist or the baptist.

well I have not yet come to the present distribution, and that is a bit complicated - because of the various translocations of the early CCP and subsequent "redistribution" during purges and 1966, so communist elite now settled for two generations around Peiping/Beijing could have come from different parts. I will try to post some relevant composition data from foundation onwards.

However, briefly in touching - there are indeed two distinct regional or spatial aspects that divide both the communists as well as the "monolithic" population. One is genetics - which shows a clear geographical north-south division, and more in the female side than the male. This implies that at some point the northern tribes committed genocide on the south [less males survive from that genetic subpopulation - while females survive more in progeny- can only happen at human hands and not natural adversities].

Second, for a large part of the early struggling days and the civil war, the south and north-east was practically cleared of most if not all communist presence. Only in the latter part of 45-47, the north east could be infiltrated - but here the local adjuncts or collaborators of the "nationalists" switched over to a certain extent, and therefore communist consolidation was more an absorption than grassroots build up and replacement of pre-existing ones.

Only in 48 the communists won three major campaigns - rather three extended battles each taking place over a large area, against the "nationalist" army, and only after that they were able to consolidate the north and "cross the river" and enter Peiping. There was little of the communist influence and organization left in the south from before 1937-39, except the Hainan islands. So the older cadre of the CCP represent a particualar phase of CCP, that developed in the north-west after a traumatic expulsion from the south in the 30's, and their next generation who have also come to dominate the CCP power structure would be in many senses inheritors of that siege/hunted mindset. They would rely less on the "southerners".

[brihaspati]

Going back to China and its modern "artificial" nationhood.

One of the major aspects of the formation of the PRC is to be noted in how and what form the Communists began to organize "base areas". I will try to detail the various base formations later, but the common point observable is that the "base areas" were conceived as "fluid", growing and contracting or moving around depending on the circumstances.

So the structure of these base areas were not based on a solid or unshakable connection and identity to the particular geography or pre-existing culture. It had to be sufficiently abstract to go beyond the "particular" and be able to adapt to new people, land, culture quickly. In that immense rootlessness the only stability available was the "party", so that the resulting "nation" that developed out of expanding this very same "fluid" and mobile "bases", were also singularly devoid of culture or continuity or geographical nationhood. It is only the "party" that provides the bonding glue.

This does not mean that there was no possibility of a Chinese "culture" to develop that could provide at least one aspect of some foundation of a modern Chinese nation. However, the communists could not base their "structure" of "nationhood" on that aspect. So what they have created retains that strong sense of "fluidity", of a fluid foundation, that needs to be held together by a strong and ruthless party - which therefore also is constantly under panic whenever it sees any alternative ideology or religion or culture taking the popular imagination.

The artificiality of the modern state of PRC stems from the artificiality of the communist organization of "civil war" period bases, and the fact that no first steps can be taken to reconstruct a Chinese "nationhood" without a prior destruction of the communist party.

[Mauli]

Deleted. OT

[Philip]

Just a thought.I'm sure this thrwad can be merged with the PRC thread or the managing China threat thread.I feel we have too many threads on Pak and China which prevents space for other contemporary global issues.

X-Posting,how the Chinese ,who well qualify to being the "Nazis of the 21st century",are now enen threatening diplomats to prevent them from attending the Nobel peace Prize awards (to a Chinese dissident,Liu Xiaobo.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 38174.html

[brihaspati]

The thread has a different focus than the other Pak or China threads. This one started off in response to the repeated pointers by some posters who questioned the very nationhood of India while they had no such questions about Pak or China. I intended to explore the artificiality of the foundations of both those states, and their creation by external forces for certain similar geo-strategic purposes. In their current form they are completely artificial and have no internal driving factors for sustainable existence without military coercion.

The basics of both states formation and foundation by the "west" has close parallels in objectives if not circumstances, and it is intended to show that they actually have no internal basis or justification to exist in their current forms.

They need to be analyzed together, for it is not entirely coincidence that the two have joined hands against India. I am not sure it can done for the stated purpose of "exposure" of "artificiality" in the other separate threads for Pak and China.

[Narad]

Devaguru, Thank you for this very informative thread.