India: Friend, Enemy, or Both?
Filed under:-mini-posts, News, politics | Tags:China, government, history, india, nationalism, politics, tibet
Add comments
Chinese President Hu Jintao and India PM Manmohan Singh recently appeared together at the BRIC summit in Russia. Things seemed friendly enough at the time. What has changed since then? And why would China have a problem with the Asia Development Bank financing development projects in Arunachal Pradesh? I would think economic development in an area that China considers to be a part of her territory would be viewed by China in a positive manner, as it would be beneficial to the people of that region.
Something is going on here. Does anyone care to try and interpret the meaning behind this dispatch? I’m not asking for a slew of insults directed at India, but the reasons behind this apparent dispute. What has really changed in the last couple of weeks to instigate this response?
Veiled threat or good neighbor?
By Li Hongmei People’s Daily Online
15:12, June 19, 2009
Some are afraid that a fresh border dispute between China and India would become the spark plunging the two neighbors again into a ‘partial military action.’ And India seems to have been conspiring to create the picture of an imminent war by deploying 60,000-strong additional troops and four SU-30 fighters along the 650-mile unfenced border with China.
The Sino-Indian border dispute dates back to almost half a century ago, when in 1962, China and India fought a serious border war, with Indian troops retreating with a complete defeat. And in 1986, the region, referred to as Southern Tibet since China laid claim to it, suddenly flared up again, as a result of India’s continued and enhanced presence in the Chinese territory.
Decades have elapsed since the border war, but Indians still look on China through the tinted lens, which could merely produce untrue pictures and even distortions. As an Indian military official put it, ‘Indians maintain the same national sentiments towards China as the way the Chinese do at the mention of Japan and Japanese,’ many Indians actually have very subtle impression upon China, which has been translated into a very complicated mindset—awe, vexation, envy and jealousy—in the face of its giant neighbor.
The reason for this mentality is multi-faceted, and brought about by both historical factors and reality. In 1947, when India freed itself from the British colonization and won independence, it was one of the global industrial powers, ranking Top 10 in the world and far ahead of the then backward China. But today, China’s GDP has tripled that of India and per capita income doubled, which turns out to be a totally unacceptable fact to many Indians. And with China’s galloping economic growth since its adoption of the reform and opening up policy in late 1970s, the wealth gap between China and India has increasingly widened.
On top of that, some Western powers have been inciting India to challenge China, and even insidiously convince India that China would be the ‘greatest obstacle’ threatening India’s rise. To feed its ambitions, the West has gone so far as to devise ways to extol India as a potentially No.1 democracy in Asia, but meanwhile intentionally play down China’s social and economic progress.
India, on the other hand, draws the Western hint trying for dear life to surpass China. For years, it has also attempted, but in vain, to suppress China by taking advantage of its ‘friendship’ with the West. Obsessed with the crazy idea of ‘enemy’s friend being enemy,’ India has gone out of its way to blemish the brotherly ties between China and Pakistan, which India regards as its arch-foe, even staking out a position that Pakistan would have no courage to challenge it without the back-up of China.
Indian people have heavily relied upon its media coverage to learn about China. Unfortunately, the Indian media have long been so accustomed to calibrating to curry favor with the Western anti-China forces that they invariably present their readers with biased information and fabricated stories about China. This will further deepen the gap between the two peoples, and fuel the national discontent against China among ordinary Indians. Additionally, India media seem always overzealous in spreading the so-called ‘China Threat’ theory, manipulating its audience and fanning up an intense feud over China.
Indian government, instead of working in a constructive direction to clear up its people’s misunderstandings about China, which has gravely hampered the normal development of the bilateral relations, has consistently adopted a hostile foreign policy toward China, in an effort to win the support from its hawkish MPs and strength its rein in the nation. Under the pretext of ‘China Threat’, India finally launched a nuclear test in 1998. Only in recent years, Indian government shifted to a more pragmatic stance in dealing with China with the aim to enhance the bilateral cooperation.
Emerging from the dust of border dispute, Chinese President Hu Jintao and India PM Manmohan Singh appeared hand-in-hand Tuesday on the same arena of the first ever BRIC summit, hosted by Russia. This seems to deliver a message to the outside world that, plagued by the global financial crisis, both of the Asian giants need to reach out to each other seeking more cooperation rather than confrontation. ‘Both sides should make a steady progress in pushing for dialogue and cooperation,’ as President Hu was cited as saying.
But what is more irritating, Asia Development Bank (ADB) recently adopted the Country Partnership Strategy for India (2009-2012), involving disputed areas between China and India. The $2.9 billion plan approved this week by the ADB board includes the financing of projects in the so-called ‘Arunachal Pradesh’, an area which India regards as its 24th state, but actually much of it being part of China’s Tibet Autonomous Region.
ADB’s unbecoming program proves counterproductive, in that it has again dealt a blow to the already rickety China-India relationship. And moreover, the active steps lately taken by the leaders from both sides to thaw the feud would be more or less hobbled by it.
There are currently 9 comments highlighted: 40097, 40171, 40173, 40180, 40198, 67552, 68292, 68716, 68717.
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:43 pm
* The border line was drawn by a Brit. Britain was either the master of India or a friend (I was too lazy to do the simple research) at the time. Of course, he was sided with India. I guess with today’s military technology the vast waste land (unless there are natural resources) have not much use even as a buffer zone,
* India would like to cooperate with China as China could divert the water away. Is it legal or not?
* I always wonder what happened if US and its puppets play India hand instead of China hand against Russia?
* The two countries are compared due to similar population, esp. by Indians. Economically India lacks behind but they’re ahead in the yardstick (my virtual) to measure how happy the citizens are. India has more land and water resources per capita, but the agriculture lacks behind China.
* India’s Tier I cities cannot even compete with China’s Tier II cities. Their infrastructure is outdated. One day, India will wake up. From my first-hand experience with many educated Indians in US (most on H1 visas vs a lot of older Chinese are refugees here), definitely they’re as smart if not smarter than Chinese.
* India has poor governance. Big gap between poor and rich.
It is a tale of two countries: they’re quite similar and at the same time they’re entirely different. Interesting to say if either civilizations improved during last hundred years, either could have ruled the world.
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:10 pm
@ Tony: Thanks for the comments. The one passage that puzzled me the most was this:
“For years, it has also attempted, but in vain, to suppress China by taking advantage of its ‘friendship’ with the West. Obsessed with the crazy idea of ‘enemy’s friend being enemy,’ India has gone out of its way to blemish the brotherly ties between China and Pakistan, which India regards as its arch-foe, even staking out a position that Pakistan would have no courage to challenge it without the back-up of China.”
Throughout the cold war, India was allied with the Soviet Union, not the West. Even today, their relationship with western countries, particularly the United States, is tenuous at best. India and Pakistan have been enemies since the separation; that has nothing to do with China. Of course, any country allied with Pakistan (and that also includes the USA) automatically creates suspicion in India. At this time, Pakistan is probably more “hung up” over India than India with Pakistan.
However, isn’t the disputed border with China that is mentioned, Arunachal Pradesh, on India’s eastern flank? The only other countries bordering it are Bhutan and Myanmar. Since it isn’t anywhere near Pakistan, I don’t see the relevance to the rest of the argument. That’s why I was curious what everyone thinks in terms of China’s reason for bringing it up.
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Both nations cannot afford another war across the Himalaya’s. The Indian’s remember their routing defeat and the Chinese are still peeved over their tolerance of the Dalai in Dharamsala. This is just posturing and chest thumping from the Military Industrial Complex in China. Ditto in India where this poorly written editorial will be used to provision more funding and purchases in their Defense sphere.
“It is a tale of two countries: they’re quite similar and at the same time they’re entirely different. Interesting to say if either civilizations improved during last hundred years, either could have ruled the world.”
You are quite right and it’s shame Cold War politics and Mao/Nehru’s falling out put an wedge in what could’ve be an otherwise fruitful and mutually beneficial alliance. Through time China and India were always the top 2 economies of the world until the zenith of European Colonialism in the 19th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_GDP_%28PPP%29
It’s only a matter of time before the current geriatric generation of leaders of both countries pass on and a new generation embraces the possibilities of what should be an obvious natural alliance.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:14 pm
India and China have had a strong historical connection and co-existed peacefully for quite a long time in the history. However, the modern-day elitists in India have been treating China as a neighbor it can take advantage of during Nehru era, and a competitor and a foe that they got to feel fearful. While most Chinese nowadays only look at India from real mirrors and thinking it as a potential market.
The border dispute and conflicts did not have a deep historical root, so there is a slim hope that issues could be sorted out through negotiation. However, there is no way to reach there until India elitists and politicians can walk out the shadow of their own narrow worldview and inferior complexity. To China, South Tibet, especially Tawang as the birthplace of 6th DL, is an important area to Tibetan population. China thus has to at least get hold of Tawang area as part of an acceptable compromise with India.
There are several recent editorial from Global Times and others:
“India’s unwise military moves”
http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2009-06/436174.html
“India’s provocation irritates Chinese netizens”
http://www.china.org.cn/international/2009-06/15/content_17951232.htm
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Hi Steve,
* Ironically, India is a democratic country and she sides with Russia, a communist country. Just reverse for China.
* Pakistan and India were born as brothers, but they fight each other for ever. The rest of the world should keep ourselves out of their conflicts, same for middle east. No matter what we do or try to do, they never stop fighting.
* India has several concessions with China already. They stopped at least two movie making about Tibet in India territory. Eventually they MAY ask the Tibetan exile to leave the country (heading to USA?) just to be friend with China. Everything has a price.
* The religious Indian soldiers do not fight as hard as the middle east folks. Cultural difference?
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Hi There…Your approach to present this article and the whole controversy is quite fair and appreciable (Some thing I generally don’t find with other bloggers). Herein, I will like to add my view of China, as it appears from India.
Indians do view China as an agressor and considers the 1962 war as a grave betrayal to our beloved leader (then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru) and to the people who had the notion of “Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai” (“Indians and the Chinese are brothers”…the slogan was raised in India by our government, just before the 1962 conflict).
The conflict did the maximum damage on the trust factor and none of the subsequent Indian governments tried to test the Chinese authorities again as a friend.(China’s continuous uncertain behavior has only added to that ! ) The lack of communication has frozen us in time.
Chinese support for Pakistan (giving away nuclear weapons and fighter aircrafts to them generously as a sort of geo political donation, huh !!), annexation of Tibet, demands on Arunachal Pradesh, occupation of Aksai Chin are some of the factors that clearly do not suggest cordial feelings. More over, all of the Chinese neighbours worry its powerplay.
China has made considerable progress in the past 30 years and so has India, in the past 15-20 years of liberalization. The difference lies at the political setup in both countries. Democracies are known to move slow and specially the setup in India in the past 20 years has been terribly fragmented. But, India is still better than its northern neighbour in terms of its fundamentals and our system is more stable in the longer run, both politically and economically.
It will really be tragic if India and China collide once again because its not in the good of any one.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:39 pm
“Arunachal Pradesh” was created in 1986 to reinforce Indian claim on the territory.
It was Tibetan land by all historic accounts—even those of the British.
It was carved off of Tibet in early 1900s by the British Raj on the threat of (another) fullscale British invasion. The Tibetan government was bullied into signing it, while the Chinese central government’s representative refused to sign.
The Chinese view this treaty as a “colonial heritaged” that was forced upon China and therefore refuse to recognize it.
Even though Indians were told by their government that the land “has always been Indian territory”, I have yet to see any evidence to support that claim.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Its difficult to delve into the historical proofs that remain guarded closely by both governments. But the mentality of modern China to cling on to ages back rights over land is ridiculous. Who asked your government to annex Tibet. South Tibet or Arunachal Pradesh, whatever it may be, then its not a question to have bothered the communists, because similar proofs show that Tibet was never a permanent part of China. Communists show territorial ambitions and that is not wise. India has clear proof of the Mauryan empire extending from Afganistan to Burma, but India does not bother about that because, in the modern day setup they are differently recognized and settled countries.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Historic proofs are hardly “guarded closely”…One just has to do a modest amount of research before coming to an educated conclusion. When Zhou Enlai presented historic evidence to Nehru right before the border war, Nehru simply brushed it aside—Which is apparently what you are trying to do.
One more thing, please refrain from referring to the Chinese government as “my government”…Just because you identify with India’s thuggish, murderous and dictatorial corporatocracy does not mean I have to identify with that of China.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Hi Raman,
Thanks for your POV (Indian sided). Territory disputes are never ending among countries. I hope both countries will settle it without any killing. Sometimes what we fight for are not worth the lives we give up.
From many articles (most are written by Indians) in the web, you can find all would say China is better than India in most fronts. Do not believe me, just google ‘China India’ and find the comparison yourself. I have some ideas how India would fix their obstacles and rise – it is not politically correct for me to point out the problems other than China and US, as an American Chinese.
What do you think China has the right to divert water from Tibet from India to North China? I just like to see a different POV, not attacking anyone.
Steve is right that China may not have a claim, but I need to spend more time to understand. The recent drilling close to Vietnam leads me to believe at least one portion of the area is closer to Vietnam than Hainam Island.
China has been peaceful in territory dispute last 20 or so years, and every one benefit. I hope they will continue to do so. Before that, it is a mess. We lost Outer Mongolia (thanks to Russia), a lot of land in North east to Russia, HK, semi colonization under the alliance of 8 foreign devils…
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
@Raman
There is no such thing as an agreed border with India either in our long history (when both sides were not nation states) or modern day as we speak now. I recognize there is a genuine and good intention from you and many Indian folks for peaceful co-existence and development. That’s definitely good for both countries and people. However, there is an urgent need to translate words and wish into actions, while China and Russia already settled their border disputes years ago. So in a sense, China has demonstrated a clear intention of peaceful co-existence and adopted pragmatic view of territorial dispute.
It is useless if India folks continue to hold grudge of past dispute (in which China actually treated India with respect by volunteering a withdraw from the disputed region) and continue with fantasy of some kind of conspiracy theory about Tibet. Tibet was, is and will be part of China regardless how India thinks in its fantasy. If India continues that kind of historical fantasy, it only leads to a clueless end, for example, having to face the co-existence of India and Pakistan states.
The real solution is to look at how Tibetan population occupied South Tibet throughout history and restore the region with mutual respect. On the other side, China is ready to engage talk with Aksai Chin region as part of a permanent settlement on border dispute.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
@ RSOC #9: Your opinion is welcome and you were doing fine until that last sentence. There’s no reason for the “cheap shot” remark about India’s government. If you want to talk about specifics regarding the topic subject, that’s why we’re here but “thuggish, murderous and dictatorial corporatocracy” is out of line. I don’t like to censor but admin has set up rules for the blog so you might want to read them over before you post.
The key to understanding between two cultures is to listen to what the other one is saying and not condemn them for saying it. That goes both ways. How can you expect non-Chinese to learn about and respect China if their own POV isn’t even considered? Don’t you want your own POV to be taken seriously by our Indian readers?
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:32 pm
@TonyP4
‘Territory disputes are never ending among countries”
That is no true though. Wise leadership and strong government can clear up a long historical mess for the greater good of country and its people. Look at how China has settled land border dispute with Russia and Vietnam, and handled other island dispute with Koreans.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:40 pm
I’m not here to broadcast China’s official or even mainstream views…I was merely pointing out what’s true.
I despise Indian ruling class as much as I despise that of China…both are equally thuggish and murderous as far as I know.
Learning the Chinese or the Indian POV is important, but not as important as what is historically true.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Guys,
This is all about geopolitics. China is simply reacting to ADB participating in this two-party dispute. China and India should be allowed to run their course in settling their own disputes – and I think a lot of progress has been made on this front.
Remember, ADB has assisted Pakistan in the past which I am sure India is probably not happy about.
The general trend is China settling border disputes with her neighbors. For example, China and Vietnam have recently marked their border fully. Russia and China are getting closer.
Just to put things in context – U.S.A. and Canada have border disputes. Oh, and just wait until the day when Mexico gets rich and powerful.
Bottom line for me is, its not a pretty sight when 1+ Billion people fight another 1+Billion people.
Chinese media is usually very benign when talking about India. I’ve heard many times that Indian media is pretty hawkish when they cover China related news. On this regard, I think the Indian media needs to be more long term in their thinking.
June 23rd, 2009 at 7:01 pm
@huaren
“Chinese media is usually very benign when talking about India. I’ve heard many times that Indian media is pretty hawkish when they cover China related news. On this regard, I think the Indian media needs to be more long term in their thinking.”
Chinese media may show a stern face due to provocation from India. While India’s elitist media are mostly awash with political fantasies and impotent rage.
June 23rd, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Thanks Steve…I am just back from lunch and saw all the comments…
Coming to the point…I will like to further the case why India suspects China and bring up a few instances that only augment the idea…
1. Chinese reference to dividing the control over the high seas to the American commanders.
I mean, how do you view this…Do you think India or any country will be comfortable with such comments. No one will like Chinese(or any country’s) interference along their naval routes.
2. What was the need of Chinese satellite to be shot down? India has its own constellation up there. Shall we take their weird test easily.
3. Chinese govt has nuke subs. Can India take it easy with them building naval ports at Sri Lanka and Pakistan. We can say that they are non military ventures today but this sort of activity will always be suspicious.
4. What was the need of Chinese govt. to try to block the Indo-US nuke deal in the International community? That too when they kept us assured all through the beginning that they won’t create a problem.
5. What is the irk with the Chinese govt. when India talks about joining the security council at UN?
Please note: I refer to Chinese govt. all the way because being a FREE THINKING Indian (and very proud of that), I understand that an ordinary human will never be bothered to do all this. Rather, its the beurocracy/politics that sows the seeds of distrust.
Also, I do not endorse many of the ideas of my own government but clearly comprehend that they are not murderous and dictatorial. Even if any such guy reaches the top, he/she won’t survive longer at that place.
June 23rd, 2009 at 7:37 pm
@ RSOC #14: You can despise China and India all you want, all I’m asking is to make your remarks specific rather than general. The question posed by the post, “why now?”, was addressed by huaren in #15. Do you have your own conclusions as to the timing?
@ huaren #15: Thanks for addressing the question posed by the post. Why do you think China has a problem with ADB participation? I’d think development in a poor region would be pretty benign. Your assessment about ADB participation seems valid. I’m just curious as to why you think it instigated this particular response.
USA and Canada have a border dispute? I dunno… “Remember the Dixon Entrance” just doesn’t have that classic ring. That’s it! I”m declaring war on SKC! South Park was right!! 😀
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Anyone keeping tract of Sino-Indian relations should not be surprised by this…the Chinese government protests every time there’s an attempt–either real or perceived, to legitimize Indian claim on South Tibet/Arunachal Pradesh.
China continuously refuse entry of Indian politicians whenever the group included politicians from South Tibet/Arunachal Pradesh–whereas India keeps on trying to slip in politicians from the area. If China shows any recognition of Indian politicians from Arunachal, it will be perceived by India as a sign of recognition of Indian soverignty over the territory.
The Chinese government tries to ignore border problems when they can—especially during friendly diplomatic visits. But when confronted, it always put up a “stern face” with regards to border issues, as much of the government’s legitimacy rests on Nationalism.
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:05 pm
India has no alliance, for its official policy of “neutrality”, as it is the head of the “nonaligned nations”.
However, geopolitical reality caused a rather strange mutation of that policy that India does ally itself with Russia.
I think that alliance is only for convenience as India wanted to establish closer ties with former Soviet republics in the north, and US was too far away to be useful in the region.
*
But I am wary of the unpredictable nature of Indian internal politics. Nationalism and paranoid are not strangers to this “democracy”.
*Frankly, if I cannot understand why India and Pakistan are so hostile to each other. They were almost 1 nation, and yet, they have gone to war with one another.
But I perfectly understand, that however that problem came to be, Pakistan and Tibet and the border disputes have become proxy war issues between India and China.
*But India is rife with other internal problems.
(1) the Red Belt of Naxalite rebels on the Eastern regions, it covers almost 1/3 of all Indian territory, and Naxalite attacks increased in recent years, to the point that Indian Government declared it to be 1 of 2 major threat to national security. The other being Islamic terrorists. (Naxalites are Communist insurgents that modeled itself after the Maoists in Nepal.)
(2) The Sikh Nationalists in Punjab still occasionally agitate for independence.
(3) Gorkas now also voiced desire for their own independent “Gorka Land”.
(4) Of course, the continual Islamic independence movement in Kashmir.
(5) The unrealized side effects of India’s “Green Revolution” on agriculture technology. While it increased food production, it has cause significant environmental impacts, including pollution of water. And it has caused decrease in viability of some rural Indian communities. Bankers took advantage of farmers’ need for money to buy new technology, charging huge percentages for farm loans, causing entire villages to go bankrupt. NPR put out some news report of entire villages putting themselves up for sale to the highest bidder, because they cannot repay the loans. These problems if not solved quickly, Indian agriculture could collapse, and a great famine could result.
(6) General bureaucracy of the public services. Hospitals, roads, public security, all lag significantly behind, even as the private sector develops, but it has slowed the private sector down. Indian government “corruption” come in the form of open subsidies for every poor provinces. Every party (over 100 parties) and local politicians hold their hands out for government subsidies. The national budget is burdened by all these subsidies, leaving little for needed public services. This is why roads are outdated. Local subsidies, however, easily go down the drain through levels of bureaucratic mishandling.
India suffers from a similar kind of problem of “Tragedy of the Uncommon” as Philippines, ie. lack of government stimulation while the economy is growing. While foreign investors are keen to put money in, the growth is stifled and limited by the lack of public utilities and support.
Economic data from India is sometimes misleading. for example: Real estate value in Indian cities continue to grow, but closer look will reveal that the price increase is largely due to lack of available real estate, causing a supply shortage.
India’s “No limit to right of appeal” in court, means that Squatters in India can continue to sit on land they do not own, and continue to file appeals in court to prevent rightful land owners from evicting them.
(this is the ultimate democracy gone amok). Mumbai airport expansion project was put on hold because the city government could not evict the squatters who lived on city land.
(remember Slumdog Millionaire? Well, Indian Slum is not only a problem, it’s a problem cuts 2 ways. The poor have no place to go, and the city can’t expand and build while they are there.)
Note: even in US and Canada, eminent domain is often exercise. In US, Supreme Court has ruled that local governments can choose to evict land owners (let alone squatters) and take title of private land, just to increase jobs and tax base.
(Of course, every one forgets that case in US, when China decides to evict people and tear down their houses).
Well, If you want to see what happens when the government doesn’t evict people, go to India.
An Indian friend of mine total rejected the idea of buying land in India. when I asked why? She said, “I have to hire a full time security guard to guard my land from squatters. And then, who’s going to guard against the security guard from becoming a squatter himself?”
*
And don’t think “democracy” is so great in India.
Indian police will beat Tibetan protesters with 5 foot long poles.
And if you are one of the leaders of the Islamic groups in Kashmir. They will put you under house arrest and surveillance.
And if you are in the minority, they don’t need to send the military or the police after you. One of the Nationalist parties will send a mob to your house, and the police won’t be nearby.
(Kashmir just recently went through another round of mob violence last year.)
*
Is India a friend?
That’s not the question.
The question is, given the State of India today with all of its problems, can India see anyone nearby as a “friend”?
And for how long?
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:11 pm
@Raman
You missed the discussion on border dispute completely. It is the same trap from India’s elitist media coverage on China’s co-development activities with other nations. My question is why those activities bother India elitists so much? There is no solution until India elitists abandon their narrow worldview. In China, there is such notion as having the mindset of big nation thinking. Narrow mindedness will prevent India from reaching its potential.
This is modern world. Nations can find ways to work together, and you have to deal with them as part of normal life with an open mind. US and China have many potential conflicts such as Taiwan, yet US and China can still co-exist, and even be friends at many fronts. Most importantly, the intellects and politicians from both sides can make rational assessment on everything happening around the world, and reach out to each other in a constructive fashion with goals of moving forward of their mutual interests.
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:13 pm
@Raman, #17
I agree with what you are saying on the specific items how the Indians view China’s actions. Between China and India, there’s quite a bit of power-politiking and geo-politiking. Its on both sides and you have to agree with that. The most glaring are obviously India’s hosting of the TGIE and China’s support for Pakistan. I have come to accept:
1. the jostling between the two neighbors are going to continue and such thing is “normal” (as between every neighboring countries on this planet, but to a higher degree for some than others)
2. the “normalization” in terms of settling border disputes, economic exchanges between the two, and frankly, a great deal of collaboration within U.N. as “developing” nations overshadows #1.
But I strongly disagree with your last paragraph about free thinking people, etc.. Such views are plain ideology. When either side say they are morally superior and what not, then they are all stupid.
@Steve, #18
My view is accelerated development help from ADB will cause accelerated settlement in areas under dispute. This tilts the resolution in India’s favor and China does not like it. Sure, from purely a humanitarian point of view (which ADB seems to be embarking on), developing poor areas is a great idea.
Regarding dispute between U.S. and Canada – yeah, I saw a Frontline documentary on it. Obviously its not at a scale between India and China’s. But if Canada is equally powerful as the USA, I’d bet the disputes would be talked about in the papers.
Hey, I’d sign up too. I’d take an American baseball and knock some sense into that SKC. Or I’d inject him with some of our biotech so his brain could be wired correctly.
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:25 pm
@huaren
China clearly should voice her objection over ADB’s involvement in Arunachal Pradesh or South Tibet region. It is not the issue of helping the development of that region, but the issue of international recognition on India’s occupation. Activities like those will weaken China’s claim if China did not make a public objection on the record under international law.
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:27 pm
@Shane
Were you the one here telling me about Indian blogspheres always bashing China?
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:28 pm
@Shane, #23
“Activities like those will weaken China’s claim if China did not make a public objection on the record under international law.”
I completely agree with you.
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:04 pm
@huaren #22
🙂 read my last paragraph once again … it does not reflect moral superiority. Rather, its a kind of legitimate self defence + moral equality …
I really got a few good views from some neighbours and the world watchers … I believe that this sort of power playing will continue in the future, possibly as will be the case with any two potential big players…but no 1 really wants 2+ billion people fighting and I hope both governments will realize their responsibilities that will come with great power…
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Interesting argument going on here. So who exactly is the “elitist Indian media” i keep reading about? I mean what country’s media is NOT elitist? I don’t see too many peasents and workers running major media corporations anywhere.
Indians are naive in thinking that China is a power they can match anytime in the forseeable future, unless China breaks up into pieces. The Indian media loves to compare the two countries, without highlighting the enormous changes that China undergoes every year. China is perhaps the most dynamic country in the world today, even if it is repressive, nationalistic, and full of anger about past injustices.
The Indian government cannot morally or otherwise justify parting with populated territory. These are not simply pieces of land, but citizens with rights. And if the PRC leadership is so concerned about the emotional well being and sentiment of its Tibetan populace, why not give them what they really want?
This whole issue with the ADB is a part of the fig leaf China maintains over its continuing strategy to keep India off balance. Pure posturing, and necessary. The only reason China settled with Russia (and not with the Soviets) was because Russia was weak and was willing to compromise, while the Soviets were not. Same for the Vietnamese. It suits China’s strategy to keep India off balance, and focused on South Asia (with it’s disfunctional twin Pakistan/Bangladesh). If China determines that India is no longer a threat, or that India has something that China needs badly, it will negotiate away the pieces of land it claims.
As for all this stuff about India and China being friends, they cannot ever be friends. Two completely different cultures, with different views (and clashing) views about their place in the world today and in the future. All the Chinese got from India was some philosophy, and that doesn’t make for a strong foundation. They only share mutual contempt mixed with admiration from India’s part about the PRC’s economic progress, and disdain on China’s part about Indian backwardness and lack of focus, strategy or effectiveness.
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:30 pm
@Raman, #26
I reread your last paragraph more carefully. Sorry, I jumped the guns. Anyways, I think you have your fingers on the pulse in terms of priority. I hope you help with moderating the views on your side – I try to do the same with my circle of friends.
@SB, #27
I for one are lot more optimistic than you. To me, you represent those who would like to egg on these two neighboring giants so they start their fist fight in the school yard.
Let’s see – U.S. and Japan killed millions of people on each side. Why are they able to normalize their relations? How could E.U. be possible when Hitler’s Germany was only just little over 50 years ago? To me, these examples had greater odds against them normalizing than China and India.
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Steve, out of curiosity was there a translation available on the Chinese-language website? If not then this was a message for foreign consumption, not domestic.
I’m guessing that underlying and unresolved issues between China and India are the overall cause of the article, but the immediate reason it was written/published was the ADB loan. The Chinese government can be a bit hyper-sensitive sometimes – I’m not sure why it would reasonably object to a development loan for a region. Or maybe it’s a bit of an act, who knows. Certainly I don’t think that deploying less than a squadron of fighters is notable. I’m not sure what China and India’s respective troop deployments are like in that region.
The article alleges that foreign countries have tried to “convince” India that China is a rival, but really that’s down to China. China has made friends with India’s neighbours, expanded transport links into the area, etc. Then there are the longer-term economic and strategic issues. It doesn’t matter what China’s actual intentions are – there is still enough suspicion in India about China that negative assumptions can be made. But then the same can be said the other way around.
I think it would help China (and India) to realise that if the other’s suspicion really is unfounded, the same could be said about its own fears. Why not say that both are needlessly worried and should stop assuming the worst about each other?
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Huaren, thanks for your comment. Neither side wants conflict, but China recognizes that it is far more powerful, and is peeved that India doesn’t give it the recognition (as in acceptance of superior standing and power) as it deserves. I actually wish that India had better governance, and was able to create, and maintain a strategy that was suitable to its ‘actual’ power and capabilty. India recently moved troops into the disuputed region, due to the increasing belligerency of the statements coming out of Beijing, but these are inconsequential compared to the forces on the Chinese side located in Tibet.
As i said, this article and other like it are non-issues. China will settle when: a) India is greatly weakened and in need of stability, or b) When China is weak and in need of stability, assuming India is relatively more powerful than it is now. From media reports, it would appear that India is willing to settle both its disuptes wih the Pakistanis and Chinese by converting the LOC (Line of Control) and the LOAC (Line of Actual Control) respectively into international borders. No movement of people or transfer of territories. China doesn’t accept this primarily because it has no interest in letting this issue rest – the issue is more important than any settlement would be.
The only reason the US and Japan normalized, was because the US won overwhelmingly WW2. Japan accepted its status as a client state, and has since relied on the US for protection. That may change in the future, but there is a clear sense of superior power/inferior power (patron-client) relationship between the two. As for the EU – the only reason they got together was because the French hated losing their influence, and wanted to use German and western European continental resources to regain some of it, in the form of the E.U. If the Soviet Army didn’t have 6 Million solders and over 50,000 tanks in Eastern Europe, no E.U. Look at what is happening to the EU nowadays – no common focus or collective action beyond meetings and endless bureaucracy – no common threat.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:07 pm
I share SB’s pessimism.
India, unfortunately, has never been a truly unified country. As a nation, it is still struggling to maintain its national image.
But what is India? Some nationalists argue that India should be “Hindu Nation”. This Hindu Nationalism is a dangerous new trend, unlike the historically more tolerant brand of Hinduism.
A Hindu nationalist India will not be a “democracy” in any sense, nor would it be practical or rational in any of its negotiations.
*for its part, China is unrelentingly cold and calculating in its geopolitical strategy, and sometimes fails to account for or appease the religious feelings of its neighbors and Tibetans.
China does not want to know or understand why India and Pakistan don’t like each other, it just knows that it is a reality for now.
*For India, its primary fear remains the influence of non-Hindu ideologies.
Thus, it is drawn to “similar ideologies” and “similar cultures” to extend its national influence. Such as, along Nepal, Tibet, Sri Lanka, etc.
India’s troubles will be along the dissimilar cultures and neighbors nearby, or drawn into internal conflicts of the similar culture neighbors.
Conceivably, India cannot realistically become very unified nor develop sustainably, as it will not be tolerant of much external influence, especially in the sphere of its politics.
Local politics in India are factionalized to regional political parties, each with its own entrenched local political interests, many based upon its old outdated “caste system”.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:10 pm
My dear friends.
Being to China many times on business and having a wife from that country I can tell you my side of China. Though I am residing here in USA, my heart is always with China. But I hate the Communist and the way they suppress our people. We had golden opportunity to mend our relation with India but our communist govt. always wanted to sideline India. They tried to give Nuclear to Pakistan. India could have given Nuclear to South Korea or to Taiwan. They had given J10 fighter jet to Pakistan. They stood by Pakistan on every tike Pakistan fought with India. If Pakistan tells the whole world that they need nuclear coz of India, then why can’t India go nuclear coz of China nuclear bomb. What rights does give china to take over Aksi Kashmir. China trying to go everywhere around India and tried to encircle India. They opened ports in Sri Lanka and Myanmar and Pakistan. They tried to give huge amount of Aids (in millions) to the neighbors of India, where as many of the poor countries in Africa and South America never got a penny from China. If you look at America and Europe, every message parlor and prostitution is staffed by Chinese girls. For money they can do anything. How many Indian prostitute have you seen in America or in Europe. Chinese mentality is to get money by hook or crook. They are not fair. They can copy all the copy right protected engineering products including electronics and sale it. India could also do that. But that is where the ethics comes to picture. Every Chinese man has more than one ladies other then wife in their life. They are called Geisha. as far as morale is concerned, they don’t have. India has corruption and they are not with the wife or daughter. An India police man taking money for traffic via lotion is much safer than a Chine Govt supporting a mafia driven manufacturing industry where they can infringe any copy right. God bless this world from this Chinese menace.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:21 pm
@Saurav Mohanty, #32
Dude, you shall abide by the forum’s rules and do not hit under the belt. The topic is quite different and you are speaking some thing very different. Since, morning I, and many others are spending their time over this in order to get each other’s views and understand each other, in whatever small way possible. Don’t waste our time ‘cos till now it was more or less positive. You say rubbish and the same will follow.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Saurav Mohanty – I am not sure what you are talking about, but then i don’t think you are either. Geisha is a Japanese term. By your name, you sound Indian, yet use the phrase ‘we’ when referring to China, and “suppress our people”. Who is “our”?
China is trying to increase its influence and as part of that strategy it is using the ‘string of pearls’ strategy. Why wouldn’t it follow a strategy that has paid such rich dividends?
Do you have facts to back up your statements regarding prostitution? What is the relevance of this to the ADB’s decision to fund development in disputed territories? I think you are referring to ‘morals’ not morale, and i cannot believe that you can back this up credibly. I have found people of Chinese origin to vary in their individual sense of morality just as much as others, and i find it hard to believe that you found it otherwise.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:46 pm
@SB, #30
The way I see it is – if the gap in strength between China and India further widens, then a settlement after that would likely be viewed by the weaker as something extremely unacceptable: which means they will need to be “settled” again far into the future.
To me, a settlement that is going to be more long term and agreeable is when both sides are somewhat similar in strength.
Given China wishes to nurture its internal development and stability, I truly believe it is in the mood to settle disputes – Vietnam, Russia, and Korea are examples.
Also, I only partly agree with your explanation about Japan and U.S. (and E.U. countries) normalizing. I also think its the economic integration that is help sealing the relationships.
Raman and I just agreed – it’d be insane for 2+Billion people to be fighting each other. Any rational person on this planet would want to stop that. If you are looking for that magic bullent “only” reason, then I say this is that reason. This, along with economic integration and other steps towards normalization – those are reasons for my optimism.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Clearly, there are some genuine interests to draw a permanent border by both China and India. Without such effort, ongoing nation building by both sides will suffer. There are common fundamental interests from both sides, but they are inherently not based on goodwill from either side.
The issue is how to draw the border. One thing is certain that any solution will not come from looking inward of each other internal politics, given the huge difference between two political systems. A feasible solution can only come from a pragmatic view of history, a common desire for peaceful co-existence and by looking outward for co-operation and co-development.
Below is a link in Wiki about Menba people with sizable population in Arunachal Pradesh or South Tibet. 6th DL was born as a Menba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monpa#History
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Regarding Arunachal Pradesh… The state has elected representatives in the Indian parliament. Is there anyone from the state present in CCP? Do people there want to be with China? These are the questions which need to be answered before saying that it belongs to China. Between India and China, the latter has been the oppressor (war aggressive strategy etc. All Chinese media has to say is about posting 60K soldiers — that too without a proper source) and regarding Indian media they can be retarded at times, but at least they don’t churn out one-sided copies like the one quoted in the post. China uses media for propaganda and not for information dissemination. Instead they have used the context to further the hate Chinese have for India.
Someone above said that India should forget the grudge of the war in the 60’s and move on. Yes we should and so should China. They should start afresh.
What I find unbelievable is that China is intimidated by this development grant from ADB. Now I know why politicians in India get worked up when US and EU offer Pakistan Billions to eradicate terrorism and rescue their economy. =D
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Arunachal Pradesh was, is, and will be a part of India! China must recognise that this area is and always has been an integral and inalienable part of sovereign Indian territory!
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:51 pm
@raventhorn4000
I’d give India more credit. Their GDP has been growing very steadily in the last decade. I’d say they are trending similarily to China, albeit China is on this growth path longer.
Look, the trade between U.S. and Canada are HUGE, simply because of their proximity. If the two countries normalize, I’d expect China and India to have the highest trade volume anywhere on this planet. There’s clearly more to gain from a good relationship than from a lousy one.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:54 pm
@Shane9219
Does it matter where the people were born? The whole of Pakistan was under King Ashoka once up a time. Does that mean India can lay claim to it? No we can’t, because they are an independent sovereign country. I would liek o highlight sovereign there. Also, just because there are like a million Indians in Britain doesn’t make Britain part of India, does it? If people decided to migrate to a different place it’s because of a reason. Would you like to guess the reason?
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:08 pm
@Otto Kerner
During 1962 border war, China would not achieve the kind of result without the popular support of local Tibetan population. That said everything.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:13 pm
@Balu
All your arguments made here are due to the fact South Tibet are currently under occupation by India. How naive and childish, what more you can put out? LoL.
You indeed need to study history, see how South Tibet was governed by Lhasa authority until earlier 20th century when India became a colony and was ruled by GB.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monpa#History
“Earliest records to the area which the Monpas inhabited today indicated the existence of a kingdom known as Lhomon or Monyul which existed from 500 B.C to 600 A.D.[4] Subsequent years saw Monyul coming under increasing political and cultural influence, which was apparent during the years when Tsangyang Gyatso, an ethnic Monpa, became the Dalai Lama. At that time, Monyul was divided into thirty two districts, all of which spanned the areas of Eastern Bhutan, Tawang, Kameng and Southern Tibet. However, Monyul, also known as Tawang Tract remained thinly populated throughout its history.[5]
In the 11th century, the Northern Monpas in Tawang came under the influence of Tibetan Buddhism of the Nyingma and Kagyu denominations. It was at this time when the Monpas adopted the Tibetan script for their language. Drukpa missionaries made the presence felt in the 13th century and the Gelugpa, in the 17th century, which most Monpas belong to today.[6]
Monyul remained an autonomous entity, of which local monks based in Tawang held great political power within the community, and direct rule over the area from Lhasa was established only in the 17th century. From this time until the early 20th century, Monyul was ruled by the authorities in Lhasa, and, through them, by the Qing Emperor of China. However, in the 19th century, the area began to interest British India. One of the first British-Indian travellers into Monyul, Nain Singh, who visited the area from 1875-6 noted that the Monpas were a conservative people who shunned off contact with the outside world and were making efforts to monopolise trade with Tibet. Owing to its strategic position, subsequently the British sought to make their political influence felt.
In 1914, Britain and its colonial authorities in India drew the McMahon Line, which they claimed to be the border between Chinese Tibet and British India. The line divided the land in which the Monpas inhabited, and became a source of contention in the subsequent years to come owing to ambiguities to the specific location of the McMahon Line.[7]
In subsequent years, China continued to claim the pre-McMahon border as the border between Tibet and India, while British India gradually established effective control over Monyul south of the McMahon line. Following the independence of India and a change of government in China, the dispute became a major issues in the relations between the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of India. The McMahon Line was the effective line of control in this period, though the border was somewhat porous. In 1962, a Chinese military patrol which ventured south of the McMahon Line drew a military response from India, which resulted in the Sino-Indian War. During the war, China took effective control of the entire Monyul area south of the McMahon Line as well as some other surrouding areas. However, the war ended with China’s voluntary withdraw north of the McMahon Line. Negotiations on the dispute remain active.”
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:19 pm
@ Raman: I’m curious. Until the British created in effect what is India today (minus Pakistan and Bangladesh), India was a series of principalities with the breakup of the Moghul Empire. I was at a party recently where there was one couple from the Punjab and another from near Kerala. Everything about them was so different and I’m wondering how much of a nationalistic spirit do you feel exists in India these days? Do you feel people identify more with their province or more with the country itself? Is the feeling of nationalism stronger in one part of the country over another? What part of the country are you from? How is regionalism as compared to nationalism there? Is the Hindu/Muslim situation as dire as it sounds in the media? Or is it more of an India/Pakistan situation?
A company I used to work for was approached by several Indian companies who wanted to import our product. But after we researched it, the tariffs, both national and provincial, were so high that it just wasn’t worth the effort. It seems there are layers and layers of bureaucracy that need to be penetrated before business can be successful, so we gave up. Is that situation starting to change? Is the government becoming more progressive in that respect?
It seems Saurev Mohanty’s post was collapsed before I checked the comments again. Just to be safe, I added to it. That’s exactly what we don’t want to see here. I appreciate Raman’s positive attitude with everyone. Thank you all for treating Raman with the same respect.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:29 pm
@ Raj #29:
“Steve, out of curiosity was there a translation available on the Chinese-language website? If not then this was a message for foreign consumption, not domestic.”
Sorry Raj, I missed this earlier comment. I don’t know if this article is also in Chinese. I just found it on the English side. Could someone try to answer Raj’s question?
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:46 pm
@Raj
Recent editorials from Global Times and other media are in response to India’s announcement of new military deployment to South Tibet or Arunachal Pradesh. Try to educate yourself more about the situation.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:29 am
Shane,
Arunachal Pradesh territory is the patrimony of all the Indian people, not just a few local people! Only if Indian people together agreed can it ever be dissevered from the motherland, otherwise the government has an eternal responsibility to safeguard all national property!
June 24th, 2009 at 1:08 am
@Otto Kerner
Your simplistic argument don’t stick. South Tibet was put under the administration of GB and colonial India because of the McMahon Line draw in earlier 20 century. China never recognized the notorious McMahon Line. That is the fact that will always stick, and South Tibet as an integral part of Tibet region will always stick.
June 24th, 2009 at 1:45 am
“China-India Relations: An Unresolved Border and 60,000 Troops Deployed”
From Atlantic Council
http://acus.org/new_atlanticist/china-india-relations-unresolved-border-and-60000-military-personnel-deployed
“When two countries have gone to war over an unresolved border and one of these announces the deployment of 50,000-60,000 troops and nuclear-capable combat planes along this border, the reader would likely expect the second country to sit up and take notice. This is exactly what happened over the last month between India and China. …”
“… Of the 14 countries that China borders, it is only with India that the issue of territorial demarcation remains unresolved”
“In particular, Arunachal Pradesh province in northeastern India has continued to be a bone of significant contention with increased rhetoric from both sides over the past year. Last January, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had a very successful three day visit to China. Yet, later that month, Singh went on a two day visit to Arunachal Pradesh and publicly stated that Arunachal Pradesh is part of India. ”
“South Asia has enough problems and does not need a military confrontation between India and China added to that list. China has successfully negotiated border boundaries with former Soviet states; earlier this year, Vietnam and China agreed upon the final demarcation of their land border. This unresolved border dispute between China and India is an unnecessary impediment to furthering ties between the two states.
China and India combined have over one third of the world’s population living within their borders; it is for the benefit of these people that the leaders of both countries must resolve the border question. The status quo has existed for over 45 years, and it is difficult to understand why two leading states like China and India cannot negotiate and agree on a political resolution to this matter. Bilateral relations will dramatically improve, as will economic ties, once these two determine the international boundary that separates them. In the current scenario there are two losers, China and India, and this need not be the case.”
June 24th, 2009 at 1:46 am
Shane,
You are quite mistaken. I haven’t made any arguments at all so far — merely a series of assertions.
June 24th, 2009 at 1:51 am
Otto,
Whatever happened to right to declare independence by referendum of that state?
Why didn’t India allow the Sikhs to get their own homeland? And imposed a blacklist of Sikhs, and would not allow them to return to India?
June 24th, 2009 at 1:58 am
Huaren,
India had no embargo against it for a long time, and yet, it stagnated from 1950’s all the way to recently.
Why?
I shall give credit to the Indian people, they are fully capable of achieving great things, individually.
But I don’t give much credit to the Indian Government, its democracy, and its laws. I believe much of India’s problems are from its systems of Constitutional Democracy with outdated laws and caste system.
June 24th, 2009 at 2:22 am
@Huaren, R4K
I also don’t put any expectation upon current India leader Dr. Manmohan Singh, he may be a competent economist, but lack of integrity and soul to become a great politician.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:54 am
I agree with Huaren’s post (#39). India began their development later than China, although it does seem that they have more structural problems – regulations and tariffs being the main obstacle to foreign trade, and poverty and corruption the main problem for domestic development. It remains to see whether these problems will be solved.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:18 am
I am from the land under dispute..Arunachal Pradesh.
It is tragically comic to see Indians and Chinese debate ownership of my land without giving a flying glance to the actual inhabitants views.
This is totally in line with the underlying hypocrisy of both Governments– both the Indians and the Han fought tooth and nail against ” colonialists ” and ” imperialist” foreigner, but when those powers went back to their own land both Indians and Chinese had no compunction forcibly occupying the land of others AGAINST the will of the native populace’ ,even going to the extent of killing and raping thousands–examples being Kashmir and Tibet.
If the Indians and Chinese are so cocksure of their positions why dont they allow referendum under UN auspices to disputed areas like Kashmir, Tibet and Arunachal?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:20 am
@hohoho
What your point of making a rude comment here? Does it make India any stronger? That is why India’s elitists and politicians are mostly a childish bunch and could never grow up.
It was the case back in 1962 when Nehru instigated a policy of frontier expansion, when faced a humble defeat then ran to US and UK for help. It is still a case by current India leaders.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:21 am
A ton of misinformation here.
There are 2 pieces of land in contention between China and India. One piece is Southern Tibet/Arunachal Pradesh, which is a piece of fertile land currently controlled by India; the other is Aksai Chin, which is a piece of barren land currently controlled by China. AP is to the south of Himalaya, much tougher for China to defend it militarily, which was the main reason why China chose to retreat even in 1962 after China overran it. Aksai Chin is an uninhabited valley between 2 mountain ranges that is the only viable route between Xinjiang and Tibet at the West frank.
Since as early as the late 50s when Zhou Enlai managed the foreign policies, China’s position has been known to India: China is willing to settle the border dispute with China taking Aksai Chin and India taking AP. Translation: China is willing to settle the border based on the LoC. In case you wonder why China has made noise about ADB loan to AP, it’s simple — you can’t make AP de facto India’s under some sort of international framework, which will gradually make Aksai Chin the only piece of disputed land. Your willingness to settle half-way, doesn’t mean you should start half-way.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:44 am
@JXie #56
“Since as early as the late 50s when Zhou Enlai managed the foreign policies, China’s position has been known to India: China is willing to settle the border dispute with China taking Aksai Chin and India taking AP.”
You got it ALL WRONG. Since 50s, Chinese Premier Zhou En-lai suggested that both India and China should “temporarily maintain the status quo” on LoC with a goal to maintain peace and tranquility of border regions. A permanent border should be drawn through further negotiation. Premier Zhou never said to let India take AP permanently.
That was in a written letter to Nehru in 1958, also consistent with China’s position at the conclusion of 1962 border war.
During recent negotiation, China continued to show a good willingness for a negotiated settlement, but a settlement in South Tibet should at least include the returning of Tawang tract, the birthplace of 6th DL.
Just read book “China-India relations” By Amardeep Athwal
on page 21
http://books.google.com/books?id=-y_24J9SJYgC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=Zhou+Enlai++Arunachal+Pradesh&source=bl&ots=P83Jq9cG9G&sig=7hRY8BAXvXhsRS7bVJW-hlUrttk&hl=en&ei=fq1BSrvII4XsswPFsdGQBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5
June 24th, 2009 at 5:12 am
Shane, China already practically accepted the McMahon’s Line while settled border with Myanmar, why would China insist otherwise with India, given that India is stronger than Myanmar and there is no equivalent of Aksai Chin vis-a-vis Myanmar? There are so many reports on this already in Chinese. Allow me to quote one (see http://blog.ifeng.com/article/2535265.html):
1960年4月，周恩来第三次访问印度，在两国总理会谈中，周表达了中国的重要立场，要点如下∶
①中印边界问题应该通过谈判解决。 ②通过谈判双方缔结新约，中国将不在谈判中提出领土要求，新条约会肯定旧条约（所谓旧约既划定麦克马洪线的《西姆拉备忘录》）中的边境走向。但这是两个平等国家协商的结果，可以消除旧的不平等条约的恶果。 ③中国谋求边界问题的全面解决。 ④如果印度接受中国在西段的现控制线，中国就准备接受麦克马洪线。虽然麦克马洪线是英国殖民主义者与西藏地方政府非法划定的，但中国仍然愿以现实主义的态度对待它。
In the English domain, there was a report in the 80s by either Time or Newsweek, on Deng’s position on the land disputes with India, which according to that piece, was simply following Zhou’s original position. I am sure many nationalists would think giving up South Tibet is traitorous, which is why in the democratic India, no politicians would be willing to give up Aksai Chin despite (IMHO) it’s the right thing to do given the overall geopolitics.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:53 am
To Steve #18:
“That’s it! I”m declaring war on SKC! South Park was right!!”
—you bet. Blame Canada! But seriously, we have border disputes? In the Arctic maybe.
To Huaren #22:
“I’d take an American baseball and knock some sense into that SKC.”
—we play hockey in these parts. Good luck trying to catch me on the ice…and remember to keep your head up when crossing the blue line, especially over the middle.
To Buru #54:
fantastic idea. Simple. Respectable. Representative. Too bad those things don’t typically play well to the crowd around these parts.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:40 am
Nothing of substance has changed. Perhaps this loan is a small precedent about the status of Arunachal Pradesh (or rather Tawang, since the rest of “Arunachal” is not disputed). However it is a very small issue and will not affect how India or China view each other in any way either positive or negative.
Some interesting issues come out of this discussion but for the most part it is the usual mishmash of Chinese who know very little about China and nothing about India, arguing with Indians who know very little about India and nothing about China.
The west of “Arunachal Pradesh” (an artificial name for an articifial province) is Tawang, the old Tibetan province. Tibetan administrators only left here in 1951 when pushed out by the Indian army (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawang_district). The centre and parts of the east are former headhunters (Apatanis, Mishmis, Nagas – the terms are always disputed, the ethnic mix is complex and was never homogenised by a forceful administration). The east is Burmese. The Monpa people of Tawang don’t really like being part of this strange monster of a state and want out (http://www.telegraphindia.com/1081103/jsp/northeast/story_10055038.jsp). Like most small Himalayan areas traditionally bullied by their neighbours (Kashmir, Ladakh, Tibet, Zanskar, Sikkim etc) their first preference is indepence or significant autonomy; they envy Bhutan. Their second preference is Tibet (their cultural and religious home, even though Tibetans look down on Monpas). Their third preference is India (corrupt, stifling, incompetent and poor, but at least it leaves you mostly alone to practise your religion). Their last preference is China (good roads, economy better than India but dominated by Han with others marginalised; brutal suppression of Buddhism and disrespect for Dalai Lama intolerable).
The Indian bureaucracy and the Chinese bureaucracy are similar in the ways many large bureaucracies are (inflexible, greedy, amoral, arrogant), though of course they have the national characteristics of their respective countries (Indians talk too much, never follow through, can’t agree and coordinate to accomplish anything; Chinese talk little, and when they do nobody can understand what they are saying because they are mostly exchanging coded threats). The Chinese people – want to be number one, will support their bureacracy in whatever it takes to get there. The Indian people – more mixed, more of a real civil society, but equally more of a real poverty-stricken underclass.
The issue between India and China is Tibet. The Indian bureaucracy doesn’t care about Tibet in the way they don’t care about anything that has been proved dangerous for them in the past. The Indian people (not everyone, of course, but a large percentage of those who get three square meals a day, which is to say perhaps half) are sympathetic to the Tibetans. His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the refugees have always been welcomed even though many bureaucrats would like to get rid of them and lose the embarassment/confrontation. The general impression is that the Tibetans are a good, peaceful people and they don’t deserve to be bullied and tortured by the Chinese as they have been since 1950. (Of course the Kashmiris don’t deserve to be suppressed by India as they have been since 1953; but then humans are generally better at noticing other people’s crimes than their own).
Enough with the complexities; down to the simple issues. Is there a clash coming? Not in the next ten years, both countries are too weak. In the long run? Perhaps, because of Tibet, like last time. As long as China occupies Tibet, India will be a haven and a place of hope for Tibetans, and China will always resent this – that was why Mao launched the 1962 war (see http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~johnston/garver.pdf). Until the Chinese state, the Indian state, or the Chinese occupation of Tibet changes fundamentally, the risk of a repetition/enlargement of this conflict exists. Nuclear deterrence makes the risk small. The most likely outcome for now is continued hostility and grumbling, without open violence.
What does “change fundamentally” mean? India could get its act together and reform its administration to become an effective modern state – unlikely in the short run but probably inevitable in the medium term (25 year horizon). China could move towards authoritarian democracy (same).
June 24th, 2009 at 6:43 am
@JXie #58
I am quite puzzled by the fact why you brought out a few mistaken words from a rather casual source.
The fact on 1960’s visit was that India and China already engaged at sparadic border conflicts. During the visit, Premier Zhou brought out the idea of exchanging Aksai Chin for Chumbi Valley. Members of Chinese delegate were against it, Nehru also against the idea. AP has the size of 90,000. It was impossible to give it all to India.
Just read the book “India-China border dispute” by M. L. Sali on Page 113
http://books.google.com/books?id=Z6y2E9gw5oIC&pg=PP1&dq=India-China+border+dispute&hl=zh-CN
June 24th, 2009 at 7:05 am
@Shane9219
Interesting book but there is a rule of thumb in Indian historical writing: never believe anything written by any author who refers to the McMahon line as the McMohan line. The reasons for this rule are complex but it is generally sound.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:21 am
@Ramesh
As you may see, I posted a couple of books written by India folks to support my POV 🙂
The border dispute between India and China is not a simple issue since it involves painful past history of imperalist, regional geopolitics, distinctive internal politics, well-being and history of local population. It is, however, the best interest of two nations to show geniune willingness to work together and find a permanent solution, so that the nation building process of both people can continue peacefully and to close a chapter of painful modern history.
June 24th, 2009 at 8:34 am
Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh is in important Tibetian Buddist center and Chinese control of Tibet will never be complete if China can not gain control over Tawang. A few years back there were even reports in the media that China was willing to settle all disputed territory in India’s favor provided that India gave Tawang to China.
However, what the communist regime in China (which is used to getting its way in China through force or suppression of freedom) doesn’t realize that no government in India can give away a populated territory of India to another country without committing political suicide. War would be an easier option.
Also from what I can see here the Chinese tend to blow a lot of hot air while glorifying themselves and this is quite evident from several posts on this blog and recent editorials in state controlled Chinese newspaper. But the fact is that whatever temporary or permanent disparity may exist between China or India, China can not expect to wrestle Tawang out of India’s hand through the use of force. This is not 1962, both countries have nuclear weapons and means to deliver them to each others territory. Any major war between China and India will also wreak the global economy.
The only “peaceful” option for both China and India is to accept the status-quo along the border. In the long run China has more to loose, since the Indian’s don’t yet realize that they can lay claim to Tibet as well. Tibet is as much (if not more) a cultural and historical part of India has its is of China.
The day India realizes that they can lay a claim on Tibet, China will have a bigger mess on its hands. Perhaps this is the reason why the Chinese are so aggressive in general (or maybe its just the repressive communist regime that only understands, respects, and desires “power”, but nothing else).
June 24th, 2009 at 9:12 am
@Albert Pinto #64
>> “The day India realizes that they can lay a claim on Tibet,”
It is not the first time to read such statement. Don’t think you become any smarter by making such suggestion. Your personal hatred of communism does not convert into any factual support, but only reflect your childish thinking.
It is a kind of political fantasy that can be found in some elitist India media ( see my post #16). It is a popular thinking among India elitists that India got a few nuks, and so and so … ? Do you think India is dare to use any nuk on a border dispute with China without the risk of disintegrating itself into small pieces. It’s like a child of 10 years old to show off his new toy without knowing it is only a toy and can’t make him fly.
Tell me how it is possible to lay any claim on Tibet when GB and colonial India only discovered Tawang in earlier 20th century.
Tawang is important to Tibetan culture since it was a birth place of 6th DL, who was born as Menba. Such nature fact is also a writing on stone to support China’s claim over AP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monpa#History
>> “Tibet is as much (if not more) a cultural and historical part of India has its is of China”
What on the earth you are talking about? Just because Buddhism was adopted in Tibetan region? You may say India can lay claim over entire China and Japan, since Buddhism was also adopted there.
>> “A few years back there were even reports in the media that China was willing to settle all disputed territory in India’s favor provided that India gave Tawang to China.”
That is just your own construction. The current common practice in the world is to divide a territory in half between two sides. China only suggested that any settlement on AP of over 90,000 sqkm should first and foremost include Tawang district.
June 24th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Shane, first, let me just say the disputes and the history of these disputes are very complicated. There have been different accounts of the past events. If you want to seek the likely truths, you ought to cross-reference with other sources and put on a thinking cap. Out of the 2 books only Sali’s book can potentially dispute the account that in 1960 Zhou Enlai offered to exchange AP with Aksai Chin, which if happened, very likely was verbal and non-binding. I would take Sali’s book with a grain of salt, since his account seems to lack support by other sources. Anyway you can search with keywords “Arunachal Pradesh Aksai Chin Zhou Deng”, or in Chinese “周恩来 麦克马洪 邓小平 印度”, and read the vast number of accounts on the very same topic. From my vantage point, China is willing to accept the McMahon Line in exchange for the official recognition of Aksai Chin by India.
Ramesh, China pretty much disputes the whole Arunachal Pradesh, see http://ibnlive.in.com/news/arunachal-is-chinese-territory-envoy-minces-no-words/26108-3.html. In actuality, China’s starting point in negotiation is likely the bulk of Arunachal Pradesh, or China calls Zang Nan (South Tibet).
June 24th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Also a few facts about the sizes of these areas, which should help in grasping the issues in hand (numbers are rounded to 2nd digit):
Arunachal Pradesh: 84000 km2
Zang Nan: 63000 km2
Tawang: 2100 km2
Aksai Chin: 38000 km2
June 24th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Steve (44)
For the moment I’ll take the position that this was English-language only and meant for foreign consumption.
Shane (45)
You’re such a charming guy, as usual. But the simple announcement of forces to a region does not necessitate an angry response from the CCP mouthpiece. Does the military deployment give India a disproportionate military advantage in that region, or merely seek to re-balance it? Certainly China has made investment in transport links in its territory to let it move forces around much more speedily.
Without details of overall military deployments and other related capabilities, the fact India has strengthened its hand does not mean much, unless China gets annoyed by other nations merely trying to reach parity with it.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
SKC,
Not much border dispute with Canada, since well, Canada let the British give away a lot of land in the Oregon Treaty. Canucks didn’t even put up a fight.
And, Indian “democracy” wouldn’t tolerate too well your kind of “referendum” talk either. 🙂
Talk of “baseball bats”, better stay on your little ice hockey arena up in Canada, as long as you can. With the Canadian way of settling border disputes (eg. in Oregon), you won’t have that for long.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Raj,
“Reaching parity” is one thing. No one is objecting to India reach parity on its military forces in general.
Publicly denouncing China as #1 threat while doing it, seems to suggest duplicity in motive.
If India wants to build roads and transportation systems, let it.
Increasing troops to border is typically considered military provocation and aggressive posturing.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
@Steve #43
India has people of different color, religion and languages living together. Each state may give you a different flavor of literature, dressing styles but the underlying culture and ideas are the same. You need to live it to believe it and I do not mind this ignorance because this is very much a unique factor in the world. I was born in the northern state of Haryana(adjacent to Punjab) and worked in Maharashtra(central part) and Kerala (southern tip of India) and was very much amazed to discover this fact when I was taken around the country due to my work.
What binds us together is the fact that the Indian intellectuals and rulers at various times(Moguls, Mauryas etc) always treated us as a single nation that spanned regions east of Pakistan and the modern Indian state. The regional governments(of different sorts at different times) always had a regional flavor but more or less all the time they had central rulers presiding at Delhi or Kalkutta. There was no restriction on the movement of people based on regional identities. Moreover, the cultural differences are more at the level of practices not in the mindset. People from different states are equally nationalistic.
Some one mentioned the problems in Punjab and Kashmir. Punjab had a real separatist movement but that withered off because the people realized the cross border politics with time and also, the divisive policies of some central and state governments. I firmly believe thats the same case with Kashmir and its going to settle down.
You asked about the taxes and beurocracy…its going out but things aren’t changing as fast as in China. Reason being: democracy(not a problem) and short sighted politicians(the main problem).
One difference that I percieve between India and China is that India has never been very aggressive or bully in its foreign policy (you would agree with that). Rather our politicians(specially in the last 20 years) were more busy with pity internal politics.
The significant thing that goes un noticed is, that Indian growth is people driven(government loosened the rules and private entrepreneurs excelled) whereas Chinese model is state driven. Both models seem to grow in near future but Indian approach is more promising in the long run. Reason: Chinese growth hinges on Communist regime and as any other state, if we see a change of regime in future or if the Communists go wrong in economic policies, China will have to search for alternatives. Historical proofs of wrong moves by the Communist Chinese rulers are present. Under those times, Indian model of better private entreprenuerial skills and lesser government guidance and bullying will prove better.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Neither.
The impasse between China and India is fairly simple. India views China as a rival and yardstick with which to measure it’s progress. China views India as largely irrelevant. Perhaps irrelevant is too strong a word, but at the very least it is indifference. China simply doesn’t take India too seriously. A potential threat yes, but one among many; a peer competitor no. This dynamic manifests itself clearly in Indian and Chinese media dialogues that any critical enough reader can detect. From the Indians you get shrill challenges, none too subtle threats, and delusions of grandeur. The Chinese reciprocate with equal doses condescension and contempt. This only serves to anger the Indians further and they compensate for it with ever greater self-conscious bombast. This very comment thread is a representative microcosm of the greater exchange I outlined above.
Indian media depictions of China are replete with passive aggressive snideness and open threats which generally go ignored by Chinese state media. In this incident however, the Chinese chose to respond to the provocative additional deployment of another 60,000 soldiers to the border (the Chinese maintain far fewer forces vis-a-vis India already). The outpouring of Indian reactions to a single editorial is revealing of the Indian need for validation.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
@ Shane #55: This is the first chance I’ve had to view the blog since yesterday. Collapse wasn’t good enough; I deleted hohoho’s comment. I will not put up with racial epithets, period.
I’ve noticed you’ve been using the term “Indian elitists” quite a bit in your posts. Care to explain why? Are you saying there are elitists in India but not in China? I would think high government officials in all countries could be labeled “elitists” if you want to use such a broad brush.
June 24th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
#71.
Thanks to the first emperor of China, written languages were united into one (spoken language was harder at the time with the vast land). Who says tyrant has no contribution to their citizens? We do not see this big benefit until we see India today. China makes one movie and distributes it thru out the country, not so in India.
#72.
The newspaper reflects what the sponsor wants to see. The sponsor could be the audience (the readers of the newspaper) or the government (in case of China and its puppet newspaper). We may have blamed the editors unfairly as they’re just doing the job they’re told to do. I’m also guilty on that.
June 24th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Raman,
I disagree to your assessment (or general assessment) that China’s growth is “state driven”.
Chinese banks and the Chinese government are very active in getting investment and money from outside, and then invest the money and resources internally, but that’s just the getting the money part. Private Chinese are very driven in using the money and grow business.
If by “state driven”, we merely mean that the government gives a lot of directions on where the money should go. Well, really, there is not many sectors that the Government isn’t spending money on.
I don’t think the Chinese businesses people and technical experts would suddenly stop and lose direction, if the government stopped giving directions.
In China’s case, the fast growth is attributable to the “meeting of the minds” between the government and the private individuals.
Oppositely, India, there is a “hinderance” from the government to the private individual. India ranks as # 120 out of 145 countries, on the world “ease of doing business” index in 2008. China was ranked #83. (Both are going up, but India still quite behind).
The basic Chinese private individual is very mercantile in nature. Chinese immigrants in many countries have done extremely well in private businesses.
I think if the Chinese government is getting investment, it’s merely helping encourage the private Chinese business development. Competition among Chinese businesses are quite fierce. There are currently over 20 domestic auto makers in China all competing for the Chinese and world auto market.
Compare to India, without encouragement, there is actually entrenchment of large family owned businesses that holds monopoly with state sponsorship. For example, the Tata group.
I agree to some view that “India grow DESPITE its government”. But I think that growth will flatten out and get stifled by the entrenched private interests that have become “quasi governmental” in nature.
Recent events about Tata Steel’s forcible acquisition of farm lands to build its new factory is an example of how entrenched private interests can use its leverage with the government to level of abuse of power.
It does not bode well for Indian economy, if such private entities began to take over as monopolies of the economy.
June 24th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
@ buru #54: Thanks for the comment. Do you still live there?
Why no referendums? I’m afraid neither China nor India would want to set that precedent.
@ JXie #56: Thanks for that information. Do you think public negotiating statements are the same as what actually happens behind closed doors? My guess is that none of us really know how far each side is willing to go in order to settle the dispute; just that either one or both of them haven’t gone far enough.
@ Shane #65: There’s plenty to counter with here without having to engage in petty personal insults. You were on solid ground when you kept it factual.
@ Raman #71: Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I’d be the first to say that my knowledge of India is limited to what I’ve read. My friends who have been there have said it was incredible yet intense on the senses. But even they were only able to cover but a small section of the country, similar to my experience in China where I’ve never been that far from the coast. The thinking behind my original question is that when looking at the old maps, for instance, the Kerala area is almost always outside the ruled area. Beyond that, it seems India has spent much of its history either uniting or dividing, as if whenever it was under one empire, centrifugal force took over and tried to split off the outlying provinces. I didn’t realize the country was more nationalistic than provincial, so thanks for filling me in.
Glad to hear the tariff and bureaucratic red tape situation is improving. Both of them are like small black holes that just suck up money while giving nothing in return to the people.
I agree with R4K that attributing Chinese growth to state driven policies is a misperception. The SOC’s get a lot of publicity but the real growth in China has been with privately owned companies and multinational subsidiaries. In fact, SOC’s in many cases are a drag on overall productivity. Where they have been most effective are in industries such as banking where government policy changes can be quickly carried out on a local level through modified lending practices.
@ R4K #75: I’m with you on your general argument but disagree with some of the details regarding India. Expatriate Indians have been very successful overseas in private businesses. The basic Indian private individual is also very mercantile in nature.
You are correct to say that many large businesses in India are monopolistic. That also applies to China but on a more local level. Relations between local party officials and business owners also result in monopolistic practices. Both countries have policies to discourage imports. In fact, today’s NY Times had an article about increased protectionism in China.
I think the majority of the growth in both India and China has been due to both governments allowing their people to be successful by getting out of their way. China’s government started earlier and has done a better job, only injecting itself in a few key industries where government interference has been helpful. One of China’s key strengths is its ability to adapt new technologies and bring them to market quickly. India still has a longer road to travel in this regard, especially when it comes to moving things through the system in a timely manner.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Steve,
I didn’t say anything about failure of Indian private business people. I in fact said that Indian business grow DESPITE their government.
I think Chinese monopolies are much less monopolistic, since invariably, every province has their own “home companies” that they depend on for economy, and these provincial companies compete against each other, and there is very little the local provinces can do to keep their monopolies entrenched. Afterall, even US have state subsidies for local businesses. (That’s constitutional, state penalties for out state businesses are NOT allowed, but state subsidies for local business are allowed.)
I would say that the essence of the new US EU WTO action against China is total bunk. On previous complaints they charge China with exporting too much, and now they charge China with “not exporting enough” some local cheap stuff, which then causes lack of competitiveness in US and EU companies. This new legal theory is just ridiculously stretching the limits of competition laws.
*
“Getting out of the way” is a good idea.
But at some point, especially during fast economic development opportunities, the government should provide the maximum incentive and monetary lending.
Private individuals can be great, but there is only so far the private individual can do, when there is no support from the government.
*
I would say that 1 major advantage that China has over India is the substantial quality of its education system.
(and we have the Communist/socialists to thank for that).
My parents generation and my generation grew up in China and got very good education for very little money. Chinese education is well funded by the government, despite increase of private cost in recent years, compared to India.
India’s literacy rate continues to be dismal. (Indians are quite capable of achieving high education, but public funded schools in India is woefully inadequate compared to the needs of its vast population.)
June 25th, 2009 at 12:43 am
@ R4K #77: Sorry, I misunderstood you. My mistake…
I agree about provincial monopolies rather than national ones in China. I guess that’s why there is some overproduction in the country, as different Chinese companies compete with each other from different provinces, unlike Japan where the government strongly encourages one company per industry so they are more competitive overseas. China is such a huge market that they can have multiple competitors and still have the volume needed to keep costs low.
If the EU US WTO action is total bunk, then China has nothing to worry about and no reason to get upset, right? After all, they will easily win the case. Not being a lawyer, I do wonder how can anyone can know the merits of the case without reading the specific complaint in full and understanding the WTO rules in great detail. Oh well, I guess I just don’t know very much about law…
I agree with you about the Chinese educational system up to a point. I think from elementary through middle school, it is excellent in most areas. Tier One high schools are excellent but I’m not so sure about Tier Two. I’m not that impressed with the university system, and only because the input I received from my colleagues was pretty negative as compared to their experiences in universities in the States. I had several tell me they would only go to graduate school overseas. The Chinese universities they attended were mostly Shanghai Jiatong, but we also had some from Fudan, Qinghua, Nanjing U. and a few others. We could pretty much pick from the top students who all came from top universities. I have to admit I was surprised at their opinion.
I know absolutely nothing about the school system in India. Maybe some of our Indian commentators could fill us in based on their own experiences?
June 25th, 2009 at 2:19 am
Steve,
“@ buru #54: Thanks for the comment. Do you still live there?
Why no referendums? I’m afraid neither China nor India would want to set that precedent. ”
Yes I do live there, as also my extended family( though I’m posting this from elsewhere where I work).If you want to call the bluff of both parties posturing here, just ask me;))
Re Referendum: I just made that rhetorical point for bringing down both parties to earth.I know they wont allow it under any circumstance for they know they are there against the will of the natives.Just the thought of Referendum makes ‘ nationalists’ of both sides shit their pants:)) . As far as I am concerned, my people are crushed like ants in a fight between two elephants(mostly economic).So my request is for the two governments to solve this issue permanently so that we(ie people of Arunachal/South Tibet) could get a breather.
* Just as an hypothetical aside: If only two choices are given stat, India will definitely get more votes. If however, say both parties are given equal access for a few months for propaganda, it can go either way.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:42 am
Steve,
I have read the WTO complaint in its general allegations. Generally, US alleges that Chinese Steel producers are made more competitive because they can take advantage of cheaper domestic Chinese producers of steel component metals. Also alleged, that US steel producers are less competitive because Chinese component metal producers do not export heavily into foreign markets.
Well, I would say, DUH! Domestic producers always have more incentive to sell to domestic consumers. Why spend extra money to send HEAVY HEAVY metal to overseas, when domestic consumers will buy up pretty much every thing?
It’s simple vertical production efficiency.
What does US want? Force the Chinese component metal producers to export to US steel makers??
It’s a stupid complaint. It basically alleges that Domestic Chinese steel production industry is too well supported and too efficient, and it’s driving US steel out of business.
I’m sorry, I forgot, Obama is a socialist now. Of course, that would make sense, with such an obviously anti-competitive legal argument. 🙂
*On Chinese universities, it’s good enough for many many students.
It is true that they don’t have as good of facilities and opportunities as Western grad schools, but I would say that you experiences are from some of the top level students. Of course, these would be the people who are unsatisfied with the Chinese schools.
But your high achievers are generally the complaining types. Always looking for the better deal.
(Nothing wrong with that, but there is very few places that can satisfy the high achievers.)
Some of these Ph.D.’s get jobs with Intel and Microsoft and they take off after 2 years for more money.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:58 am
@raventhorn4000, #75
Thanks for your prerspective…I do appreciate the work the Chinese have done towards the manufacturing sector. I suppose you are a better judge. My ideas are all growing from my research on the net and you just made a useful contribution.
The government interference is clearly evident in lots of instances where Chinese authorities support their business to sideline competition (specially on International fronts). At many energy deals, the Chinese government is ready to walk the extra miles and by hook or crook bag the contracts. Nationalism is one thing but respecting international trade rules is another. I am pointing towards the energy deals that both the countries are trying to secure now-a-days.
Coming to the family businesses in India, they grew largely during the period when the goverment used to follow the license raj policies. Its more of a legacy that is changing.
Regarding the Tatas, please note that Mr. Ratan Tata is the most respected businessman of India. The land controversy was nothing but a political bad game. Tata’s image was a big factor why he could buy JLR (the British and Europeans were more comfortable with him because he kept promises from the Corus deal). I don’t say all business groups are as good.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:15 am
@ R4K #80: Whoops! I was referring to the WTO complaint filed by EU and USA concerning the Green Dam software. I’ve heard a bit about the steel case, but know absolutely nothing about the merits. I take the fifth…
I didn’t get into the complaints about the universities as thoroughly as I should have. The complaints, from what I heard, had merit. They were about the quality of instruction and the extra payments asked for by the professors. Apparently, professors gain more by their experiments and papers than by actually teaching, so the students are used primarily for conducting the experiments and collecting data, etc. All professors in all countries write scholastic papers, but it seems they abuse it in China, from what I heard. I would not consider the people who told me this to be complainers at all; in fact, the opposite. But they were damn smart and wanted to learn as much as they could. To me, that seems logical.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:18 am
To Buru #79:
could not agree more with your second paragraph.
June 26th, 2009 at 8:30 am
@Shane #16
I know that Chinese are not comfortable with a free media and specially a media publication that criticizes either China, the Chinese government, or Chinese leaders. But rest assured media in India is very free. So just becuase Chinese are used to a benign Chinese media does not mean that your wishful thinking regarding making Indian media benign will come true. The problem here is with controlled Chinese media, not with Indian media which has been more critical of the Indian government and governments of many other countries not just China.
@ Shane #65
1) Tibetian script is derived from Indian script, 2) Tibetian religion came out of India, 3) There are several “ancient” and “historial” piligrimage sites in Tibet, 4)Tibetian government in exile is in India, 5) India gives refuge to Tibetians as opposed to China which opresses them. I think these are more than enough reasons to allow any “willing” future government in India to either lay claim on Tibet or at the very least get “actively” involved in Tibet.
So again, coming back to my main point earlier, no present or future government of India will ever voluntarily give up a populated area. India is not run by a communist government. It’s a democracy and that too in arguably the most Ideologically, religiously, and culturally diverse country in the world. So the question of simply giving up a populated area with its own unique culture does not arise. Its impossible and for the good of everyone, I hope that the communist government in China which can only think on the basis of “power”, “strategy”, and “harmonious relationship” (which basically means how to *strategically* remain in *power* without disturbing things too much either internally within china or outside) can understand that.
As for India disintegrating, that Idea has been long buried. You are approximately 60 years behind time. These days more political analysts worldwide are concerned about China getting destabilized as a result of internal pressures rather than India disintegrating.
June 26th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
@Albert Pinto #84
You are certainly not the first, nor the last history revisionist with a heavy dose of political fantasy.
What you wrote here was an old political fantasy that drove India to host 14th DL on exile 50 years ago. “Oh, someday, it will pay”
June 26th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Steve,
My mother spent her Ph.D. years in US doing nothing but “collecting data”, etc. for her Doctorate supervisoring professor.
It totally depends on who you get, even in US.
It’s a matter of fact that some professors will use their grad students almost like “personal slaves”, especially, if you end up working for a professor who is “top” in US or China, and he has a lot of grant money, and over 20 students who all want to work for him, and he’s an egotistical maniac.
*
but that’s not all Chinese professors, nor all US professors.
It just depends on who you get.
June 26th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
@ R4K: Good point. All I know is that for me, if I was paying the kind of money for a post grad degree and wasn’t getting my money’s worth, I’d either switch professors or switch schools.
June 26th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Steve,
In any case, I believe the Chinese education system is one of the best for the “money worth” in the region, especially because Chinese universities are considered very cheap.
In terms of quality alone, It is definitely not on par with US universities, or European universities. But it suits the purpose of a developing nation.
The point is, it does a good job to improve the general education level of 1.2 billion people.
This is a good foundation for China to rapidly develop its economy. Consider that in 1980’s, China didn’t even have any internationally recognized Doctorate program in many of its top tier universities. Today, there are a lot of Ph.D’s graduating from Chinese universities.
India, on the other hand, has been marred by the efficiency of its education system.
India has quite a few good universities, but it is plagued by the lack of primary education facilities to increase its general literacy rate.
Many poor rural areas and poor city dwellers lack access to effective primary education.
that’s why Indian literacy rate remains very low, around 66%. About full 1/3 of its population are “illiterate”.
This hampers domestic competition and domestic development, and perpetuate problems like the “slums” of poor illiterate people who cannot obtain better paying jobs that require basic education level.
June 26th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
@ R4K: I agree with you concerning the top tier universities. I know those are very inexpensive, but the percentage of students that can qualify is very low compared to the total university population. The return on tuition is very high, much higher than in the USA.
What I was told was that if you “didn’t study hard” (it was never smart or dumb, always study hard or not study hard) then you had to go to a private university and the cost of education was very, very high relative to the average income there. So as a cost percentage, those universities didn’t give back a comparable return vis a vis the USA. I think we need to distinguish between top tier and other universities, and also between Tier 1 and Tier 2 high schools. I’m sure our mainland China readers could supply a more in depth view of this subject, since neither you nor I went to university there. All I know is what I’ve been told from people who did.
June 26th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Steve,
There are always alternatives to top tier universities, or even universities in general in China.
China has brought out tons of vocational schools, equivalent of AA degrees in US.
Private universities are almost the last resort for rich kids today, and very few use them.
*
And the competitiveness of entry for Chinese universities is a testament to the quality of the high schools in China, and the general high literacy rate.
Many Chinese who can’t get into Chinese universities sometimes go abroad and do quite well. (my cousin in Canada, for example, didn’t get into any Chinese University. He didn’t study hard enough, or his scores were too low to get in. But he managed to get an MBA from Canada, after he worked for a few years in China and saved enough money to go to Canada.)
June 26th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Hi buru, #79,
Haha, ant and two elephants – great analogy!
Hey, when the two elephant pisses, make sure they pass your territory. 🙂
I mean, make sure your region play a part in the passing of goods between these two.
June 27th, 2009 at 1:08 am
@Albert Pinto #84
“As for India disintegrating, that Idea has been long buried. You are approximately 60 years behind time. ”
Here you go another dose of political fantasy. Did you ever ask how local people in Nagaland and Manipur, Sikhs at Punjab or the Naxalites think? I bet you didn’t, then go on read this most recent report by the Economist.
“India’s Naxalites — A ragtag rebellion”
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13900099
June 27th, 2009 at 1:11 am
India wants to influence the border regions by building roads there, but they are extremely paranoid about the flow of massive quantities of Chinese goods into India.
Practical, India’s own paranoia puts itself in an untenable position. “Influence” is inherently a 2 way street.
One cannot influence others without being “influenced” by others, vice versa.
Even ants will bite an elephant, while being crushed. 1 ant might not matter much, but a cluster of fire ants or bullet ants will give nasty stings even to elephants.
Perhaps India didn’t learn its lessons with Pakistan and Kashmir. Let’s hope India won’t go through another 50 years with more Kashmir like provinces.
June 27th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Albert,
I’m not very comfortable with many “free press”.
Frankly, the rational voices are rarely quoted or listened to in the “free press”, they are not interesting.
Far more interesting to the “free press”, are any ignorant extremist voices that might incite Jerry Springer type verbal assaults and fist fights.
From my experience, most “free press” are torch bearers for mob voices. “Come hither to rouse the masses to revolutions great and small.”
June 27th, 2009 at 2:44 am
huaren,
I am not sure you are being sympathetic or sarcastic.But rest assured we are getting piss, farts and all.Your advice of letting goods pass-through is extremely kind–but is the PRC willing to open the border for trade?
raventhorn,
“ India wants to influence the border regions by building roads there, but they are extremely paranoid about the flow of massive quantities of Chinese goods into India.”
You are true to an extent..but the paranoia is mostly confined to land routes;Indian shops are full of Chinese goods, coming via Malacca straits.India is not comfortable with the idea of a PLA-blitzkrieg, so it stopped building roads in places like AP after 1962.
June 27th, 2009 at 9:26 am
@Shane #85
Your statement “Oh, someday, it will pay” reflects a conspiratorial thinking that is not characteristic of successive Indian governments, otherwise India would be trading with Sudan where the government is carrying out genocide, supplying arms to fuel civil war in Sri Lanka, actively supporting a repressive regime in Myanmar, and supplying nuclear weapons technology to dysfunctional countries like Pakistan. Basically, doing everything that China is doing.
Also, do keep cause and effect in proper order: if China hadn’t forcefully taken over Tibet (Oh, someday, it will pay), Dalai Lama wouldn’t have been in India on refugee status (although he is respect as any religious leader of his status should be upto the extent that many Indians don’t even know that he is not an Indian citizen).
@Shane #92
Unlike in China, there is no oligarchy in India that is actively preventing other groups from taking political leadership in India. Anyone group or person who has enough support in India is free to contest elections and take over political leadership at various levels of the government. However, violent groups such as Naxalites (the biggest of such groups) don’t do that mainly because of the fact that they don’t have and never have had sufficient support beyond their limited power base.
Also, keep in mind that the current prime minister of India who ordered reinforcement of Chinese border with 50,000 troops is a Sikh and he has been prime minister for last six years, his chief economic adviser is also a Sikh, and his former chief of Army was also a Sikh. Don’t you think it would have been easy for Punjab to seperate from India if that is what the “Sikhs” that you refer to really want?
Even though I don’t think you have any comprehension of the level of diversity that is present in India, I would admit that in a diverse country with a long history such as India grievances do pop up from time to time and sometimes even violently. However, clearly India has a different way of dealing with such grievances unlike China.
@raventhorn4000 #94
You certainly have a very myopic view of free press. But I am not surprised that you are not comfortable with free press just like many other people from China that I have met. In the worst case, many simply just believe whatever the government wants them to believe. Outside of China that is what we refer to as brainwashing 🙂 Unfortunately, freedom can be confusing to those who are not exposed to it.
In either case, best regards for the future and I hope that the people of China continue to prosper and improve their standard of living and hopefully have successes in their struggle to gain more freedom.
June 27th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Albert,
You certainly have a very myopic view of people. Just because Chinese have no “free press”, doesn’t mean they believe everything told to them, and just because you have “free press”, doesn’t make you less brainwashed.
All you have is over 100 channels of brainwashing going on to you all day long, while you sat contently thinking of your stereotypes of “Chinese you have met”.
I lived in China for 12 years through end of the Cultural Revolution, and I have lived in US for almost 3 decades.
Talk to me about myopic views when you have learned Chinese as I have learned English, when you have learned Chinese history as I have learned American history.
Get over yourself, and expose yourself to some actual facts, instead of your “freedom porn”!!
🙂
June 27th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
@Albert Pinto #96
It’s just a shame that an India elitist like you, caught in red face, still make ignorant comment.
You can be sured we know the real situation in India, and how our “good’ neighbors there are thinking 🙂
June 27th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Albert,
“clearly India has a different way of dealing with such grievances unlike China.”
Clearly, you have been brainwashed excessively clean. India recently placed Kashmir nationalists and Islamic clerics under “house arrest”, to prevent organization of protests.
and India regularly arrest Doctors and Human rights workers who are suspected of being “naxalite”.
*Oh, I guess you are too myopic to search for news, when you already have over 100 channels of “brainwashing”.
June 28th, 2009 at 7:24 am
RAVEN… From your advices to Pinto about learning Chinese language and history before talking about CHina, I assume that you speak one of the Indian languages that Pinto speaks and knows their history.
Why does everyone eitheir have to be friend, foe or either? Why cant they be neither? World doesnt revolve around China.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Tenzin,
I would not presume to call any Indian “myopic” or “brainwashed”, (as Pinto does).
I can be neither to some people, if they reciprocate. But if some call me “myopic” or “brainwashed”, that’s stepping toward “unfriendly” terms.
June 28th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
I believe Chinese are born communists. It mirrors the Chinese way of life and the culture (except Taiwanese). I believe it is the only system brings sense of order and justice to Chinese people. That is why Jackie Chan has said what he has said of Chinese. I really appreciate Chinese love for communism and its methods. It gave what Chinese wanted – economic prosperity. China is so strong, it can depend even millions of Tiananmen square uprisings. So long live red China:):)
As for India is concerned, it was born as democratic country and it will remain so. For Indians, democracy is dearer than anything else. We never exchange it for anything else in the world. My country remained democratic facing all the problems any other country ever faced: Object poverty, illiteracy, corruption, internal & external subversion from the neighbour countries and many more. If I look back what is today and what it was 40-50 years back, India has made a great strides in building democratic system and its governance. Still we have long way to go. But we have passed the most treacherous path (created by China using Pakistan as proxy) of building nation based on democratic values. I am proud of my country for that.
Communism and Democracy are two opposite polarities. Our goals, aspirations and ways are different. Simple examples for that are your Chinese media articles on India and all of your comments here. Two polarities don’t meet. So asking whether India is a friend or enemy or both is ridiculous. To be both friend and enemy at the same time is not in Indian value system. Chinese should ask themselves what they are? After 1962 war, it was a drawn conclusion. Instead of beating around bush and asking whether India is a friend or enemy or both, assume what it suits you. But as an Indian I am 100% sure, India is not a friend of China and reasons are explained before.
1962 war has changed everything India believed about China. We never imagined china will do that to us. We trusted and believed in Chinese friendship, did not build proper army and did not allocate proper funds to defence. China broke that trust and bond. Our Prime Minister Nehru got a greatest shock from this betrayal as his vision was to build prosperous Asia. He never imagined another Asian country like china would attack India. It took a great toll on his health and he died after 2 years. 1962 war would have become bloodiest war in history if Nehru wanted it as Americans came to India’s defence and started flying weapons sortie to India. But Chinese were clever; they immediately pulled back to neutral positions and declared unilateral ceasefire.
With all these, no government in power can afford to give any boundary concessions to China without committing political suicide. Only way out for china is by war. Nothing comes free and if you think you can do 1962 war again, we are looking forward for your red army. Another thing, before thumping your chest in glory, just go to Wikipedia and other military websites and do some research about India and china’s comparative military strengths and also do some research on how geo-political situation may evolve if India-china war breaks out. Otherwise Red China may not remain red and it may turn black in color:):). Last thing; tell the mainland Chinese media to send their articles to Hong Kong media to edit it before publishing it. Otherwise it sounds like Kim Jong-il has written those :):).
June 28th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Judging from India’s hostility toward their Pakistani neighbors (who almost became part of India), I do not find surprise at India’s hostility toward China over “border disputes”.
Nations great and small have “border disputes”, friends or enemies.
If China could move past its “border wars” with Russia, why couldn’t India?
If Canadians, who once burnt down the US Capital, could move past their “border disputes” with US, why couldn’t India?
*If one maintains one’s pattern of persistent suspicions, one will not have many friends in any case.
And India has enough “enemies” from within to demonstrate a historical pattern. (even if one does not count the Pakistanis.)
June 28th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Here is an interesting bit about India’s conquest of Goa
In 1961, the Indian army had been sent into Goa, a small region without any other international borders apart from the Indian one, after Portugal refused to surrender the exclave colony to the Indian Union. Although this action met little to no international protest or opposition, China saw it as an example of India’s expansionist nature, especially in light of heated rhetoric from Indian politicians. India’s Home Minister declared, “If the Chinese will not vacate the areas occupied by it, India will have to repeat what she did in Goa. India will certainly drive out the Chinese forces”,[6] while another member of the Indian Congress Party pronounced, “India will take steps to end [Chinese] aggression on Indian soil just as she ended Portuguese aggression in Goa”.[19]
June 28th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
@Jivan #102
>> “As for India is concerned, it was born as democratic country and it will remain so”
Just how native your view is by starting everything with ” is born …” You forget Indian’s bureaucratic parliamentary system was helplessly decided by former British rulers, when they ruled India for how long __? Help yourself with the blank.
You may say Indian elitists are born bureaucrats. They often say something in the morning, then forget all about it in the evening, and start over the next day … Never able to take any beneficial action for the long term good of their own people and nation (such as the cases on Pakistan and Sri Lanka), but with full capability to show narrow-minded hostility to neighbors.
>> “1962 war ” blah blah
Stop such popular victim-hood crap from India elitists. The 1962 war the direct result of Nehru’s forward frontier policy on one hand, taking China’s goodwill on the other, knowing well the fact that India and China had no agreed border in their history. In the end, China treated India with respect, even after a total defeat of India army. What more do you India elitists want?
June 28th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
raventhorn4000@101
I am not telling India and China friendship impossible. If China becomes democratic, it happens naturally. Singapore is an example. One open society and another closed society can’t talk and understand. Anything small and big China does will be seen with suspicion and as a threat. Other countries will respond aggressively as like India, USA and Australia and rest of the world. But if you want to become superpower these are all the risks you have to take. Make your choice):). As for Goa example, you need to know more about that background. You are just mixing up apple and oranges.
Shane9219@105
I don’t know what to say. Seems like environment you grow up did not give you proper sense of critical thinking and understanding. Next time, before you write anything, masturbate at least twice to clear your mind:):).
Seems like you are from PLA. Forget about all these wasteful arguments. If you think you can fight and win against India. You are welcome and we are waiting:):).
June 28th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
@Jivan #106
The only thing your Indian elitists know is fantasy, never have the ability to face history and reality squarely. What more you can say, except making rude junk comment.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:29 am
In the last 24 hours, this conversation seems to have degenerated into juvenile comments on BOTH sides. I collapsed Jivan’s last comment for obvious reasons. I’ll not hesitate to collapse more of them if this keeps up.
The object of the comments section is to add to the discussion, not to engage in schoolyard behavior. That’s exactly what’s been going on lately, with a few exceptions. Grow up! Before you post your comments, ask if they actually add anything to the discussion or topic. Just because someone writes a moronic comment doesn’t mean you need to respond in kind.
In order to solve any problem or reach true understanding, you have to give credence to the other person’s position and not just condemn it outright. Try to open your minds! China and India are both great countries with long and glorious histories. They both have been trying to catch up with the developed world over the last few decades and both have made rapid progress. Their different political systems gives each of them strengths and weaknesses, and those strengths and weaknesses differ between the two cultures. You’re not “scoring any points” for bringing up weaknesses if you cannot acknowledge the weaknesses on the other side. Conversely, you should also be able to see the strengths in each culture.
Maybe everyone should re-read admin’s rules once again and then look back at their own posts, myself included, to make sure we are all keeping to the format. If not, I’ll be a lot tougher on both sides and not afraid to collapse posts that break the rules.
I want to learn more about the situation between China and India. I have a great respect for both cultures. There have been excellent comments on both sides so far. I’d like to see more.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:33 am
Shane9219@107
That is not rude comment. Just some humour. Take it easy. That is why I added :):) symbols. Next time will not joke with you:):). I am very serious person now.
Here is the independent agency gives rating for countries: from failed to stable to well to do countries.
List of countries by Failed States Index:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_States_Index
Do not beat your chest with glory for Red china. China-India war will going to be biblical scale if it escalates into full fledged war. Not only it will have potential to completely destroy two great civilizations on earth and it has potential to destroy whole environment, Asia and world if it escalates into nuclear. It will bring untold misery to Chinese and India people and also to whole world. Earth eco-system is already fragile, if few nuclear bombs are exchanged between any two countries, it will lead to whole ecological imbalance, rain pattern change etc. In this closely connected world no country can, how so ever powerful, can not totally destroy any other weak country. Whole world will turn against that country. it will be suicidal for that country. India being open society, we understand that. That is why many Indian intellectuals have very practical view on war and want india and china to work together.
By 2015, India will have nuclear triad: Can deliver nuclear bomb by air,land and sea against whole of China and also have some rudimentary missile defence system against chinese missiles. Only way china can win against India before 2015 is by massive pre-emptive nuclear strikes on all of Indian major cities, but china has to take the loss of nuclear strikes on at least 7-8 Chinese cities including Songhai, Beijing and Hong Kong. Do you think world will sit and watch when communist China first strikes India by nuclear. All bets are off to China by then. After 2015, it will not be a win-win situation for both. Simply destroy each other. If Tibet is nuclear bombed, it will affect whole of india and china as tibet is a orgin of the most important rivers of China and India. Both communists’ leadership and Indian leadership knows the reality. That is why both are trying hard to improve relations. PLA thinks planting some half baked childish articles without proper thinking and with no proper English language skill will scare India. Today India is very different than 1962. Chinese PLA knows it and just trying to play some childish psychological war using chinese media articles on India. Instead why don`t you deploy more of your troops if you think china is all powerful as written in GlobalTimes. Hope you remember what anti-japanese protests did to china. It hurt china more than japan. 1-2 more like that is enough for hard-line japanese to scrap their facifist constitution and go nuclear and take hard-line stand on china.
Remember india-china war will not benefit both instead it will destroy both. It only benefits others. Gandhi and Nehru India was 20-30 years back. Today`s India believes in “eye for eye“. India will never be the first aggressor and never was (even with pakistan). You got lucky first time, because Nehru was not a war monger and he is real statesman not hardcore politician and he took it easy. Imagine china opening border conflict with India again in this age of open media in India and highly nationalistic Hindu opposition party, it will lead to all out war.
So we have responsibility to be good neighbours for the sake our own good and for the world.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:08 am
I think that’s enough veiled threats from Jivan for 1 evening.
June 29th, 2009 at 3:23 am
@R4K #110
This Jivan guy is basically the same guy as the earlier Albert Pinto guy. Just ignore him, ’cause you can have any substantial dialogue with him.
1) In order for India to come up anything genuine for a settlement of China-India border dispute, India needs to have a strong government, which it couldn’t.
2) India’s politicians and elitists have the inherent need to show a tough look (yet actually look weak by outsiders), in order to hold a fragile and loose interior.
3) China has already settled official land borders with all neighbors except India, so the mounting pressure is on India side. India elitists knew that, and that is the reason behind their recent military buildup as a sign of great untold anxiety. So let India elitists to continue doing their own digging.
June 29th, 2009 at 4:09 am
@R4K
Also, let’s hope India’s current leader, Manmohan Singh, have enough intelligence and sanity of not wanting to be called another Hilter, even though India’s childish elitists keep bringing up their nuk-thing 🙂
June 29th, 2009 at 4:49 am
Shane, what exactly is an elitist??:))!
Such is the power of the word, usage of one can conjure up images of a paranoid communist, while changing it for another can give the impression of being a reasonable intellectual.
June 29th, 2009 at 5:01 am
@buru
“what exactly is an elitist?”
Really good question. Those who understand how India works also know immediately how an elitist look like in India society.
Sorry, due to the lacking of proper words from my side for an accurate description, I may intuitively refer to the opposite of those Naxalites.
““India’s Naxalites — A ragtag rebellion”
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13900099
June 29th, 2009 at 5:42 am
@ Buru & Shane: Shane, I asked you the same question as Buru back in #73. Your “answer” wasn’t an answer at all. The story you referenced does not contain the word “elitist”. Would you mind answering the question please? It’s hard to address a response when I and others have no idea what you mean by your use of the word. When you throw out a term consistently and use it as a negative, you need to be very specific in its definition. If not, no one has any idea what you’re talking about. In what way is India’s leadership “elitist”?
Are you comparing Singh to Hitler? Why are India’s leaders “childish”? How have these “elitists” brought up the “nuk-thing”? And how does bringing up a “nuk-thing” create a comparison to Hitler? Can you describe in what ways the Naxalites are different from the East Turkistan Islamic Movement? Maybe a more thorough explanation will clear up the apparent confusion your previous posts have created.
June 29th, 2009 at 6:38 am
I have been to China (two times), Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand and Indonesia where most of the chinese live. I have also worked with chinese in Sillicon valey, San Jose and Boston. I know how different chinese minds works in different parts of world. I love chinese food, love Lao tzu; He is a one hell of a great philosopher. Parts of china I have been to where Buddhism influence is there people simply love Indian people. When I todl them I am from India, I received lot of love and respect in mainland china which is not so much in others parts like Singapore and Hong Kong (Sometime I felt Hong Kong is a wicked place:) ). It is really disgusting to see in communist party mouth piece GlobalTimes that 70% chinese see India as a threat. It is not true. It is a total lie. More than 50% Chinese may not know much about India to give that comment and same may be true with India. So for GlobalTimes to write majority of Indians express same feeling as Chinese express for Japanese is a height of stupidity and very disgusting. Indians(30-40%) may envy China because they are caught sleeping while china made great progress but we are not jealous. We see china as threat because of red army PLA. We do not wish Chinese people bad. We like Chinese people to live good and happy life having good time at Chinese Karaoke bars. We do appreciate great progress of China and we learnt few things from you. Same way Chinese top officials visited Indian technology parks to learn from us. How china has grown at 7-11% GDP from last 2-3 decades, Indian will also grow at the 8-9% GDP for another 15-20 years without much external dependence as Indian economy is domestically driven. Same way China`s growth may saturate or stagnate at lower growth rate in coming years as scope for growth moderates. It may be also be true for India after 15-20 years. India started late and will finish late. What GlobalTimes article says is India will never achieve what China has achieved is utter & total non-sense and childish. All economic activity and growth can be assumed in most reasonable and favourable conditions. But still nobody knows what will happen 6 months from now or one year from now if things turn for worst. I think 2020 is the correct time to judge India vs China as by that time many things average out for India and china. By 2020, playing field will become levelled. I think mainland Chinese media lacks good media skill in journalism and reporting. They should learn from Hong Kong papers like South China Morning Post.
Remember me, there will not be another war between China and India as there will always be balance of power. Only possibility is before 2016, as there is a huge asymmetry in nuclear & nuclear submarine based nuclear delivery missiles. That gap will be bridged by 2016. That is what US-India nuclear deal means. To give India enough uranium and reactors to build more bombs and to transfer technology to achieve nuclear parity with China. There will also not be another war between India and Pakistan as Pakistan also will have enough to strike major Indian cities by nuclear. Only way for China and pakistan is internal subversion like Mumbai terror attacks as India is free society. Even that also becomes impossible as India already building national intelligence agency (which is now getting training at FBI offices in US) and issuing bio-metric id cards to all its citizens in another 3 years. Rapid response team with National commando forces are placed in all cities now. India, US, Israel and England intelligence agencies are working together after Mumbai terror strike to share intelligence and to do covert operations.
No doubt that China may evolve as a great power in another 10-15 years and so also India, Japan, Russia (because of oil) and possibly South Korea. Just you need few nuclear tipped missiles to bring down any great power. So in this nuclear age, once war starts you do not know how it escalates and where it leads because of fear of unknown consequences of nuclear war. There is always a possibility of other misjudging and miscalculating other and taking pre-emptive strikes and leading into wider war. This is always a possibility with china because of its secret military build-ups. Unknown fears (of China) leads to great misunderstanding and great disasters.
This is my last comment as I forced to comment as I get out raged by lot of comments here and forced to comment in this blog as I come across by mistake. Bye to all.
Shane9219 – E-mail me if you are a beautiful chinese girl from Sangahai. I want to marry you:)),
******************* We(Indians) rather be dead than red (china) **********************************
June 29th, 2009 at 7:31 am
Steve
Elitist means people who come from very privileged and rich background and got educated in top schools and totally insulated from common people and also grown up with only similar upper crust of the society people. They only hold opinions and ideas of rich and well to do people. They do not understand middle class or poor people problems. They always ride on clouds
For example, you can call well educated & successful sons and daughters of rich business men/women or rich educated and powerful politicians as elitists. Good example for you is Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. He just inherits his father`s fame, success, education, power and money. Gandhi family of India is also elitist but they are not very well educated to be 100% elitists. You can call top Chinese government officials as elitists (I am not very sure).
Indian prime minister has come from very poor family but he is well educated with Cambridge University degree and Phd. He is renowned economist who worked in IMF and other world bodies before joining Indian bureaucracy.
Since India`s most of the population lives in rural India, most of our politicians are come from least educated and poor family background. They represent most backward rural part of population. So they cannot be elitist. That is why I get irritated when somebody uses that word. Even Indian media is not elitist. Because of economic prosperity, there is a big surge in educated middle class and so the well educated politicians and demand for good governance. That happened from last Indian elections. There is a shift in India political landscape as lot of young, well educated and successful people are coming to Indian politics.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Jivan,
Seriously, if you look at Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao’s bio in wikipedia, both did not come from a eliteist (IE, their parents are not rich or connected background.) Though I can’t help but hear the how nationalistic you are.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
well i joined the blog after the weekend and do not comprehend anything wrong with Jeevan #117…it was an apt answer to a stupid question from Steve #115. Dude, are you a moderator. is that the way you put forward things. I am dis appointed. What were you writing about. Does that match your theme for this post and discussion. You should have snubbed the hitler remarks but you were acting as a lawyer…
@Shane #112…please research about Dr. Singh on the internet and stop these free flowing vulgar remarks…you will get to know a lot about this Man and will be humbled to find his accomplishments and dedication for the country…you need to understand that he is an elected head of the state and you got to be a man to accept your opponents with respect…
June 29th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
@ Raman: I also don’t see anything wrong with Jivan’s #117. He answered the question I asked Shane and Buru, since they kept using the term “elitist”. Why was the question stupid? Shane has been using that term multiple times on the blog without defining why he kept saying it.
I asked Shane about the Hitler comment because if someone brings up that name, they had better have a very good reason for doing so. Making unqualified remarks on a blog post will always cause being called on it.
I don’t have any problems with Dr. Singh either. What in my question or questions has you so upset? If you want to call a question stupid, you ought to give a reason why you do so.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Steve,
I think Shane was referring to the reference to the previous Indian PM Indira Gandhi as being dictatorial.
Her term was well remembered for her “rule by edict”, single party control, granting police power to detain people indefinitely, and the infamous “sterilization program” used upon “undesirables” and “enemies of the state”.
She even provided money and weapon to the Tamil Tigers.
She order military to storm a Sikh “golden temple” full of civilians and shot many dead, (possible 3000 civilians dead).
June 30th, 2009 at 1:52 am
@Raman #119
Please don’t take my comment out of context. I was responding to this Jivan guy’s multiple lunatic, apocalyptic nuke-mongering, given the fact such POVs are quite popular among Indian’s elitists nowadays. If they think they could take those steps, the end result would be like another German under Hitler. I think peaceful people would agree with me. Also don’t forget Hitler was also a leader elected by Germany too.
People with balanced mind like you have much work to do to look inside today’s India society, and find out why such popular blind, senseless and inhuman sentiment could exist in the first place, instead of mis-directing your anger towards this forum.
It’s time to serve a wake-up call to India’s elitists and politicians. They should leave out their historical collective egos before entering 21th century, for this is a time of regional and global co-operation and co-development, a time for common disadvantaged people to stand tall and feel good about their history and culture. Without such reflection, India is in a serious risk of being left behind.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
“Red China” “communist” Is that what they get from their media? And it seems they believe communism brings 9-11% growth to China? Nuclear trade between US and India? Clever. Smart. If India is lead by polititians like Jivan then it is real bad luck for both Chinese and Indian people.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:09 am
Isn’t “communist” what Chinese people get from the Chinese media? This is not a term of abuse made up by outsiders.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:15 am
kui Says: ““Red China” “communist” Is that what they get from their media?”
No, the bulk of the international media now refer to China as what it is: an authoritarian state capitalist regime.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:04 am
Otto,
But “Communist” is made into a derogatory term by the West in the Cold War.
To the point that the West continue to even distrust its own native born “Communists”.
Frankly, you use it as a term of abuse.
Come on, Western politicians still use that word and “Socialist” in their attack ads.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:13 am
True, American politicians use “communist” and “socialist” as insults. I doubt European politicians use “socialist” that way — not sure about “communist”. And yet, if you choose to call yourself something, it hardly makes sense to complain when other people call you it, too.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:24 am
raventhorn4000 Says: “the West continue to even distrust its own native born “Communists”.”
Which is directly paralleled by Chinese distrust of native born “democrats”.
“Western politicians still use that word and “Socialist” in their attack ads.”
As Otto says, it’s an American rather than a western thing to use “socialist” as a term of abuse, although the abuse tends to be directed towards Europe rather than China.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:28 am
BC,
Turn about is fair play.
I heard “socialist” as directed to Obama and Canadians, but that doesn’t change the fact that the term is abusive, regardless of who it is directed at.
Please show me 1 ad where “socialist” was used as anything but abusive purposes.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:42 am
The term socialist is not “abusive, regardless of who it is directed at”. I’ve acknowledged that it’s generally used (along with “liberal”) as a term of abuse in the USA, but the situation is radically different in Europe where many people proudly define themselves as socialists; I’m proud to define myself as a socialist. As for ads where socialist is used in a positive sense, again, look to Europe.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:37 am
Well, China is ruled by “Communist Party of China”, so the use of word “communist” to describe China is quite appropriate. If you as an individual Chinese citizen feel that it is inappropriate, I suggest taking it up with CPC 🙂
Similarly, the color Red is closely associated with communism and also with China (i.e the Chinese flag), so the term “Red China” is also appropriate. I don’t see how this is derogatory in any sense of the word.
I also don’t think that “communist” and “socialist” are used as insults in US. These terms are used, often passionately, as terms to describe a system of governance that is perceived to be against the American value system.
Many of the mainland Chinese that I have come across themselves use the term “communist” to describe China.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:42 am
@Shane 122
As far as I can see you have stopped making sense and mainly indulging in non-constructive rhetoric which is completely unrelated to topic.
Clearly, there is no “sane” relationship between either Indira Gandhi or Manmohan Singh and Hitler. Your use of term “Indian Elitist” is at best “original” (i.e conjured out of thin air without any substance) and hence highly confusing.
Basically, its difficult to understand either head or tail of what you have written or trying to put forward in last few of your posts. You seem to be in your own dream world.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:26 am
I doubt this kind of discussion will do any good to either Indian or Chinese. Though average Chinese can read some English, normally they don’t bother browse English websites. So the points raised here by Chinese poster do not reflect average Chinese people’s view. As some previous poster pointed out, average Chinese don’t care about India.
The world does not work the rational way you think it should. Democracy? Then why the permanent seats in UNSC? An let them decide for others every single most important thing in the world? IMHO, in such a strong passionate issue, it will be better to follow lao tzu’s philosophy, lets forget about each other, and live our own happy life.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Hi all Indian friends,
I’m going to ask some politically incorrect questions. Please do not feel offended. I’m just curious and I do not feel comfortable to ask my Indian friends.
1. What happens if China directs water flow to the north from flowing towards Inida. Is it legal?
2. What are the general emotions on the movie Slumdog Millionaire?
3. Do you think your government has done enough on terrorists?
4. Do you think Tibet exile should stay there for ever?
5. Do you think most successful Indians in US should return to India to help the motherland?
July 1st, 2009 at 9:03 pm
A special report by Neville Maxwell, the author of “India’s China War”, on The Rediff
“After the 1962 war, the Indian Army commissioned Lieutenant General Henderson Brooks and Brigadier P S Bhagat to study the debacle. As is wont in India, their report was never made public and lies buried in the government archives. But some experts have managed to piece together the contents of the report. One such person is Neville Maxwell, who has studied the 1962 war in depth.
In the article that follows, Indians will be shocked to discover that, when China crushed India in 1962, the fault lay at India, or more specifically, at Jawaharlal Nehru and his clique’s doorsteps. It was a hopelessly ill-prepared Indian Army that provoked China on orders emanating from Delhi, and paid the price for its misadventure in men, money and national humiliation. “
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/oct/08max1.htm
As the report showed Indian’s elitist government made an attempt to understand the war from their side, but was unable to face the result of such fact finding and nor revealed the result to India’s public. Such misstep contributed to the popular sentiment found in India nowadays.
It will surely do a common good if India’s main stream media could republish Neville Maxwell’s article.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Shane: You can amend your post to include why you think the particular article you linked to is relevant to the post. If not, I’ll collapse it. I have no problem with posting the article if it is relevant and you state why it is relevant. However (and I’m not just addressing Shane on this), posting links without explaining why you posted the link is, in my mind, cause for collapse.
This post is about the current state of affairs between China and India. It is not about what happened in 1962. I read the article and it doesn’t talk at all about today’s relations or reference the article in People’s Daily. If you’re not willing to supply that information or opinion, then please don’t post the link.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:27 pm
BC,
“The term socialist is not “abusive, regardless of who it is directed at”. I’ve acknowledged that it’s generally used (along with “liberal”) as a term of abuse in the USA, but the situation is radically different in Europe where many people proudly define themselves as socialists; I’m proud to define myself as a socialist. As for ads where socialist is used in a positive sense, again, look to Europe.”
I think my original response was actually about “Communist” as a label.
I don’t think you should focus too much on just the “socialist” label. That’s a diversion from the original point.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Shane, you have a three hour window to edit your remarks. I put your explanation into the original post. That’s why admin changed the settings.
However, your comments also make no sense. Rediff IS mainstream Indian media, based in Mumbai and very popular there. It is the #5 web portal. 88% of its visitors are Indian.
You also didn’t bother to explain what this has to do with the recent People’s Daily article.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:32 pm
@Steve #138
Rediff is an internet portal mostly for oversea Indians. I don’t think they publish any newspaper inside India.
Here is info on Global Peace Index by a think tank named Vision of Humanity.
“Vision of Humanity groups together a number of interrelated initiatives focused on global peace. It brings a strategic approach to raising the world’s attention and awareness around the importance of peacefulness to humanity’s survival in the 21st century”
The Global Peace Index ranking on China, India, US and Russia from 2009 to 2007 (a rank is better with lower digits among total 144 countries and regions)
http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings.php
China: 74, 67, 60
US: 83, 97, 96
India: 122, 107, 109
Russia: 136, 131, 118
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:08 am
@TonyP 134
>
> 1. What happens if China directs water flow to the north from flowing towards Inida. Is it legal?
>
Human development specially over last few centuries has not been sustainable and has led to environmental problems such as melting polar ice caps, shrinking of glaciers that feed the Himalayan rivers, making summers hotter and winters colder in India, and cause desertification of north-eastern China.
On top of this, we think that these environmental problems can be solved by exploiting the environment in an increasingly grander way like diverting rivers to prevent desertification in northern China. Besides the political conflicts that will obviously result, the fact is that such “unsustainable” development will lead to greater environmental problems.
It is NOT possible for everyone in China and/or India to have a fossil fuel driven car without destroying the global environment completely. Unfortunately, in the blind quest to imitate western lifestyle and dangle GDP growth rates as a national status symbol, no one yet is willing to take real leadership towards sustainable development (except maybe Bhutan).
>
> 2. What are the general emotions on the movie Slumdog Millionaire?
>
Besides some over-dramatized scenes, its an accurate portrayal of slum life in India. In specific contrast to China: 1) India does not require people to have permits before they migrate from rural to urban areas in search of employment – this often leads to slums, 2) as a result of greater concentration of people, slums have greater political power during election time, so politicians would not risk loosing elections by destroying slums and displacing people – I have heard this can be easily done in China, 3) Efforts to remove slums construct high rise apartments instead often get tied up in the court system. This is what is happening in case of slum that was shown in the movie and will probably take a few years to resolve. Apparently this particular slum sits on one of the most expensive pieces of land in India and hence a great incentive to destroy it and make high rise apartments instead.
>
> 3. Do you think your government has done enough on terrorists?
>
Yes and No.
>
> 4. Do you think Tibet exile should stay there for ever?
>
As long as there is no equitable solution to Tibet and as long as they are staying peacefully in India they are welcome to stay and practice their religion and culture without state interference.
>
> 5. Do you think most successful Indians in US should return to India to help the motherland?
>
In the grand scheme of things, I don’t think it would make any difference, unless off course one is willing to “invest” or start a business in India like many do. middle tier people like engineers, doctors, or executives usually return for their own personal reasons or because they find one or other opportunity that they perceive to be better. Many return after retirement. Same reason why people go out of the country in the first place.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:23 am
@Shane 135,
The Himalayas provide a natural boundary between China and India and I would encourage you to look at this map: http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=5925&rendTypeId=4. Due to the fact that the Himalayan mountain chain is a result of a prehistoric collusion between Indian subcontinent and rest of Asia, major peaks of Himalayas lie along a certain natural line.
Historically, crossing these peaks has been a challenge and these peaks have pretty much ensured that no authority from the north can assert its control on the south side of the peak and vice versa. The main point being India and China have a well defined natural boundry that has stood the test of time. After the British left India, all that Nehru was trying to do was to assert this natural boundary which is marked by the highest Himalayan peaks. Keep in mind that China at the same time was building a secret road through Aksai Chin. There is no reason for Chinese control to extend to the south side of these peaks and there is no reason for Indian control to extend to the north side of these peaks.
When China started asserting control over Tibet in 1950s, there was a group within Indian government at the time that advised Nehru to get actively involved in Tibet in order to prevent Chinese control of Tibet. The reasoning behind this was that Tibet like Nepal, Bhutan, and Sikkim at the time were “buffer states” between India and China and if Tibet was occupied with China it would bring China right up to India’s border thereby giving China the ability to threaten India (note the passive thinking that is inherent here). However, Nehru ignored all such advice and did nothing while China took over Tibet (this has been regarded as Nehru’s first big mistake). As a result of his experiences with European Colonialism and being an Idealist (like many Indian leaders of that generation were – Gandhi being a prime example), Nehru believed in the concept of “Asian Unity” and never imagined that another Asian power (China specifically) would ever attack India up to the extent that Nehru didn’t even bother to create a decent army (this was Nehru’s second biggest mistake).
The rest, as they say, is history.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:10 am
@Albert Pinto #141
>> “When China started asserting control over Tibet in 1950s”
That is not the actual history, just to simply put. I don’t intend to make a detour to the subject to Tibet and China since there are several related discussion threads here to help people understand.
>> “The Himalayas provide a natural boundary between China and India … major peaks of Himalayas lie along a certain natural line.”
Himalayas mountain is part of Geography 101 taught by elementary schools in China. What that has anything to do with China-India border.
You need an agreement by both sides in order to demarcate a common border. That is from Ethics 101, right? Of course, imperialist GB and colonial ruled India did not agree with that.
Furthermore, you may want to learn more about the history of 6th Dalai Lama, a title granted by China’s Emperors during Qing Dynasty, as well as the history of Menba people living in South Tibet (Arunachal Pradesh)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monpa#History
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:44 am
>
>> “The Himalayas provide a natural boundary between China and India … major peaks of Himalayas
> lie along a certain natural line.”
>
> What that has anything to do with China-India border.
>
Figure it out. Its not that difficult
>
> Furthermore, you may want to learn more about the history of 6th Dalai Lama, a title granted by
> China’s Emperors during Qing Dynasty, as well as the history of Menba people living in South
> Tibet (Arunachal Pradesh)
>
Why? What will going through all this show?
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:30 am
Gidday to all,
I am an Indian from the North eastern state of Meghalaya and an hours flight from Itanagar which is the capital of Arunachal Pradesh(AP).I studied at N.E.R.I.S.T college during the 90’s which is an engineering college in Nirjuli in AP.I was a boarder in the hostel and had lots of local freinds from there.They were mostly Arunachalis of different tribes like apatanis e.t.c who were probably head hunters who did scalping maybe just 50 years ago.
I now live in auckland,New Zealand for the last 4 years as permanent resident(green card as in US)but still hold my Indian citizenship.Why did i move to NZ? Because Meghalaya state like Arunachal pradesh is among the seven states of North-East India who are still impoverished in rural areas and had partial development compared to rest of India.
My point is:The chinese in this forum should actually come and visit Arunachal pradesh for a holiday,go to my college or even visit Neighbouring towns.You will be Gobsmacked if you tell the locals like the apatani tribal people that you consider AP to be a part of China.These people are still wild and god help you guys if they start taking their bows and arrows out.Its like visiting a najavo indian reservation in najavo country in Arizona,USA or San juan county in Utah.You follow their local laws and customary traditions.Being an Indian myself and studying in AP i feel it shocking that India and China are playing a tug of war with this state.I know that the locals there feel that they are part of AP and they know that the state is an integral part of India.The chinese can debate about it being south tibet et all but its shocking about the different historical context that the chinese hold about AP and so do some Indians.
The Indian government has generally neglected this part of India and thats why i am here in NZ but the fact remains AP is an integral part of India,its capital is Itanagar.It has a chief minister and a governor,it has various administration departments spread across the state and the people of the state as far as i am aware from my experience during the college days are happy campers to be part of India.
And as for China laying claim over AP-These fierce tribesmen will burst out laughing and will be drunk for the next several days having Apong!(My personal favourite AP rice beer!)
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Hi Albert, thanks for your reply in #140. It is refreshing to learn from Indian’s POV. China is diverting part of the water to the north where water is scare. It would have significant consequences for countries like India and SE Asia who depend on the same water source from Tibet.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:55 pm
@Pinto #141
Gosh, why don’t you even look at a map first…
Aksai Chin is a valley between the Karakoram mountain range and Kunlun mountain range. To accept Aksai Chin belongs to India/Kashmir/Pakistan, and still base on the idea of mountain ranges as natural boundaries, you will have to advocate Kunlun as the natural boundary. What Nehru did violated the McCartney-MacDonald Line.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:00 pm
sumit@144:
I am not sure you are indulging in hyperbole or ignorance…the Apatanis were never headhunters(none of the tribes in disputed areas were ever headhunters) and are one of the most peaceful tribes.Bows and arrows are long passe, though machetes can be unsheated still:)
The PRC has experience dealing with these ‘ wild tribes’ as you say– there are tribes called ‘ Lhoba’ in Tibet which are blood relatives of AP tribes; I do agree that some of the most jingoistic ‘patriots’ are to be found in AP–the effect of decades of anti-China state propaganda.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:02 pm
@ Pinto & JXie: JXie has a good point here. Aksai Chin in no way falls on the Indian side of the Himalayas. Geographically, it is much more a part of the Tibetan plateau than the Indian/Pakistani zone.
However, if you use the Himalayas as a dividing line, then Arunachal Pradesh is certainly a part of India.
Let’s be realistic about this. We’re not talking 1860 or 1960, we’re talking 2009. China isn’t about to lose Aksai Chin and India isn’t about to lose Arunachal Pradesh. You can argue this ’til you’re blue in the face but the facts on the ground aren’t going to change. It’s just too difficult for India to attack AC and too difficult for China to attack AP.
@ Sumit Lanong: I wanted to echo TonyP4 and thank you for your comments. It’s always nice to hear from someone who’s actually lived there.
I used to live in New Mexico very close to the Navajo reservation and passed through it all the time. Sorry, no more bows and arrows there. Catch a Tony Hillerman book if you want an accurate picture of today’s Navajo. His books are really well written and very accurate in the details.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:36 pm
@Steve #148
I differ on your opinion. I am a realist. History, especially recent history of border regions, does play big on any border demarcation. You can NOT draw a map in arbitrary fashion or with a wishful attitude.
As I mentioned in post #111, India is NOT in a good shape to take on border settlement issue like what happened between Russia and China, and India will remain so probably for quite long. So this historical border dispute will continue until India got the right attitude and willingness to settle.
At the same time, it is unwise for India to beef up military presence or beating those childish nuke-mongering, for it won’t help India on its internal development nor its image abroad. Time right now is not on India side and any wishful thinking for one-side solution by India is also useless.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:25 pm
The Himalayas provide a natural boundary between China and India
The reasoning behind this was that Tibet like Nepal, Bhutan, and Sikkim at the time were “buffer states” between India and China
If Tibet is a ‘buffer state’ just like Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, the Himalayas will NOT be a boundary between China and India, natural or not.
I would encourage you to look at this map you yourself linked to: http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=5925&rendTypeId=4
thereby giving China the ability to threaten India (note the passive thinking that is inherent here).
The passive thinking is clearly demonstrated by annexing Sikkim, making Bhutan a protectorate, and sponsoring the Nepal monarchy.
July 3rd, 2009 at 3:44 am
buru@147
It isnt Hyperbole buru.I spent 4 years in the hostel and those dudes were wild!The college itself was nestled in a small valley surrounded by blue mountains.My apatani bros took me out to their local dree festivals and i also attended festivals of Nyokum of the Nishi tribe and i also had freinds from the adi tribe who showed me their dance called ‘Ponung’ or Ponoong-sorry my pronunciation may be wrong.
I spent 4 years there and i know how some of them behaved.They would do anything for Apong even stopped interstate”blue hills buses”and demand extortion from bus drivers on the way to naharlagun.So Dude dont tell me hyperbole!You are from there,you know how it is.
I cant seriously remember if they carried bows and arrows but i travelled extensively in Northeast as my Dad was in the Army then and we had various cultural shows in several N.E. states so i may be getting it mixed up between angamis or maybe Khasis and Jiantias.
Peaceful they are not,those young lads are high on Apong,Hip Hop music-courtesy 50 cents!,drugs,extortion from capital travels and blue hills buses that come from Assam.
I guess i am wavering from the topic but i was just wanted buru to know that i have been around your block mate!
cheers…
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:19 am
@Steve 148
To get into a bit more details, the story is a bit confusing in “greater jammu and kashmir area” (and I use this as a geographical term, but not a political term). Right above this area, we have the “Pamir Knot”, a geographical feature where the worlds highest mountain ranges merge. Below the “Pamir Knot” is Jammu and Kashmir where different mountain ranges go all over the place. Hence, the geographical picture here is not as simple as the Himalayan chain which form a natural boundry between India and China. This and other natural factors have pretty much ensured that, besides some specific regions, in general this area continues to remain as one of the remotest areas of the world.
Due to the exteme climate and geographical features of this area, no human or animal population in any signficant numbers has ever existed here (its simply not sustainable here). In the geographical sense, this area is truly what one would refer to as “no mans land”. Most of this area is high mountain ranges, glaciers, and in case of Aksai Chin a cold desert where absolutely (and I mean absolutely) nothing grows with no real known natural resources.
In pre-modern times, this area was mainly used by Tibetians to get to India and vice-versa and invaders from north-west passed through limited mountain passes here to invade India. The point being there was human movement through this area, but never any signficant population here.
Due to geographical complexity, this is where the real boundry mess is and that is illustrated in the form of claims and counter claims that India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and China have against each other in this area. China in effect would love to settle any boundry dispute in this area in favor of India provided that India gives Tawang to China (which won’t happen since unlike Aksai Chin, Tawang is a populated area with its own unique culture).
The problem is that modern technology and surveying capabilities including satellite images, etc make it possible for humans today to dispute over things which would simply not be possible to dispute over anytime in the past. For all practicle purposes this is a NO MANS LAND. Any settlement of boundry issue in this area will need to involve all four countries (Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and China) in some shape or form. As far as borders in the todays modern world area concerned, this is where the real complexity is.
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:43 am
@Sumit & Baru,
I am not originally from any of the seven sister states, but I lived in Shillong for a few years in 1980s as well 🙂 Unfortunately I didn’t have an opportunity to visit AP, but did have a few friends from AP when I was in Shillong 🙂
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:51 am
@foobar 150,
>
> If Tibet is a ‘buffer state’ just like Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, the Himalayas will NOT be a boundary
> between China and India, natural or not.
>
True, but Tibet is no longer a buffer state since it was forcefully occupied by China. As for Sikkim here is what wikipedia says:
[quote]
In 1947, a popular vote rejected Sikkim’s joining the Indian Union and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru agreed to a special protectorate status for Sikkim. Sikkim came under the suzerainty of India, which controlled its external affairs, defence, diplomacy and communications, but Sikkim otherwise retained autonomy. A state council was established in 1955 to allow for constitutional government under the Chogyal. Meanwhile, the Sikkim National Congress demanded fresh elections and greater representation for the Nepalese. In 1973, riots in front of the palace led to a formal request for protection from India. The Chogyal was proving to be extremely unpopular with the people. In 1975, the Kazi (Prime Minister) appealed to the Indian Parliament for a change in Sikkim’s status so that it could become a state of India. In April, the Indian Army took over the city of Gangtok and disarmed the Palace Guards. A referendum was held in which 97.5% of the voting people (59% of the people entitled to vote) voted to join the Indian Union. A few weeks later, on May 16, 1975, Sikkim officially became the 22nd state of the Indian Union and the monarchy was abolished.[14]
[end quote]
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikkim
Nepal and Bhutan area free countries, but both certainly have good relations with India (something along the lines of US-Canada relationship).
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:56 am
Hey Albert,
Good to know that you were in Shillong.Well i was born there and grew up in shillong and did my schooling and initial college at St.Edmunds.We had a Br.Pinto as a school principal there 😉 .You sound like you are originally from Goa or Bombay?
But seriously hey i wish i had some mates from AP here on this board.They would be laughing their arse off at the very mention of AP not being part of India.
cheers mate
Sumit
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:06 am
sumit@141– you did not really reply to my counters did you? but went off in a tangent…if you lived 4 years there I lived a lifetime.Boisterous youths in a hostel are not same as Wild..which you implied by imageries of headhunting, bows/arrows and Navajo. Its not enough if you have been around the block mate,and dont get me started on drugs and extortion mate,..but I’m digressing from the topic.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:14 pm
@Pinto #152
At the risk of beating a dead horse, allow me to make a few points:
– In all border proposals the British presented to Qing or Republic of China who might or might not agree with the proposals, Aksai Chin was never a part of the British Empire.
– Aksai Chin is strategically quite important to China. It provides a land route link between Xinjiang and Tibet at the west flank. It’s extremely unlikely China is willing to trade Aksai Chin for Tawang.
– China on land borders with 14 countries. Out of 14, China has land disputes with 3 countries. Other than India, with North Korea, China has not settled the sovereignty of a few small islands in a river; with Bhutan China has not formally demarcated the border, hence there is a couple hundreds of km2 of land in dispute. On the other hand, India on land borders with 5 nations, and it has land disputes with 4. I will let you make your own judgment.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:28 pm
@ Shane #149: Fine Shane, then why don’t you tell everyone how China is going to get an army over the roof of the world into AP in order to fight India, since you’re a “realist”. How is that realistically possible in today’s world? And why can’t India beef up its military presence in it’s own country? Does this mean China can’t decide where China puts its own military within China? I don’t think the Red Army would quite agree with you on this one.
@ Albert Pinto #52: Thanks for the explanation. I once read an article in a magazine, I think it was Outside, talking about the border standoff between India and Pakistan from the viewpoint of the soldiers actually stationed in those mountains. The attrition rate on both sides was enormous! That weather is so brutal that the whole idea of stationing troops up there could only have been thought up by idiots sitting in their warm offices in some far away capitol. “No man’s land” is a good description. I used to live in Arizona and though there is a lot of desert there, numerous plants can still grow. But when I was in the Atacama desert in Chile, nothing grew. Not a thing. It was like the moon, just dirt and rock. So I know what you mean.
@ buru #156: Fair enough. Since you also lived there, why don’t you tell us about your own experiences like the other guys did. I for one would like to hear them. I always like first hand views; that’s what separates this blog from many media sources where the reporter makes a few phone calls or spends one day in a place (and half of that day at a saloon) and writes a story. We’ve heard Sumit and Albert’s versions so I’m sure we’re all anxious to hear yours.
And I agree with you about the Navajo. They’re pretty mellow guys for the most part, just don’t get them drunk. Then you could slap ’em upside the head with a 2×4 and they wouldn’t feel a thing. Navajo certainly don’t have the drinking “gene”, just as they say that non-Indians don’t have the peyote “gene” and act like complete morons after taking it.
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:34 pm
steve, whats it you want to hear?
If you are talking politics–tthe people there are victims of the political soccer game played between India and China( we being the ball).The Indians have even colonised large tracts with pro-Indian refugees from Bangladesh, Tibet and even ex-army from Nepal.They stopped building major roads after 1962 as they’re scared of the PLA using such roads for incursion.The locals for most part are pro-India–which I would ascribe to a steady ,low-key anti-china propaganda by the state.When we were younger local paramilitary(equivalent of territorial army) used to say that PRC communists execute the old and the infirm once they were non-productive!
This is not to say I am anti-India.I would prefer being in a democracy (its addictive:) but the Indian govt is caught in a time warp and dont want to solve this easily-solvable issue.
July 4th, 2009 at 2:25 am
buru@156. Calm down mate,You are getting touchy now!I am not sure what”counters”you are talking about?,I am not here to counter anything but just talk about my experience in college between 1993-1998.4 years is good enough!.Its you who is going on the “defensive” about your turf but hey as i said i been around:)
I dont mind talking about the drugs and extortion and your good ol’ Chief Gegong Apang the multi-millionaire who ripped your state off!
🙂
July 4th, 2009 at 3:56 am
In all seriousness there are anti-China propaganda within India and anti-India propaganda within China. But I do think that Anti-China feeling within India is greater than Anti-India within China as China has more pressing issues to care about whereas India blames China for their own failures. But I do think China and India’s best interest that they don’t fight with each other, although somehow some western countries would probably like to see that happening. But whenever there is a situation between the 2 countries, both India and Chinawould try to de-escalate the situation. So I think China would treat India like how they would treat Taiwan, Japan and South Korea; they focus on the economic issues, but not on the political issues.
July 4th, 2009 at 4:17 am
> If Tibet is a ‘buffer state’ just like Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, the Himalayas will NOT be a
>boundary between China and India, natural or not.
True, but Tibet is no longer a buffer state since it was forcefully occupied by China.
The main point being India and China have a well defined natural boundry that has stood the test of time.
You are again talking out of both sides.
Nepal and Bhutan area free countries, but both certainly have good relations with India (something along the lines of US-Canada relationship).
Good to know. I wasn’t aware that US handles training of Canada’s military personnel.
July 4th, 2009 at 11:52 am
sumit–grow up..you’re looking for a pissing contest.
July 5th, 2009 at 1:43 am
@JXie 157
China also has border dispute with Nepal. Also, you (and a probably a few others here) obviously think that India does not want to resolve the border dispute with China. I am curious to know why would India not want to resolve the border dispute with China? i.e what incentive, in your opinion, do the successive coalition governments in India have to not resolve the border dispute?
July 5th, 2009 at 2:11 am
Buru-163- Hey …i can see who is “pissed off”now? Nice choice of words,well i am not suprised knowing where you are coming from!
July 5th, 2009 at 2:14 am
Albert,
I wouldn’t characterize India as “not wanting to resolve the border dispute”.
I would more characterize India as not being able to move past their paranoia.
It is the habit of some “democratic” politicians to constantly blame others for their mistakes. Easiest to blame problems like Naxalites and Maoists, and Pakistan (in turn Kashmir) on Chinese influence and conspiracies.
July 5th, 2009 at 2:34 am
China also has border dispute with Nepal.
Not since 1961.
July 5th, 2009 at 2:49 am
Nepal seeks China’s help to fix border dispute with India
November 20th, 2008 – 6:30 pm ICT by IANS –
Kathmandu, Nov 20 (IANS) Nepal is seeking the help of its giant northern neighbour China to resolve border disputes with its other giant neighbour in the south, India.on Thursday, Nepal’s Defence Minister Ram Bahadur Thapa of the Maoist party and Home Minister Bam Dev Gautam held separate meetings with a visiting high-level Chinese military delegation and discussed the possibility of China’s involvement in resolving the dispute over Kalapani.
Kalapani, about 75 km in Dharchula district in farwest Nepal where borders of China, India and Nepal meet, is one of the border feud flash points between India and Nepal. The Kalapani dispute started in 1962 after a war between India and China led to Indian security forces gaining control the Kalapani area.
Nepal shares over 1,800 km of open border with India and has border disputes in nearly half of its 75 districts.
Bam Dev Gautam, who is also the deputy prime minister, told the media after the meeting with the Chinese delegation that since Kalapani demarcated a tripartite border, the Nepal government felt the border talks should include all three countries.
On its part, the Chinese delegation has urged Nepal to regulate its northern border with the Communist republic in a bid to crack down on the exodus of Tibetans from Tibet to India via Nepal as well as block Tibetan dissidents’ stealthy entry into Tibet from Nepal.
Beginning in March, China faced a series of protests by Tibetans in Kathmandu which sought to draw the world’s attention to the alleged violation of human rights in Tibet on the eve of the Olympic Games in Beijing.
With exiled Tibetans engaged in discussions in India’s Dharamsala town this week to decide whether they would in future continue to seek autonomy for Tibet as part of the Chinese republic or gun for breaking away, China, which has declined to allow freedom to Tibet, is gearing up to block fresh unrest in its border areas as well as in Tibet.
Thapa, who visited China soon after assuming office and was promised military aid by the Chinese government, indicated that the Chinese team had advocated control over the open India-Nepal border as well.
“We have no border problems in the north,” Thapa told the media, “We need to regulate the southern border” in order to prevent anti-China activities.
Border feuds as well as other bones of contention between India and Nepal are to be discussed next week when India’s External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee pays his first official visit to the Maoist-ruled Nepal.
July 5th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
@Pinto #164
Well, first this is an outsider looking in. Of course you know a whole lot more about the Indian governments and Indian “mindset” (if there is such a thing), than I ever would. But anyway my two cents:
In dispute, either you beat up the other party and get 100% your way, or if you want the other party willfully sits down and agrees to a settlement, you will need give and take. I just don’t think any Indian governments can be perceived as giving up a square nanometer of “Indian territories” and manage to survive — not until one single dominant party emerges, which is unlikely given how diverse India is. If you look at it dispassionately, Aksai Chin has little strategic value to India, and there are quite a bit upsides in settling the border with China. Overall settling the disputes with some give and take to me is very apparently a net positive to India. On the other hand, I highly doubt India as a collective singular whole, has the needed will power.
July 5th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
buru,
By the way, what do you think of Ramesh’s claim back in #60 that, if given a choice, for the people of Arunachal Pradesh:
“their first preference is independence or significant autonomy; they envy Bhutan. Their second preference is Tibet (their cultural and religious home, even though Tibetans look down on Monpas). Their third preference is India (corrupt, stifling, incompetent and poor, but at least it leaves you mostly alone to practise your religion). Their last preference is China (good roads, economy better than India but dominated by Han with others marginalised; brutal suppression of Buddhism and disrespect for Dalai Lama intolerable).”
That sounds plausible to me at first blush …
July 6th, 2009 at 5:05 am
otto#170:
Ramesh statement is bang-on in 2 districts of Tawang& West Kameng– the people here are related to the Tibetans in every single way.In fact the Tibetans were collecting revenues till 1951 when the Indian military ejected them by force( the date is important, since India got independence in 1947).
The rest of the state people are not related to these Tibetan-like people in any way..and have no particular allegiance to anybody.In the past these areas were fully independent of any outside power,Tibet/China/India or even Assam.In fact it was the habit of these people to get tributes from plainsmen as well as Tibetans, not the other way round.The British never set foot on certain areas of the state and when the Indian military entered certain areas for the first time there was armed resistance.But all are peaceful and Indianised now.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:45 am
@ buru #159: Sorry, missed your post until now. Thanks for the reply. No, I wasn’t looking for the “political” answer since we get plenty of those here. I was looking for your own personal experiences visiting Arunachal Pradesh since you said that what you encountered was very different than what Albert and Sumit wrote. Since I’ve never been there or anywhere in India, I really enjoy hearing about the personal experiences of everyone who has. It’s the same when someone writes about Tibet or Xinjiang, since I also haven’t been to either of those places. I always enjoy the first hand viewpoint. Since you questioned Albert and Sumit’s experiences, I just wanted to hear yours and in what ways it was different.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:02 am
steve..I DID NOT visit there, I LIVE there 🙂
July 6th, 2009 at 6:04 am
Great, that’s even better!! Then you’ll have more stories!! 😛
July 6th, 2009 at 6:20 am
Actually I have no problem with what sumit wrote…I had just suggested that he was wrong in labelling the whole place is a ‘wild place’ with bow wielding, liquor drinking ,headhunting , scalp-taking people…but since he is more interested in name-calling I gave up.
Albert Pinto ko kyu gussa aaya? Since he says he never visited AP I have no issues with him.
* you will have to ask me specific questions–I am not good at telling stories:)
July 6th, 2009 at 7:41 am
Ok Buru,you made your point..we wont hear stories…we all like to hear your experience since you are there.
Talking about AP,I just recently heard that the USAF is on a fact finding mission alongwith the Indian Air force on US Marines and Airmen who could have been buried in some of the treacherous mountains and jungles of the AP/Burma border.During WW2 Most americans flew over Assam/AP into Kumning,China to assist the Chinese from holding out against the invading Japanese.I have a freind in church here Ray who was a navigater with the Royal Airforce and he often flew over the famous “Humpback”.He said many USAF planes went missing out there and some even bailed out in the border of AP never to be found.
I read this and i found it very interesting- http://www.miarecoveries.org
I am off topic again i guess 🙂 but well i just thought we can stop talking politics for a while aye mate!
July 6th, 2009 at 9:29 am
ok sumit…in fact I have many Khasi friends, and I like Turumbai:), and your plateau is most beautiful; I have seen the length of Meghalaya, from Dawki end to Garo hill end(phulbari).
In AP most of the airplanes have been stripped of the valuable aluminium to be sold as scrap; in the past when communication was non-existent some people even made utensils out of them(smelting).
July 7th, 2009 at 12:55 am
Thanks for your comments, buru. You make a good point that what’s true of Tawang and West Kameng can be completely different from what’s true of the rest of the state. The Chinese are presumably mostly interested in the Tibet-related parts, bringing some of the other areas along for the ride. Maybe someday India will make a separate state out of the Monpa parts of Arunachal. It wouldn’t be a very big state, but I understand the BJP at least has the agenda to draw more and smaller states (for instance, a separate state for the Nepalese-inhabited areas around Darjeeling). I don’t know to what extent if any having their own state would improve anything there.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:57 am
otto,
My observation and common sense tells me that the Chinese simply wants Aksai Chin for AP. Its our govt which is behaving like a kid and refusing to accept the de facto control. With time the Chinese will see the importance of AP (looots and lots of hydroelectric and water sources with few people–2 things which a massive growing country needs) and their position will only get tougher..in our lifetime they may ask India to take Aksai chin and give AP!
so strike while iron is hot.Its obvious that both countries got the contested areas for FREE..so why crib?
July 7th, 2009 at 7:58 am
@JXie 169
There is not going to be ANY give-and-take involving Indian administered populated areas (which includes Tawang, its monastery, and/or the grass that grows there) even if China offers Beijing in return 🙂
As far as unpopulated areas are concerned, I tend to think that there would be more flexibility there . Although this is just a guess and going well beyond my level of awareness.
July 7th, 2009 at 8:40 am
@baru
Can you elaborate on your earlier comment where you mentioned that Tibetian and Bangadeshi refugees are settling in AP ? As far as I knew, the long standing policy has been that only people from AP can legally buy land in AP just so that hordes of people from rest of India don’t end up moving into AP and destroying the local culture and environment?
Also, what is the current state of affairs with setting up an “Autonomous Council” for Tawang and West Kameng? Any progress on that? Last I heard was that it got approved by the state assembly, but there were some complaints from other areas in AP regarding giving special status to Tawang and West Kameng.
Although, I think I am going way off topic now.
>
> Albert Pinto ko kyu gussa aaya
>
🙂
July 7th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Pintoji,
181,
Q1.Refugees: not only Bangladeshis, but East Pakistanis were settled in tens of thousands in large tracts of fertile land in AP by Indian Govt in 60-70s.They were encouraged by Delhi to migrate out of East Pak,trucked in all the way( crossing Mizoram/Tripura/Manipur/Assam, but settled in AP!)from the border, given free land, money,ploughs, bullocks, seedlings, money etc etc per family, and settled in AP.
Lesser #s of Tibetans were settled with less facilities.
Gurkha ex-servicemen were settled in hundreds(now thousands) in prime lands near Indo-China border.
A conservative estimate should put them at over 200,000 in a state with population of 1000,000. Students unions have been agitating against this for long, peacefully.
re local culture and environment: Caught between brainwash& propaganda campaigns of competing interests like Church, Hindu Nationalists and Hindi nationalists its best left unsaid.
Q2.Autonomous status: non-starter as of now.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:28 am
Buru,
I would agree that they had to be brought in, so many people couldn’t have by themselves got to AP from East Pakistan/Bangladesh. Personally, I am more worried about this than the border issue. They should have been returned to Bangladesh after the war.
By the way, in the last 10 years or so there has been a steady influx of illegal Bangladeshi migrants in India. It’s easy to find them in big cities. In some cases I have heard that local politicians are eager to register these illegal migrants into electoral rolls to get more votes. Bangladesh off course denies that there are any illegal migrants coming into India and refuses to take back anyone. So I am pretty sure that Bangladesh has conveniently forgotten about these refugees as well. I read that there were 10 million refugees from Bangladesh who poured into India before and during the 1971 war and NE naturally bore the brunt. Tripura seems to be worst effected. I can certainly understand why people in AP would feel threatened, but what to do now after 40 years? These people probably have kids and grand kids by now born in AP and rest of India?
July 9th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Buru at 183
You are absolutely spot on mate!We have a similar situation in out state where a lot come in from the border of Assam and Tripura marry a tribal woman and then life goes on.I have seen a lot in my ancestral village in the jaintia hills district where a lot of Jaintia businessmen hire cheap labour from Bangladesh.
I even saw that in my own house.When i was in India we had to get our house renovated and had extra rooms added to it on the top so we hired it out to a contracter.The labourers he sent in it said they were from Nalbari Assam but they couldnt speak a word of Assamese.So i started to speak in Hindi and they could reply only in broken patterns.When i confronted them if they were from Bangladesh they denied right away.I didnt pursue the matter further as i didnt have any proof at all and they were merely surviving for their daily bread.
The whole demographics in our state is also changing rapidly.I havent been to shillong since i left India but my freinds from back home say it isnt how it is supposed to be.Even Jaintia hills is changing.we have now people with names likes Moinuddin Lyngdoh and Ismail marbaniang…to cut it short in my lifetime i have’nt come across a muslim khasi or jaintia especially in a christian dominiated state like meghalaya!
p:s.If you travel from shillong to Vairangte(Mizoram border town),you will come across a small town in the cachar district of Assam/mizoram border called Islamabad!My Dad said that town never existed with that name 10 years ago.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Pintoji#183,
You seem to have been confused about the reason why the Chakmas ,Hajongs(and Nepali ex-armymen) were settled in AP—it had nothing to do with 1971 and everything to do with 1962! It was obviously part of Indias effort to transplant a strong pro-Indian ethnic group in an area where the natives were(at that time) lukewarm to Indian rule at best, or even passively hostile in others.(There were no reaction from natives when the Chinese came invading in ’62, my teenage parents then had a gala time helping themselves to the supply depots of the abandoned Indian army camps.In the short time the Chinese skillfully turned many natives to their cause through propaganda and exemplary behaviour).
The point I am making here is that even our own Govt did the same thing the PRC has been(credibly) accused of doing in TAR–so one more rhetoric less for Indian posters. Personally I would not want these refugees to be chucked-out now for they were victims of politics by Delhi, and poverty-stricken.
Sumit 185#,
Muslim Khasi: AFAIK there are some Muslim Khasis from olden days, converted by Assam Muslims in the remote past during Seng Khasi days.
I was surprised to find Hindi music blaring everywhere and Hindi used freely in Jaintia Hills. When I entered Barak valley via Dawki, I spoke Assamese expecting good response but the locals were very hostile when Assamese was spoken( much friendlier when Bangla or Hindi used:)
The only merciful solution for Bangladeshi refugees is for Bangladeshis to be re-integrated with India–by gentle persuasion not force–they can even have their own parliament,police,dual citizenship and PM but Economy ,Defence and Foreign affairs with Delhi; This will make them Indian citizens giving them escape from their poverty-stricken, violence and disaster-prone dictatorship.It will make them rise with India.say what?
July 10th, 2009 at 9:23 am
@Buru 185,
The Chakmas and Hajongs were refugees like the Tibetians. Both apparently hounded out from their respective countries for one reason or another. There are over 100,000 Tibetian refugees in India and they had to be settled (temporarily or permanently) somewhere. Similary there are well over 300,000 Chakma and Hajong refugees who had to be settled (either temporarily or permanently) somewhere.
Since the Chakma’s and Hajongs come from Chittagong Hill Tracks which is in close geographical proximity to NE, the simplest explanation is that government at that time must have found it easier to distribute them in NE states wherever there was space. Just like Tibetian refugees, the Chakmas and Hajongs still don’t have Indian citizenship after over 3 decades. If they were specifically being brought in to change demographic profile they would have had citizenship by now. Plus the current state of Chakma refugees isn’t really good enough for them to serve this purpose.
I have said earlier on this forum that India should have got involved in Tibet in 1950s and in case of Bangladesh, I would say that India should have taken over the Chittagong Hill Tracks (the original place in Bangadesh where these refugees were hounded out of) and re-settled all the Chakmas and Hajong refugees there after the 1971 war. But the problem is that Indian governments foreign policy has traditionally been very benign and weak.
If all that the government wanted to do was to settle some pro-India ethnic group in AP, there would never have been a law against non AP people buying land in AP as they could have easily trucked hoards of landless poor out of West Bengal and Bihar (both highly populated states closest to NE) specially in 1960s and 1970s. Similary, Kashmir would have ceased to be a problem since there are millions of people who could have been brought into Kashmir similar to what Pakistan has done on its side of Kashmir and similar to what China is doing in Tibet and Xinjiang.
Although I don’t particularly like the idea of incorporating entire Bangadesh into India in some shape and form (because the population there is starting to get radicalized just like what happened in Pakistan in 1970s and 1980s), I certainly think it will be a good idea to temporarily or permanently incorporate Chittagong Hill Tracks (the place in Bangadesh where these refugees come from) and resettle all Chakma/Hajong refugees there.
But I doubt it this will ever happen. Indian government’s foreign policy is too passive. The government for some reason only known to them would rather subject its own citizens to this stress rather than taking over Chittagong Hills. If it was any other country this would have been done long time back.
July 10th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Pintoji#186,
There was no “refugee” problem worth its name in 1964, when the Pakistanis were first settled in AP. There was no war and India had no business trucking in people from another land when nearby countries like Burma was not bothered( because there was no need to).On the excuse of them being ‘ displaced’ by Kaptai hydroelectric project they were brought in by India.So if Bhakra Nangal dam displaces people do China or India resettle them in Tibet??
If the ‘ simplest’ explanation is proximity why were they not settled in Tripura/WB/Meghalaya/Manipur/Nagaland/Assam which are way nearer?What is the excuse now?
I am not talking here of keeping people in Refugee camps( as happned in WB during 1971 war, or Tamilnadu during IPKF days). Tens of thousands were officially given huge amounts of not just land for possession, but also seedlings to plant therein, bullocks to plough it , and money for sustenance by the GOVT of INDIA.
The very apparent reason is that right after the complete rout by PLA in 1962 India had to do something to dilute the area with pro-Indians.
Now why no citizenship? Its only on paper they have no citizenship–they have de facto citizenship in all ways.And no, its not because of our ‘ benign’ Govt, but because the hands of India was tied by the BEFRA Act of 1873 started by the British which India inherited in its constitution, and later-on by the vigorous agitation against it by the locals.
July 11th, 2009 at 9:24 am
> The very apparent reason is that right after the complete rout by PLA in 1962 India had to do
> something to dilute the area with pro-Indians.
If the rout had something to do with local people taking sides then I could understand this. However, the rout had nothing to do with local people. The primary reasons were mainly: 1) Indian army was poorly trained and ill equipped, and 2) the central government failed to anticipate the Chinese threat. Settling AP with poor landless and defenseless Chakma/Hajong farmers would not have prevented another rout in any case if that is what it came to, but a well trained and well-equpped army certainly would have along with the ability to anticipate any future attacks.
>
> because the hands of India was tied by the BEFRA Act of 1873 started by the British which
> India inherited in its constitution, and later-on by the vigorous agitation against it by the locals.
>
Given that the British were gone, there was nothing that was tying the government of India to BEFRA except its own will. Plus such laws are not unique to Arunachal Pradesh, they exist in much of NE, Laddhak, Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, some areas of UP, Lakshdweep Islands, A&N islands, etc and most of these areas have always been peaceful without any agitation by locals.
>
> why were they not settled in Tripura/WB/Meghalaya/Manipur/Nagaland/Assam
>
From what I can read on the internet they were settled in all of these areas (except probably Meghalaya and Nagaland) and also in Bihar and West Bengal starting from 1947.
During partition it was expected that Chittagong Hill Tracks (from where these people come from) would become part of India since partition was along religious lines. However, the British decided otherwise and left CHT as part of East Pakistan. Chakma/Hajongs became a harrased community in East Pakistan and countinued to move into India even after the partition just like ethnic minorities from West Pakistan countinued to move into India well after partition. Migrations as a result of partition (specially on our western borders) continued for atleast for 30 years, but were not limited to just 1947 (there was no border fence that time either along West Pakistan or along East Pakistan). For Chakma/Hajong migraiton on the eastern border, 1964 and 1971 were turning points where an unproportionately large influx took place.
July 11th, 2009 at 11:14 am
#188,
Point1. You dont have to ‘take sides’ for the country to populate this region with settlers– if Han were settled in Tibet or Xinjiang it would have been to dilute the future claims of independence by the locals( since they were firmly in Chinese hands by then, and there was no fear of losing it by force), similarly in AP it would have been to dilute Chinese claims, and to a lesser extent the demand for independence which may arise in future (by locals).It would have made sense THEN..for as late as 1963 Indian military were getting attacked and butchered by hostile natives( in 1963 guns thrown away by fleeing Indian army in 1962 were turned on IA!).Such an eventuality would likely lead to a referendum..and voila you have the numbers.
This premise is further strenghtened by settling of ex-armymen from another country right next to the border.
#point2:
BEFRA act is unique to NEFA..and Indias hands were ‘tied’ as locals realized the gravity of the situation and quoted it in various forums.In addition the raring insurgencies in neighbouring states and esp the violent Assam agitation against foreigners in late-seventies ‘tied’ the hands of GoI from further misadventure.
If I may digress a little, BEFRA act was to prevent conflict between British subjects (ie Assam) and those outside the frontier( ie present AP & beyond)–meaning AP was then not part of British India.
#point3:
Pl show me where tens of thousands were brought in from an enemy country and settled by the Central Government without consulting the owners of the land???
At the very least it shows that Indian Govt considers AP as a useful chunk of real estate..nothing more or less.
July 11th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Maoists extort $60 mln/yr in mineral-rich state in India
http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINIndia-40922920090709
July 11th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
raventhorn 190,
does it strike as odd to you( a Chinese? Ni hao?) that Maoists derive their name(and ideology) from Mao Zedong– a man even the Chinese have given up on( for ideology/policies, not respect)?
July 11th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
I think Mao strikes a cord with the rural discontent everywhere in the world.
Mao is not so famous for his Policies as he is simply for posing the general question, “If farmers feed the world, then why do they not have control of the world?”
It is not odd that great many people would idolize Mao. His policies might be wrong for later times in China, but he was right for China in 1940’s.
July 11th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
@buru #191
Mao Zedong is not a rebellious figure like Che.
Mao Zedong is a giant on philosophy, ideology and military strategy. But Maoist is a really mis-constructed term that even China do not recognize.
Mao contributed to China’s modern day philosophy and ideology that lots of people still firmly embrace today, but certainly not his economic polices (
BTW. he was removed from power due to a total failure of his economic policies in earlier 60s, then he returned to power through the infamous Cultural Revolution movement.
July 11th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
raven 192,
your point noted…communism and communist ideas are appealing only at a particular stage of a society/nations development ( Feudal/imperial plus poverty)..conversely as you improve on that, you must shed it to move on to a ‘higher’ plane( which for a lack of a better name I would call ‘prosperous democracy with capitalistic/socialistic characteristics’–closest examples would be Nordic countries?). This is perhaps what happened to the former Eastern Bloc( sudden shedding) and happening right now in China/vietnam(gradual shedding)..those who dont shed? North Korea/Cuba.
The implication is that there is still much injustice and poverty in India for such an ideology to find space, inspite of 8% GDP growth rate..
Shane,
What is with Mao and che? Both were ‘rebels’ and both succeeded..
AFAIK the new generation of Chinese are not enamoured of his later ideologies ,economic or social policies.And a person is best remembered by what he did last–he died in disgrace.But they do respect him enormously for his earlier roles in the Civil war and formative years of PRC. I doubt whether any number of Chinese ‘ firmly embrace’ his ideology today( except for official consumption)?
July 11th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Buru,
I don’t know if there is “higher” plane of political systems, but Mao’s ideas are definitely suited for a particular kind of social conditions.
The fact that Maoists exist in some areas, usually indicate a serious problem.
July 11th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
@buru
I guess you are not that familiar with Mao’s philosophy, ideology and military strategy. Most of them are live and still are the underpinning of China today.
Che was simply a rebellious figure with a tragic ending. Folklore, writers and historians then romanticized him into a mystical figure. You have to wonder what else left in Che’s legacy.
In China, Mao is often considered standing shoulder to shoulder with Abraham Lincoln of US. For example, check out this oil painting with a title “Discussing Divine Comedy with Dante” (you may want to see how many modern and historical figures you can recognize)
http://66.bachinese.com/pic/pspfnmxq.jpg
July 11th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Mao was also a fairly good military strategist (though I would not say he’s one of the best).
He correctly deduced in the Civil War prior to WWII, that the Communist forces should engage in limited mobile battles against the Nationalist forces.
His political opponents in the CCP pushed him out of power and abandoned his strategy, resulting in the virtual destruction of the Communist forces.
Once he regained political power, he correctly strategized that the Communists should go on the Long March to Northern territories, where Nationalist armies could not easily reach them.
The Long March was Mao’s moment. If he was wrong, what’s left of the Communists would all die along the way and fail to recoup their numbers once reaching Yanan.
Many Communists did die along the way, full 90% of the force did not make it to Yanan, and Mao was forced to leave behind his own infant son with strangers.
But the Long March proved to be the turning point for the floundering CCP, the remaining forces became stronger and more confident.
*
What differs Mao from his many imitators is that Mao was not a follower of anyone else. Mao devised his own philosophy and strategy for what he saw as necessary for China’s conditions, through years of testing prior to the formation of CCP.
Most people didn’t realize that Mao was organizing, protesting, as a leader of farmers, long before the Chinese Civil War.
He had learned through the years, what works in China and what does not.
Many of his political opponents in the CCP were educated in Europe and USSR, on idealized versions of Communism. And they had little real experience in China.
July 11th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Buru,
Yes, the implication for India of the Maoist Red Belt is in stark contrast to its 8% GDP growth.
With $60 million annual extortion, it is rather clear that India has lost the effective control of almost 1/3 of its territory to the Maoists.
It is ominous, because Mao’s PLA similarly controlled the country side of Northern China while the Nationalist forces held the cities in 1947-48. There is a distinct historical parallel here.
This current economic recession may further strain India’s hold on the Maoist territories. If migrants to the cities lose their jobs, they would be forced back to their countryside homes in record numbers, discontented and easily recruited by the Maoists.
July 12th, 2009 at 5:38 am
Raven197,
He had learned through the years, what works in China and what does not.
..which means the attempt of Maoists toreplicate a working Chinese ideology into India may not work..?
Raven #198,
I think you are overestimating the military power of the Maoists. They are more of a disruptive force to the socio-economic growth of India than a military challenge. In no way can they be compared to Civil-war Maoists of China or even to present Nepalese Maoists. In fact they cant hold any ground even in their strongholds for longer than a few months at a stretch..this, against sloppy police & paramilitary forces, not the Army.
If you really want to know where in India insurgents pose an actual challenge to the Indian Army–Kashmir,Nagaland, Manipur, Assam,Arunachal..etc are those. Even here the insurgents can hold-off the military for only short stretches of time..then they disperse to mount deadly ambushes.
July 12th, 2009 at 6:07 am
Shane 196,
Oil painting: Looks like the painter has lost sense of proportion? How come Xiu Liang, Prince Charles, Empress dowager Ci Xi, and even magic johnson/tyson share the dais with the most illustrious of all history??
Raven 198,
You are grossly overestimating the military power of the Maoists. They dont hold any static territory, and are being handled by state police( poorly equipped and trained at that).
Powerful insurgencies that require tens of thousands of armymen to fight rebels off are seen in Kashmir, Nagaland, Manipur, Assam etc..in these places the police would be wiped out in a few days(if not hours) if the army withdraws
July 12th, 2009 at 6:10 am
why is my post not getting published?
July 12th, 2009 at 7:43 am
Baru,
no offense, but this is starting to sound more and more like a “conspiracy theory,” i.e 1) I saw a light in the sky, so it must be a UFO. 2) at the same time somebody in town got abducted, so that somebody must have been abducted by the UFO, 3) since there are UFOs, the government must have created a secret landing site for UFOs.
I am not able to find any (un)credible source that would indicate that central government was trying to change demographics in AP. All the history, causes, and mechanism of Chakma/Hajong migration into AP is well documented and examined by human rights organizations and none it even mentions anything about deliberate manipulation of demographics.
As for settlement of ex-army people along border areas, that happens in many other parts not just in Aruchachal Pradesh.
July 12th, 2009 at 8:49 am
>
> With $60 million annual extortion, it is rather clear that India has lost the effective control of almost 1/3 of
> its territory to the Maoists.
>
They do not control even a single district within India either effectively or otherwise, but they do operate in or have operated in 1/3rd of the districts or to be more accurate in the Jungles of these districts where the benefits of economic growth are least apparent.
July 12th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
@buru #201
Sorry about it. They were trapped by the spam filter.
July 12th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Albert Pinto,
If you cannot see the history of this tract in totality with the Governments action it does not mean you try to mislead people by putting up a very weak and absurd corollary of UFOs. Perhaps you believe in UFOs, most people dont.
You dont expect the Indian Govt to declare from rooftops that they were changings demographics, did you? You dont expect the PRC to declare from rooftops that they were changing demographics in Tibet, did you?
I am sure you also didnt know that Indian Govt had a parliamentary committee which pursued followed a policy of keeping AP ‘infrastructurally weak'( meaning no roads towards borders) in fear of the Chinese, did you? Well I also didnt know till recently as this was a secret policy which was overturned (because of Chinese roads near border, not because of love of the people) and got media attention.
What ‘ credible’ source is it you want?? AP was shut out from all discussions by the Indian govt and only recently foreigners were allowed-in.And please tell me who are those human rights organizations who know better than the affected people themselves–who have been agitating for decades to throw them out?
If you feel its OK to settle nationals of another country in your area please do it in YOUR area…dont try to sound smartaleck here.
July 12th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
..But even in all secrecy some tell-tale gems have slipped through( hope this is not a ‘conspiracy theory’ :
P.N. Luthra, the then Adviser to the Governor of Assam, in his letter No.RR.17/64 dated April 21, 1965, addressed to All Political Officers and Additional Political Officers, NEFA, wrote:
“The settlement of people in NEFA will also help in developing the pockets that are lying unused and unoccupied by the local population. Besides, the presence of stretches of vacant land along the border is strategically not desirable and the last emergency(1962 war) had highlighted this problem. Resettlement of people in the vacant border areas will help to strengthen our frontiers and their defence.”
The above is an outright lie of course–the acquisition of land was done from day1 against the protests of local inhabitants.There is no concept of ‘ vacant land’ in AP– each inch, occupied or not, belong to a particular community.The above statement also proves that the motive was defence against China as I said(through demographic alterations, foots on ground, emergency supplies, eyes and ears)..
July 12th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Buru,
I’m a pessimist, and my experiences tell me that usually things are much worse than one expects.
Perhaps you are right that Maoists in India are not much a force. I have seen enough of downplaying from the Indian Media on that issue.
But it seems to me a contradiction, if they are not much of a threat, why would India name them as 1 of the biggest security concerns?
Perhaps to use that as an excuse to persecute the poor in the region? To lock up dissidents and critics?
Perhaps that is true.
But if so, they might find more and more people forced to join the ranks of the Maoists.
July 12th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
@buru #200
That is what makes this painting so intriguing. There are many dramas embedded there.
I like the part Che, Castro and “God Father” Brando budding each other, and another part Bush looking at TV of a nuke bomb picture with a telescope while Bin Laden was just behind him.
July 12th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
raven 207,
I think you misread the meaning of “security concerns” —its indeed a major security concern as in 1/3rd of India the night belong to Naxalites, and even in daytime ambushes are a constant danger.However they are not in a position to threaten the territorial integrity of the country in foreseeable future. Indian media( as elsewhere) do ‘up-play’ and ‘downplay’ various issues, but I think I have given the unvarnished gist.Again, the biggest ‘persecution’ of dissidents is done in the states I mentioned previously–Kashmir, Manipur, Nagaland etc, and not in Maoist areas( where it does happen in a major scale of course).
In sum: the Central Indian political structure is more fractured than you seem to believe.Thats why neither really good stuff, nor really evil things, can be done by the Government..its usually left halfway through:)
The reverse is true of China I believe.
July 12th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Yes,
China tend to be quite “stick to it” kind of mentality.
July 12th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Maoists are getting bolder, though; this happened in last within last 24hrs:
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090713/jsp/nation/story_11228402.jsp
July 12th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
#211
Whatever happens in India is India’s business, I don’t care.
What bothers me to no end is if same thing were happened in China and 35 officers killed by whatever fringe group or extremists, western media will jump in to lecture and scold, claiming atrocities and oppression and what not.
Now we even have a Turkey PM talking “genocide” and “cultural assimilation”, and he’s not talking about Armenians and Kurdish.
WTF is wrong with the world?
July 12th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
212,
China better start spending money on propaganda war now.
July 12th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
every Yuan spent on propaganda war is one Yuan less for education, health care and new roads
Why should China be forced to play this rich nation’s game under western rule?
On the other hand, those poor Indians have been yapping for 60 years, but nobody cares or even listens to them, not even themselves.
July 12th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
No choice. I think one of the historical problems with China is that we don’t “yap” enough. Chinese believe that hard work and action speak louder than words.
But that apparently has become somewhat of a disadvantage, that China seems to be lost for words in the world, and fight for its own pride.
“Rich nations” are only “rich” because they make themselves sound “rich”, while running themselves into “debt” and “ponzi schemes”.
and Indians “yapped” themselves into independence without hardly firing a shot against the British. Learn from Gandhi. He might be weak of body, his words are his weapons.
China need not become weak to use words as weapons.
*
It’s time that China train an army of journalists and lawyers to fight for its good name! If we can win the battle to modernize China, so shall we win the war of words.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
“ It’s time that China train an army of journalists and lawyers to fight for its good name!”
..is the mentality of shepherding the thoughts of people coming through here? New generation of Chinese should think of emulating Hongkong and Taiwan, not North Korea!:)
July 13th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
@ wukong #212: You just condemned the “western media” for something that never happened… amazing! And then you used the example of Turkey, which is not a “western” country. So when you say “western media”, are you referring to all non-Chinese media?
#214: China already spends lots of money on propaganda, that’s why the department is called the “propaganda department”. They also have state controlled media, which isn’t free either. So it seems they are already spending less for education, health care and new roads if we use your example. Do you feel they should disband the propaganda department and state controlled media in order to free up money for education, health care and new roads?
July 13th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
#197, R4K
Mao, as a leader, should be judged by how many its citizens benefit from his governance as simple as that.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
@Buru 206
> The settlement of people in NEFA will also help in developing the pockets that are lying unused
> and unoccupied by the local population. Besides, the presence of stretches of vacant land along
> the border is strategically not desirable and the last emergency(1962 war) had highlighted this
> problem. Resettlement of people in the vacant border areas will help to strengthen our frontiers
> and their defence.”
This is exactly the type of “leak” that I was looking for. Thanks for digging it up. The intent of the government was to 1) protect its borders against foreign invasion, and 2) to find a place where refugees that pored into NE India could be settled. I am sure you would agree that there is nothing malicious in this against the local people? However, the line was certainly crossed in the sense that the government failed to 1) consult local people and keep their wishes/desires in mind and 2) did not anticipate and/or give sufficient weight to the demographic shift that would take place as a result of any such settlement. Populating the border area, for defense, is not malicious. However, doing it in a way that would alter local culture or demographics is certainly being careless at the very least.
Government (specially in India) needs to be careful that its action directly or indirectly don’t lead to change in demographics or culture of local populations – such things, if they occur, should follow a natural course without government interference.
At the same time one must also consider the fact that the central government has gradually devolved power in AP to the state government (as you now have a state government that was missing in 60s and 70s). This should certainly give a better representation to people in AP in order to prevent such things from happening again or at the very least happening without consultation of local wishes and desires.
As far as the refugees are concerned, their numbers must be reduced to a point where local culture and demographics are not impacted (not just in AP but in other NE states as well were this happened). They are still not Indian citizens, so they must preferably be resettled back in CHT in Bangaldesh (and for that to happen India will have to move away from its passive foreign policy) or at the very least distributed among the other states.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
@wukong 212
> What bothers me to no end is if same thing were happened in China and 35 officers killed by whatever
> fringe group or extremists, western media will jump in to lecture and scold, claiming atrocities
> and oppression and what not.
It’s because of the greater level of transparency (as opposed to “propaganda” as you put it) that is inherent in India, i.e people and governments outside of India are able to see all our problems in full view and and decision making process that goes behind any actions that are taken to counter problems. China on the other hand does not have a transparent process of governance and this by itself makes people outside China uncomfortable and also allow for greater degree of state abuse.
In India, people tend to criticize their own government more than any foreign media. I don’t think any foreign media has even come close to the level of criticism that governments in India get from their own people.
We also see the “country” as different from “government”. I am not sure such a difference is clearly visible in China and hence criticism of government and its policies are often perceived by the Chinese (in my opinion) as criticism of China and vice versa.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Nice civil forum(I was kicked out of Indian/Chinese forums trying to get a discussion going minus the heat :))
The simple answer to your question is “China considers as its territory for reasons of its own, the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh minus the two districts of Changlang and Tirap”. So China’s aim is to keep on ankle-biting (sometimes biting much aboveB)) India with this claim whenever it can and it makes news. ADB loan is one of them. Denying a visa to the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh is another headline grabber (Any other regular guy would have to get a Chinese visa anyways from the embassy in New Delhi).
I am a local from the area – Assam and the ground fact is the British drawn McMohan line is the actual border of control between the Indian and Chinese armies, especially in Arunachal Pradesh. However with roads, railroads and airstrips/ports being built rapidly, China has massive advantage logistically inside their borders compared to the Indian side of the territory.
Most of the ramblings in the Chinese article are just….ramblings and may not be factual. Most Indians only know about China through all the stuff they buy, as everybody else in the world! I doubt that Chinese also hardly know about India or even care…coz they dont use Indian software enmasse or outsource their businesses to India. The bottom line is that its just about another border feud period.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Steve 217,
On defense of Wukong, Turkey is a member of EU. While not traditionally thought as part of the West.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:50 am
@ R4K: Turkey is not a member of the EU. They have applied for membership but have not been accepted.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Steve,
My mistake, I meant to say that Turkey has been an “associate member of EU and its predecessor” since 1963, according to wiki.
July 14th, 2009 at 5:19 am
219 Albert,
you said GoI Intent was:
“1) protect its borders against foreign invasion, and 2) to find a place where refugees that pored into NE India could be settled”
If the solution to above two ‘problems’ was to permanently settle our land with masses from Pakistan( Chakma ,Hajong), Nepal ( Gurkha ex-armymen), Myanmar( Lisu) and Tibet(Tibetans) then why should we not consider such a government malicious??
What is the 1 million-strong Indian army for, if the Govt feels it needs to populate AP with foreigners and at same time stop building roads to keep China at bay?
221# Sangos,
Dada /bhaiti,
Apuni khenekuwa asa? Ami agot kotbai blog-ot log dhorisile, monot-asene? Axomor khobor bator aji-kali kene asa-nu?
July 14th, 2009 at 7:47 am
Buru,
AP is not the only place in India where refugees have settled. So in that respect, the central government has not treated AP any different from other states in India and hence cannot be regarded as malicious. However, I agree with you that the central government failed to take the local views into consideration on an emotive local issue and also failed to realize that it was in effect changing the demographics of the state which in fact it was trying to protect at the same time by imposing laws that prevent Indian citizens from outside of AP to buy land in AP. A malicious government would have simply removed any such law, so there is no maliciousness here.
I will mainly list it as another failure on part of central government (which definitely needs to be corrected in a *responsible* manner by both central and local governments). The government has and does make mistakes (and blunders) and your state is definitely not the first one or the last one. Nor is it the only one were strong local preferences and views have been violated as a result of poor planning. Having said that there are also cases where central government has taken local views and preferences in mind (devolving power in AP to state government being one – there are other places where it has not been done). Devolving power is the last thing a malicious government would do because it would reduce their ability to do what they please.
July 14th, 2009 at 8:48 am
225….bou liya!…you can really speak good assamese buru!..:)
July 14th, 2009 at 8:52 am
227,
..for khasi I just know La..ou and ..ud lia:)
July 14th, 2009 at 8:54 am
La bou……..and stud lia!!!!!!!!!!bro you made me smile in far away new zealand at 8:54pm in the night!
cheers mate!
July 14th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Albert 226#,
I appreciate your attempt to be understanding and inclusive.However I cannot excuse Delhi for its actions in our area which has been shady ,secretive and opaque.So the benefit of doubt goes to the doubters:0
However your statement implying ‘ a malicious Govt would have gone all-out, why only these half-attempts’ sounds cynical to me( I know you didnt mean to)…similar reasoning can( and have) been given by worse Governments who have ill-will towards minorities( eg Sudan, Sri Lanka, Russia, even perhaps China)
July 14th, 2009 at 9:08 am
229,
I used to know more..but time and age has erased the less interestting words:))
I used to know a Jaintia guy called Lamki Laloo..know him?
July 14th, 2009 at 9:28 am
If he is from shillong i can trace him out…anyways the tribe laloo is among our clan of 12 tribes.How old is he you reckon?Wat was his field or line of work ? You aint to old buru..you mature along like a fine glass of sauvignon blanc!:)
hey buru keep in touch….feels like home when hearing from you.you can email me directly if you like slanong@aa.co.nz
cheers
July 14th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
> However your statement implying ‘ a malicious Govt would have gone all-out, why only these
> half-attempts’ sounds cynical to me( I know you didnt mean to)…similar reasoning can( and have)
> been given by worse Governments who have ill-will towards minorities( eg Sudan, Sri Lanka, Russia,
> even perhaps China)
Buru, I wasn’t implying that you should “excuse” the central government for “certain” of its action in your area. They should be kept on a tight leash. Also what I said is that malicious government would have simply (and easily) removed the law that prevents other Indian citizens from buying land in AP before taking any other action regarding refugees or otherwise.
July 14th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Chinese and Indian positions on Southern Tibet/Arunachal Pradesh make them clear enemies on that front – make no mistake on that. That said, both countries have a complex love-hate relationship with a huge win-win bilateral economic factor. China can definitely do a “1962” again in Arunachal Pradesh/Southern Tibet, however it needs strong reasons to do so overriding trade considerations with India. I am no China expert so correct me, but here are some of the reasons why China would take over Southern Tibet.
1. Historical – Tawang Monastery( you all know why…)
2. Water resources for irrigating Northern China: cutting off the Tsangpo river and other humongous water management projects etc.
3. Bypass the Malacca strait around-the-world-in-XXX-days route for Chinese exims, with an alternate route through possibly Bangladesh. Did someone say India? 🙂
As for India, it will cling on to Arunachal Pradesh, if only for saving face, period
So Buru dude! I know how you feel…thats how the world works my man…power games between big powerful nations and weaker nations being pushed into oblivion. Its the same story repeated again and again and again. From the Sioux in USA to Aboriginals in Australia historically the world over, it has all been a game of survival and resources.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Sangos,
If you ask me why would China go on the warpath over AP, it is 1) Water 2)Water 3) Water…others can wait.
However I dont see them itching for a fight..it is India which is holding up a final settlement, based on present realities.I dont foresee India defeating China to take Aksai Chin as long as it doesnt implode. In case China implodes and Tibet gain independence I dont see Tibetans giving Aksai Chin to India! So our Govt is unnecessarily dragging on this fight which requires a closure now.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:45 am
Another version of why China would attack India again. This article now seems to be doing the rounds of both local and international press:
http://news.rediff.com/slide-show/2009/jul/11/slide-show-1-why-china-may-attack-india.htm
Finally the author seems to echo my own sentiments regarding making Indian foreign policy more assertive (that I posted in one of the posts above) 🙂 I will make sure I pat myself on the back for it.
Quote: “India must rapidly shift out from its defeatist posture of pacifism to deter China. New Delhi’s stance should modify, not to aggression, but to a firm assertion in statecraft”
It took getting our ass kicked in 1962 war to start building an army. Will it take another war to get rid of pacifist foreign policy.
If we had an assertive foreign policy Bangadesh would be taking back all its refugees, Pakistan would pay a “price” for each of its terrorist adventures, and China, which only understands “power” and “control” would finally get the point when we start reacting on tibet rather than on AP. Not to mention that it certainly helps being surrounded by responsible neighbors like terrorist anarchy of Pakistan, perpetually in civil war state of Sri Lanka, Fundamentalist Anarchy of Bangadesh, Military dictatorship of Myanmar, and ovr great must-become-world-power-at-all-costs Communist friends to the north who only understand “power” and “control”. One look at or neighbors on the map brings such great tears of joy in my eyes. How could a country possibly ask for better neighbors.
But no, these idots in government would pretty much make sure that we get our ass kicked again before they say “Oh sorry, I forgot, but now that we have got our ass kicked again, lets make sure that our foreign policy is more assertive to avoid any such future attacks.”
This better lead to another big increase in defense budget and defense R&D.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:19 am
The question is why India elitists are so insecure and mad by China’s rapid development?
There are two ways out of this Indian complex:
1) Fix up the border with China, mend fences and become good neighbors
or
2) keep this inner rage going, arm to teeth and continue to dig a tomb for itself.
India elitists and politicians have to make up their mind.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:48 am
237-Gidday Shane-You sure know how to wind up mate!I can see your rapid development from here down under….you got buggered in the mother of all deals with Rio Tinto,now playing sour thumbs and detain Mr hu-an australian Chinese.It shows how insecure China is after losing the deal.
Why dont you fixup your Xinjiang province first,mend fences with the Uyghurs,have a cup of tea with them and then dig a tomb for the 150 hans who were killed recently.
There is no rage mate just dumbfouded with your word “elitists”!Wat a load of crap!
p:s:Forget India,watch where your relations with Australia is going? Tune in mate,Cool Bananas for now!
July 15th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Minus the belligerent tone, I cannot but help agree with the gist of both points Shane makes in #237.
point 1:”Fix up the border with China, mend fences and become good neighbors”
—Indeed I would say. There is no need to give or take an inch–since both countries occupied areas which were never part of it in the past.It was the good luck of China to lay hand on Aksai Chin first, and good luck for India to lay hand on AP first.Simply agree to settle on the present borders–and the benefits are mindboggling.Even supposing not a single cent is earned from trade( impossible!), imagine the billions of dollars saved in what is now wasted in manning the borders, building defences, buying outrageously costly arms..either you can use it for own citizens, or invest it for goodwill in our smaller neighbours.
2)” keep this inner rage going, arm to teeth and continue to dig a tomb for itself.”
Agree. The tomb need not be a literal one. Even right now, wasting so many billions while our kids are dying of malnutrition is a form of “digging our own tomb”.
On the literal side, a full blown war with China, if she wins, may simply mean Northeast getting chopped-off at chickens neck and getting fragmented plus Kashmiri independence. I am damn sure India will never win, because Pakistan is sure to open a simultaneous Western front.
Let us be pragmatic.
July 15th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Wow, things can get hot and heavy in this debate (Stevie-mod: you got a job on your hands sir :). Its good to exchange views with Chinese civil society, though their views don’t matter in China. Unless this forum is fortunate to be graced by the Communist party of China itself, all this exchange is purely informational with no bearing on Chinese goverment policies. Again no China expert, so correct me. While China is rapidly changing economically, the country has no place yet for democratic political expression.
Far as India is concerned, well it DOES NOT have any view vis-a-vis the Northeast especially Arunachal Pradesh, other than doing its best to maintain status quo.
Lets talk a little about issues that don’t matter – views of people like Buru, somebody from Meghalaya here and myself. “We beg to submit for the kind consideration of the high and mighty, that this land under dispute belongs to us handed down by our ancestors :)” Long story short, let us assume that today we are under the hammer, which way would we choose? While it would be cool to be independent 😎 :), if we go under the Chinese – we get strong governance with some help from the PLA 🙁 ; rapid economic development led by scores of Han overnited from Shanghai :(; roads, rail and air infrastructure in 7 days literally 🙂 :(!…(any more goodies…?) Aw come on dont talk about Xinjiang, Tibet and what happened to the local tribes of Yunnan 🙁 🙁 🙁 . Ah if we continue with India, the less said the better 8^[
!
July 15th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
@ Everyone: I started this post to try and bridge the gap between cultures. I thought many of the comments on both sides were excellent, informative and helped in that goal. But lately what I’m reading is a bunch of xenophobic, ultranationalistic rants. When did everyone stop listening to the other side? Do you really think you are helping to change attitudes and promote understanding and peace by spouting this kind of garbage?
Buru tried to calm things down in #239 so why don’t we all calm down and either try to contribute to mutual understanding, or just move on from this particular topic post.
In reality, “it takes two coins to make noise”. Both China and India will have to sit down at the negotiating table and work this out. This isn’t 1962 and with the strength of the armed forces on both sides, a war between the two would only cause misery for both countries.
Why don’t we try to lift the level of discourse a bit, huh? I’ve enjoyed hearing from people who actually live or lived in AP, and I’ve also enjoyed most of the comments from the people who haven’t and have tried to learn about AP. From what I’ve read, it seems life there is far more complicated than I realized. The history is also complex. Trying to turn this into a black/white issue seems silly.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Fair point Steve. Guess its all wait and watch what unfolds along the sorepoint of Indo-Chinese relations: The Border. My gut feeling is that with 2 trillion dollars of forex and the strongest economy on the planet on date, its upto China now to choose the options with India. Its recent quirky international behavior with this new found power does not look very encouraging. We can only hope matters don’t spin out of control in the interests of long term peaceful relations between these two countries, but then one never knows!
August 3rd, 2009 at 6:13 pm
My viewpoint is that China is a large country(3rd largest) and now it needs to focus on improving the land it has rather than occupying other lands in name of historical territories.Historically, mongol empire was once the largest land empire on earth and see now what it has become.
I think China has had enough of the territory game and should now focus on other things because its the future superpower and they have ability to do what no country has ever done.
India is never going to trust China again because they have had a fight once and China’s military is improving very sharply as compared to India’s.
I don’t think there is an easy solution to this disputes, not even war because India, though might be weak but sometimes even weak oppositions can upset the powerful ones and obviously war is good for nothing.
There is still very less neutral information, Chinese say its their and Indians say its their but problem with China seems to be more as its not only wooing for indian control terittory but also Taiwan,mongolia,russia,tibet e.t.c controlled territories and this stance would form and anti-china coalition which will not be good for world peace.
Finally, i can’t say what territory belongs to whom but i think we should be peaceful with what we got and forget this territorial hunger which has caused most of the wars in the world.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
China and India are sitting down for border talks. Thats a good sign 🙂
August 5th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
@ Sangos: Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Here’s a positive article about China/India relations from the People’s Daily.
And here’s an article from the Economic Times and one from Xinhuanet about new talks concerning the border dispute.
August 10th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Its great with all the positive facts about the China and India relationship especially trade figures and growth potential. Hopefully the positive momentum will take this relationship to new blissful levels.
That said lets talk about the tough things, the thorns in the bed of roses. With India and china, IMHO its more revealing what they do and NOT what they say. Most of the media stuff on both sides has been posturing all along and can swing to the extreme ends at the drop of a hat. Just google “india china” and you would be bewildered!
The border is one sore sticking point and alls not well, however one may want to wish it goes away. Just look at all the border intrusions and what not. Then recently the trade fights. I supppose India and China have some perceptions of each other in their deep rooted national beliefs and its going to be lot of work to reframe those and is going to take lot of courage and vision for its leaders. Till then its going to be an uncertain interesting scenario. The good news is that at least these two big fellas are talking to each other.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Oh BTW…even before the 1962 attack…these two guys were talking to each other with all the ‘Panchsheel’ bonhomie between Nehru and Mao…dunno what went wrong but Indians were literally caught off guard with the Chinese army walking over the Himalayas down to the Indian plains…maybe talking just does not cut the chase in the India-china relationship. Hope I am dead wrong this time around!
August 11th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Hope that they keep on talking to improve relations but the concern is what will be the ultimate conclusion as nobody is agreeing to compromise on territorial claims and someone will have to if things have to improve.
Plus, even if border dispute is solved, the two nations will be racing in future for superpower.
August 11th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Agreed! An unresolved border is definitely an irritant in a traditional sense. The real danger comes from the apparent “superpower status” race between these two. Competition can breed strange behavior such as playing sessionist games in other’s domian to weaken the competitor.
Dangerous comments keep cropping up like “China’s Kashmir” – India’s (gleeful) reference to the Uighur crisis in Xinjiang. Or “Aiding ULFA for Assam to gain independence” – China’s (diabolic) ideas of breaking up India into smaller parts.
There is definitely the clear future danger of these two emerging powers to miss out the meta game of their roles in the global arena blinded in the pursuit of smaller gains.
August 12th, 2009 at 6:57 am
Plus, situations like a trade war make the part of these conspiracies too.Both the sides have been trading quite largely now and this will hurt both the nations if there is hindrance in trade.
August 13th, 2009 at 1:04 am
@ footfall & Sangos: I think you both make good points. I really don’t see any need for reason for either side to escalate the tension and an agreed upon border should be reached sooner or later. It seems China wants to settle her border issues and has already settled most of them. This is a big one but not impossible and to settle it would calm passions in both countries and spur trade and political contacts between the two. Sounds like a win/win proposition to me!
August 14th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Taking off from where you left Steve, thats the ideal scenario one can hope for. That said, IMHO thats far from it in reality. As Footfall flagged out spot on, its the Superpower race thing thats so worrisome and my gut feeling is both powers don’t see that as a win-win proposition. Its like the old jungle rule, there can only be one king at least in Asia or the ‘World Deputy’ of the US, if you will.
Correct me but the whole border dispute thing has been escalated as a sort of dangerous pretext for conflict. Heres the low level deal and I speak with some authority as I come out of the land. The first chunk – Aksai chin has become important to China, no biggie with India. Arunachal Pradesh/South Tibet – that chunk of land is the flashpoint. For India, strategically important and there you have China, invaded and overran most of it in 1962 and retreated. First the Chinese wanted Tawang, a little mountain town at about 10,000 feet right of Bhutan, with a huge Tibetan Buddhist monastery. They say its part of Tibet. Its actually Monpa, not a Tibetan tribe. Next China wants the entire eastern Himalayas as Southern Tibet. None of these tribes are ethnic Tibetan. Whether these guys are Indian or Chinese is a loaded question. Its like asking a Mohican or Huron whether they are British or French(way back in 19th century America of course 🙂
Its an open secret that border intrusions across the control lines are on the rise recently on both sides. And then you have the cloak and dagger sort of back and forth media comments with all the dark intentions spilled out. The heats rising and the border is just a pawn in the bigger dirty game.
August 15th, 2009 at 6:57 am
I think the issue can be sorted out by not raising it further.i.e Indian agrees on Aksai China and China on Arunanchal Pradesh.It will be peaceful and won’t hurt the sentiments of both too.
August 15th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Sangos, I agree with you that things were pretty crazy in 1962 but those were different times with different leaders. In today’s world, a border war would be economically and politically insane for both countries. My guess is that the final compromise will be on the order of what footfall has written; a confirmation of the current status quo with slight adjustments in the existing borders in order for each country to save face.
August 16th, 2009 at 7:01 am
I am just writing this to clarify my doubts though, but i think that China has solved all its border disputes except for India is just an illusion.See there are tensions with Taiwan,Vietnam.And as far as i have heard and read philippines, mongolia, and Bhutan too.And also some very small ones with brunei, burma and japan too.
Please Clarify if its true.
August 16th, 2009 at 11:52 am
@ footfall: The Vietnam and Mongolia border disputes have been solved. As far as I know, the only land border disputes left are with Bhutan and India. There are sea disputes with several nations involved, in both the South China Sea and with Japan in the area NE of Taiwan. Of course, the Taiwan issue still exists but the official version is that both governments claim China with the ROC also claiming Mongolia, if I remember correctly.
August 16th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
S.China sea is the one in big dispute due to the oil drill right. Some area claimed by China is closer to Vietnam than Hainan Island.
August 17th, 2009 at 1:31 am
Expanding on Footfall’s border settlement theory, here’s a recap why it may work (China keeps Aksai Chin and India keeps Arunachal Pradesh): Steve’s’ post # 254.
And why it may not (China keeps Aksai Chin and hell bent on Southern Tibet): # 234 plus my theory of using the border issue for gaining superpower leverage.
August 20th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
To quickly add the Chinese perspective of the boundary in all fairness. Southern Tibet has always been as the name suggests…part of Tibet (so Chinese). India has forcibly occupied this chunk of Chinese land. It is a fact that Tawang was administered by the Tibetans before being evicted by the Indians in 1948. The rest of South Tibet was under some sort of loose allegiance to Tibet if not under its firm control. The Brits drew the McMahon line but never actually directly administered these mountains and the tribes that live here.
Aksai Chin – neither Brit nor Indian ever set foot there. It was just claimed on paper ‘ a few rocks where even a blade of grass do not grow’, Nehru’s words.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:40 am
Well, but this approach won’t really go.Its not only Chinese who are patriots,if you say this to an indian, he will never agree, both the parties have their point. not everything in east Asia was China, as i have said before, empires have come and gone, We should be more future prone rather than history, there are much more problems in the world than to fight for territory.
August 21st, 2009 at 2:02 pm
As per TonyP: Steve @256 – the land border dispute has been settled, but VN and China are going to be going head to head (with the Malaysia and the Phillipines) over the Spratly Islands. The Spratlys are (surprise, surprise) resource rich – lots of natural gas – and about 370kms off Viet Nam’s South East coast. In 1988, Vietnam and China fought a brief naval battle over the contested Islands in the south-central area of the South China Sea. Everything seemed settled – then Ha Noi tendered a 2 billion dollar natural gas project near the islands. There has been posturing since: perhaps not so much in China proper, but Vietnamese papers almost daily include rants on the issue and there is a patriotic movement to have the Spratly’s covered in the national school curriculum.
China has indicated over and over that the soft power approach to SEA ends where security and resource issues emerge. It will be interesting to see how this pans out in upcoming years.
August 23rd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Thanks jael fro the Spratlys perspective. Its pretty clear now that India and China are going to be competing for resources and ENERGY! In Tibet its just plain good old water!… just throw in the rich nuclear and other dirt into the equation!!
November 1st, 2009 at 6:13 am
Hi,
Looking at the raise of China and India, one of my childhood story come to my mind. We were three friends of which two of us (me and Patel) study well and the other Singh is not so good at it, One day patel and me where really fighting who is first and second in the class. Then Singh stepped in and said i have not seen more stupid guys than you too. Here i on one hand struggling to get a passing grade, you two of instead of rejoicing on your A+ grade, you are worrying about your rank.
When i look at China and India i feel the same way. As an Asian i am very proud whenever somebody mention about growth rate of china, I walk three inches tall automatically. I feel so sad that many chinese (other indians too) in this forum don’t share that feeling. Three forth of my 401K is in China and India fund,
In the long term, i feel like India has more chance of growing faster than China, Here are my reasons.
1.People (non chinese) are not very proud of china’s growth. When china stands up and take its hard earned honors, there need to be lot of others to cheer it. Unfortunately that’s not happening. It takes some effort for non-chinese to feel good for Chinese people. It’s not just jealousy. The reason may be that they do not recognize any mutual benefit from china’s growth. They cannot picture themselves working in china, but in India they can. ( May be its English, multi ethnic society, similar political systems, past history).
2. It always feel like Chinese (government or collective consciousness) are too selfish to spread the wealth arround
It’s been a fact that china only does things that it thinks it will benefit it’s people. It does it un-apologetically. (that’s good), but it does not care what or who it tramples on. It does not do much for the common good. for example
a. Its support for all the people the U.N want to isolate. Chavez in latin america, Iran, Military in pakistan etc.
b. Its artificially keeping the yen value low, even though its proved time and again the adverse affect for other countries (even for itself) in doing it.
3. Its raise have been because of a convoluted trade relationship it had with America. (Buying the American bonds with the trade surpluses). Its actually ended up bad for china. While American’s enjoyed all the benefits with cheap credit, Chinese are left (to some extent Indians too) holding the bag. The way President Obama is spending the money, all the hard earned reserves in the Chinese banks may mean nothing ( or significantly less)
4. General perception that chinese are not good at generating new Ideas. They are only good at copying others and doing it cheap by sheer hard-work. That chinese bring very little in innovation and not good at management, they lack the skills of managing global companies.(Very few global chinese companies in-spite of all the government support, huge domestic market etc)
Its easy for India to get at all the Chinese strength ( eg building infrastructure, securing energy supplies, closing the income gaps tec), but its hard for china to copy India’s strength ( diverse society, good will in developed countries, innovation and entrepreneurship, managing global teams etc)
Hope i am wrong for i know India’s growth will be staggering in coming years. If china manage to grow even faster then I will be all the more proud Asian and not bad for my 401K either, 🙂
November 1st, 2009 at 2:47 pm
@Sangos #262,
Tibet as source of water… Here is a topic I have been thinking about but haven’t had time to research. Is it true it’s a significant source of water for Asia?
I understand that Tibet is the starting point of Asia’s major – including the Yellow River, the Mekong, and the Ganges. But is it the major source – by volume – of those rivers?
That is – if we hypothetically stop all flow of water out of Tibet – would the volume of those river actually be reduced much – or would we simply shorten the length of those rivers?
Based on my limited understanding – the Tibetan plateau is relatively dry. It is the starting points of major rivers, but it doesn’t contribute actually that much water to those rivers. Those rivers gather volume as it flows eastward, or southward, picking up water along the way – outside of the Tibetan plateau.
South Tibet is of course different. It has much more water – much more biological diversity – and offers much hydroelectric potential than other parts of Tibet.
@Suresh #263,
I can understand where you are coming from. But let’s not forget, China is pretty diverse and has got great innovators, too. In terms of goodwill in the developed countries, I see that more as a geopolitical result than anything else. As global management skills – China is fast developing that aspect very fast. I surely don’t see anything genetic or cultural about being Chinese that will hold back Chinese from being leaders of great multinational companies.
December 2nd, 2009 at 5:59 am
I am an American studying asian studies. I have a lot of friends from Asia. Most of my Chinese friends complain about Japanese for their cruel war tacticts and manipulativeness in the past. They showed me a lot of documentaries to support their claims and opinions while accusing Japanese. I am not saying that the Americans are perfect in any way (for instance the approach to Iraq war was one of the blunders). But after studying a lot of facts from the history, I have come to the following conclusion –
Chinese people are overall cool and considerate of others. They seem normal to me. The Communist Chinese Govt has always misled its own people and Chinese people see whatever is being shown to them as they do not have any other option as unfortunately China does not have any democracy. They cannot change their regime, but the Chinese people have to change. As far as China-India relationship is concerned, their is no conflict. The nature has solved it. For past 5000 years, Chinese and Indians have stayed on the opposite sides of the great natural wall of Himalayas. Only Saints and Spiritual folk used to cross the Himalayas. And I think both the giants should never even face each other directly acting Himalayas acts as a buffer region between them. The history clearly indicates that the Chinese Army has aggressively crossed the Himalayas into Tibet and India building roads and tunnels to deploy their arsonels. I personally think that the Sino-Indian war of 1962, imposed by the Chinese Communist Govt (again, not its innocent civilians) was a big mistake. It surely disrupped the 5000 year old good relationship with their neighbor, India. I think that was totally unnecessary. The expansionst superpower mentality has haunted the Chinese Govt (and partly the American Govt also). One cannot expect that Chinese Army will march or put aggressive pressure with false communist press propoganda on the other nation wishing that they will walk all over the world claiming other lands. By the way, as we are still talking about the region, Invasion of Tibet was the most unfortunate move, as the cultural genocide is going on in Tibet. China has vast land due to the God’s grace with a booming economy. The world expects the Chinese Govt to stop being aggressive, bring the truth to its people and live in harmony with other countries without aggressively claiming their lands. China does not have a democracy and in my opinion it aligned with US only for money. Chinese Govt accuses the Japanese all the time, but are doing the same mistakes Japanese did in the past. Japanese have changed their aggressive behavior over time. It is the time for China to show some democratic nature in the United Nations where the representatives of more than 180 countries sit. China should not do the same mistakes, what US did, learning from the history.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:35 am
@BC – Damn son, Asian studies eh? You know, back when I was in university (i.e., in July) we had these things called ‘paragraphs’ which we would divide our thoughts into to make them flow better, y’dig?
April 2nd, 2010 at 12:19 am
The fact is something like this,
China is very powerful, and India has neither the leverages nor the alies to win, but just the disadvantage in pakistan. So its very clear who will loose the war, its India,but how?. .But how? is the question that will put some perspective. India is 1.2 billion people and they will fight till they have clubs left in their hands, as india is not just a country but a civilization, and an egalitarian, democratic,progressive nation, and this is not the first time india has been threatened or exploited by a expansionist super military power..medieval persia..colonial british empire..now the post cold war china. In a civilization scale of time, just bring it on, its getting too crowded in our roads we’d like to loose a few millions.
April 2nd, 2010 at 1:42 am
Allen Says:
Tibet as source of water… Here is a topic I have been thinking about but haven’t had time to research. Is it true it’s a significant source of water for Asia?
I understand that Tibet is the starting point of Asia’s major – including the Yellow River, the Mekong, and the Ganges. But is it the major source – by volume – of those rivers?
+++++
I agree with you here, Allen. I would suspect also that the flow volume of most rivers comes from their entire drainage basin, not from their source. However, a few things in favor of sources like the Tibetan Plateau. One, glaciers, that’s a reserve of water right there. Two, the elevation drop is large near the source, so in terms of reservoir potential is large (not to mention hydro-electric potential); that is to say, most of the volume that you do have you can perhaps store so the useful volume is larger, unlike near the mouths were you’d just have to let it flow into the ocean. Three, there is nobody further upstream, so, it is a “significant” source of water in the way of safety, if not flow volume.
April 2nd, 2010 at 1:58 am
Indian Realist,
Well, nobody “wins” a war between these two countries, and there is no reason really to have one. There are, however, other countries that want to stir up the existing differences between them and keep them both on their toes and antagonistic.
I would say though, that aside from the perenially unresolvable issue of the border and hosting the Dalai Lama, from which the border issue partially stems, India has generally been ok to China.
April 4th, 2010 at 2:22 am
@otto,
“Arunachal Pradesh territory is the patrimony of all the Indian people, not just a few local people! Only if Indian people together agreed can it ever be dissevered from the motherland, otherwise the government has an eternal responsibility to safeguard all national property!”
Did you say the opposite regarding Taiwan and Tibet? Dude, I’m 200% sure you’re either a CIA agent or racist.
April 4th, 2010 at 4:15 am
@ AI #270: Differing points of view are fine, personal attacks are not. If you can’t make your argument without resorting to them, you don’t have much of an argument.
April 4th, 2010 at 8:02 am
Well, I was being sarcastic, anyway.
April 6th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Here’s another realistic write-up from Ms. Hongmei
http://english.people.com.cn/90002/96417/6942062.html
April 8th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
sangos,
I think ‘Ms’ Li Hongmei is just a pseudonym for a rusted Communist apparatchik who ‘writes’ what his/her/their bosses in CCP tells to…and the target audience seems to be Indians and not Chinese.
April 9th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Lol! and ms Hongmei sure gets the Indians(Media) scampering and screamin like a bunch of ‘monkeys’ ( to quote you from another thread Buru :)). Especially on Arunachal P – some dude in similar forums here suggested India has ‘ Paternity’ to AP maybe with a Chinese mom…Lmao!
April 10th, 2010 at 5:12 am
Sangos,
Paternity my a** Lmao!
April 12th, 2010 at 12:47 am
Here’s a multi-part article in the Economist where the author takes a journey to Arunachal Pradesh and talks about what he encounters there. Sangos, Buru, what do you think? How accurate is his description? It does sound to me like there’s quite a bit of “poetic license” throw in for good effect.
April 12th, 2010 at 4:51 am
Steve,
That looks like a very interesting article, although it appears to be almost entirely about the Monyul region (i.e. Tawang and West Kameng districts). This is the part of Arunachal Pradesh which has close ties to Tibet, but it is still only a 5-10% of that state’s population and a pretty small part of its area. It would be understandable if someone from another part of Arunachal felt a bit annoyed that the rest of the world seems to ignore them and act like Monyul is the whole state. It’s also ironic, as I think we discussed earlier in the thread, that Monyul is apparently the part that China is most interested in getting control of, but it is also apparently the part where China is most unpopular — the people in the rest of Arunachal might actually want to join China. I suppose that probably doesn’t figure very heavily into Beijing’s calculations.
April 12th, 2010 at 8:43 am
steve,
allowing for some leeway I think the article is more or less accurate. If u have any particular doubt re the article I would be glad to give my perspective.Sangos can help too.
Otto,
your observation is also more or less correct.To elaborate you–87% of AP population is non-Buddhist and thus gives a rats a$$ to Dalai Lama, his relevance or otherwise.It derives then, China cannot claim remaining 87% of AP based on the fact that one Dalai Lama was born here,even if its claim on Tawang is considered valid; it better cook up a better ‘reason’.
April 12th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Yeah read the article…nice tourist travelogue. Don’t know how it got into the economist though. Anyway what’s interesting is the for and against China sentiments in Arunachal P. I mean Arunachal is the only state where there is no active insurgency against India(leaving aside the NSCN in the Naga areas). If the rest of Arunachal minus Tawang is for China, that is serious trouble for India. Some Indian minister also stated this recently. Btw Buru, what was that huge brouhaha by the state student union against China. Another ‘sponsored event’ by Mr Khandu?
April 12th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
“Btw Buru, what was that huge brouhaha by the state student union against China. Another ’sponsored event’ by Mr Khandu?”
There was no brouhaha! about 2 dozen students stood with banners and raised a few slogans and the national media made a brouhaha out of it.Needless to say a lot of money exchanged hands.Long live democracy 🙂
Anyway China is just using AP as a bait for Aksai Chin( as can be inferred from Fools Mountain)–so i’m not worrying my a** off 🙂
April 12th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Hi Buru~
When I used the term “poetic license”, I was referring to sections like this:
“Three yellow-billed blue magpies throw themselves into the air with startled chortles, fluttering their absurdly long tail feathers. Unperturbed, some yaks and goats quietly graze, while a brutish dog goes berserk, tugging dementedly at a rope in an effort to get free and kill me.”
Typical travelogue stuff like that always sounds to me like an editor added it later to give “local color” to the story. I wasn’t talking so much about the history since I’m not that familiar with it. That’s why I asked both you and Sangos what you thought.
April 12th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Steve,
The passage you quoted appear quite plausible to me.’Plenty’ of wildlife in Tawang in this season–spring and warm,plus the people there being staunch Buddhists hardly hunt wildlife.The ‘brutish dog’ , yaks and sheep is also quite feasible–as the author was crossing a meadow–and herders there often keep the Tibetan masstiff –>a gigantic shaggy blackcoated dog often 3feet or more @the shoulder, whom they keep semi-wild and feed only scraps, the main portion they hunt their own food.The are often tied up by a rope to a flexible pole, at its tip.
The 90-yr old guy recounting Brits I take likely concoction by him,or the author.
April 12th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Hi Buru~
Thanks for the explanation. You’re always a great resource when it comes to AP and what it’s really like over there. I guess the sentence just sounded too “composed” to me, as if someone took a series of things he saw and pushed them together into happening all at the same time, sounding like a typical travelogue article you’d read in the newspaper.
I’d also like you to address Otto’s point. Per the description from the article, it is very difficult to get to Tawang from outside the province. How about the rest of AP? Is Tawang easier, more difficult or about the same to travel to compared to the rest of the province? When people visit AP, is Tawang their usual destination? What part of the province do you hail from? When traveling home from outside India, how many transfers does it take for you to get back?
April 12th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
@ Steve – sorry about your question…yes it looks like lot of editorial coloring, but then the subjects described are accurate as Buru said, obviously as the author was travelling in those areas. I guess since its not a lonely planet video, the author/editor has taken the liberty of adding their personal literary abilities – old fashioned and poetic, which is not a bad read really. Arunachal is truly alluring with its sights and sounds and it does have that expansive effect especially on a tourist.
@ Buru – dont be so sure about the Aksai-Arunachal tradeoff. I mean Aksai is firmly in China’s grip and the Indians are lame and half a**ed about their claims. Looks like the Chinese are taking their Qing dynasty legacy, imagined or real on South Tibet, pretty seriously considering their belligerence. Or maybe there are more pragmatic current reasons….even the Sikkim front looks interesting…Chinese railroad and now an airport at Xigatse!
April 12th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
Hi sangos, I wasn’t doubting the author had taken the trip, just the way he phrased it so I’m glad to hear from you and Buru that his descriptions are accurate. I’d love to see that part of the world. I had planned on one day visiting Bhutan because it was described in much the same way but now AP has also piqued my interest. However, it sounds like it would be difficult to travel around the province, and even more difficult for a foreigner to get a visa to travel there.
Is there concern in the province about building dams in Tibet, or is that just Indian political propaganda? Is there substantial rainfall there? What crops are grown, or is it mostly animal husbandry?
April 12th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Steve,
I’d also like you to address Otto’s point
already addresses #279
. Per the description from the article, it is very difficult to get to Tawang from outside the province. How about the rest of AP?
The entry requirement is the same at all entry points.Physically its more difficult at most other entryways–as approach roads are often washed away,or only via rickety boats which dont ply during floods.Overall its not difficult to enter AP even for foreigners nowadays.
Is Tawang easier, more difficult or about the same to travel to compared to the rest of the province?
it has higher mountains, but due to the high military traffic the roads are better maintained.On the ground its mostly meadows and conifers,hence again easier than other parts where thick,soggy forests dominate.
When people visit AP, is Tawang their usual destination?
yes–for both Indians and foreigners.So they often go back with skewed idea of AP–rest of AP is often diametrically opposite of Tawang.
What part of the province do you hail from?
Central regions ie neither eastern nor western end of AP.I have a good idea of topography of all areas tho.
When traveling home from outside India, how many transfers does it take for you to get back?
hmm..u want Indian intelligence to trace me 🙂 ? as it is,I often push the envelope, and the whole of Northeast India,including AP is under pol pot-like AFSPA Act–under which I can be executed on mere suspicion 🙂
Just lets say, our nearest International airport is at Kolkata(Calcutta).
Sangos, I am sure the Chinese are just playing a game..
April 12th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Is there concern in the province about building dams in Tibet, or is that just Indian political propaganda?
pure bull propaganda.There are dozens of dams being built/planned in AP, some of them among the largest in the world.
Is there substantial rainfall there?
substantial is the understatement of the season.Its among the highest in the world.400cm+ per annum I think.
What crops are grown, or is it mostly animal husbandry?
rice, millet, maize, citrus etc..purely subsistence farming except the last.Animal husbandry is also purely subsistence..cattle,poultry,Mithun,Yak,swine..
April 12th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Thanks Buru, I learned a lot! 😛
And no, I don’t want to get you in trouble with Indian intelligence. Just meet me in the usual place, I’ll bring the cash in a brown paper bag. 😉
April 12th, 2010 at 11:42 pm
@ Buru – Starting 1962 war till the massive military and now civilian invstment all along the ‘McMahon line; the Chinese sure play expensive games (hope you are close with the game theory :)). You realize had we did not have the Himalayas standing in between all this activity what a solid impact this would had on Arunachal and the NE in general. And this true today with technology, Indian soldiers actually use Chinese mobile networks to call home :). IMHO China wants to control or at least have their presence felt in force, which honestly dude is not a bad thing. Of course provided I dont fall into PLA control 😉
We actually have a case in point in next door Burma – Kachin, Wa and Chinese relationships. Of course China balances this with its overall relationship with the Junta.
April 13th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
sangos,
i dont for a moment believe the CCP intends to invade AP or take it( tho i cant say for future governments)..but since u seem to believe it this may interest you http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/nation/china-s-war-plan
April 13th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Thanks Buru…thats an amazingly well written analytical article. Come to think of it Arunachal may be a trade-off for Aksai as you say. Or maybe to even contain the DL(but again that is only Tawang). I was trying to compare notes with the Burmese and Thai-China border areas and what I gather is that Chinese have a tight influence on “spill-over” ethnic groups. I think this may be China’s policy to reign in the border minorities. I really dont know how much of Arunachal ethnic groups “spillover” into China or the degree of their affinity to the Tibetans. So can’t apply the same logic here….your theory looks most plausible.
April 18th, 2010 at 2:36 am
Sangos :
re Indian ‘paternity’ again:The following article by a Lisu guy of AP will inform you that Indian presence reached their area for the first time in history in 1961 and how it has became a cause of suffering for them.Interestingly this part is in trijunction of India-China-Burma, and the part presumably ‘ceded’ by China to Burma(ie McMahon line between British and Burma), so Chinese may also have some curiosity here.Lisu tribe is found more in China and Burma and less in AP. wonder how they fare there?
http://www.arunachaltimes.com/readers%20forum.html
Once the forest, streams, birds, fish, snow and everything belonged to Lisus
Dear Editor,
I was aghast to see in the news papers terming the Lisus of Vijoynagar valley (locally known as Moloshidi valley) as encroachers into the Namdapha National Park. It is very unfortunate that Might is Right still is the blood and soul in Indian Democracy. Even our tribal friends seemed resigning to the fate of Might is Right ghost. How many of you are aware about the true historical facts about the Lisus of Vijoynagar valley in which the so called Namdapha National Park falls? If your knowledge was from 1970s onward only then you don’t have any right to jump to the conclusion without verifying the actual facts. Some people who knew about the true facts unfortunately chose to ignore the reality because they are slaves to Might is Right ghost.
Prior to 1961 the Lisus of Vijoynagar valley which was locally known as Moloshidi valley had a worry-free life. There was no any external threat or force to disturb the peace loving Lisus of Moloshidi valley. The forest, streams, rivers, animals, birds, fish, snow, the land and everything in the valley belonged to the Lisus. Then suddenly everything changed after 1961.
On 7th-May-1961 (Sunday), an Assam Rifles expedition team led by Major Sumer Singh entered the Moloshidi valley and reached the largest village in the valley, Shidi (now called Gandhigram). They were accorded warm reception by the villagers and further told by the villagers that they were the first ever to have visited in the Lisu land, Moloshidi valley. The Assam Rifles team assured the villagers that from now on this virgin land will be under India and the people will be protected from any enemy aggression. Ironically the truth was that, the innocent villagers did not realize then that the aggressor would be from within the country itself. On their journey back the Lisu villagers accompanied the Assam Rifles team and the villagers still remember now that the present Miao town and Kharsang town were still jungle at that time. Till then there was no International Boundary line in the Moloshidi valley. In 1972 only Demarcation of International Boundary with Burma was done and for which the guides were the local Lisus who had full knowledge about nook and corner of the valley as they had been living in the valley since time immemorial. During Demarcation, cement pillars were erected at strategic high rise locations guided by the local Lisus and in the process the Moloshidi valley fell in Indian side. Following that, instead of feeling safe the Lisus were threatened and robbed of their land, rights, existence and freedom. Maj. Gen. A.S Guraya was the Director-General of Assam Rifles under whose command Major Sumer Singh led the Moloshidi valley-finding expedition team. He had designed to settle a group of Assam Rifle personnel as settlers who were retiring at that time into the very land where the peace loving innocent Lisus had their houses and wet cultivable land. When the villagers refused to vacate their own land their cattle were shot. Frightened villagers were forced at gun point to vacate their own land to some outsiders and were bundled in one village only.
In addition to this barbaric action meted out to the local indigenous Lisus, the Government started initiating the establishment of Namdapha National Park in Moloshidi valley from 1972 onward without the knowledge of the local indigenous Lisus. At that time there was no educated people among the Lisus and the people were unaware of what was being planned by the imperialists in their offices. And when it was officially declared as National Park with Tiger project in 1983 extending the park boundary till near Shidi (Gandhigram village-83 miles from Miao), then only the local villagers became aware of the park boundary touching near their village. Earlier during 1970s there was one Lisu village, Nibodi in 52 miles from Miao which was completely destroyed by the police and forest guards forcing the innocent villagers to flee to Shidi (Gandhigram village). Unfortunately for the Lisus, since that time onward those outsiders who were visiting Moloshidi valley to fulfill their own interests happened to be animal and forest lovers only who had no any feeling, love and care for the suffering marginalized Lisu people of the valley. Their mind was preoccupied with the animals and forest only and had no human heart to see the plight of the backward downtrodden suffering people when they destroyed the houses of the local Lisus and forcefully captured the land where the innocent Lisus once had a peaceful life prior to 1961. They advertently refused to learn and know the true historical facts about the land and the indigenous people who inhabit the valley because for them only animals and forest matter. Ironically, these people had already destroyed all the forest in their own land and killed all the animals in their land and when everything was finished in their own land, they wanted to forcefully capture this virgin land occupied by a small and weak tribe and declare whatever design they had in their ambitious imperialistic mind forcing and reducing the local indigenous people into homeless in their own land. These aggressors don’t mind whether the local indigenous people survive or extinct because for them when nothing was left in their own land, they needed oxygen which our forest supply, they needed to see animals and do research studies which our forest area provide them the needs. When they had finished everything in their own land due to their exploitive activities, they have invaded our forefathers’ land forcefully and dictated us not to do this and that. As if the land belonged to them now they are calling the local indigenous Lisus as encroachers. What a shame! They called themselves civilized and educated but no humanely heart. But alas! They are in authority and whether the local indigenous people were robbed of their land, rights and existence does not make any difference to them as Might is Right in this land and what a small and weak voiceless tribe can do to protect themselves. The truth is that the local Indigenous Lisu people have been preserving forest and animals till date for their future use and the result everyone can see that we still have a vast forest area and a number of animals in Moloshidi valley. Otherwise they could have finished everything even prior to 1961.
These days even some people are trying to propagate without any substance by saying that the Moloshidi valley in which Namdapha falls once belonged to them. What a rubbish and senseless claim again! Just because some historical monuments of Buddhism were found in the valley did not mean that the land once belonged to them. If claims like these carry any substance then the Moloshidi valley once upon a time could have belonged to the Chinese, or Japanese, or Burmese, or Thais, or Sri Lankans, or even Chakmas, simply because they also practice Buddhism. But everybody knows that claim like this does not carry any substance. Malinithan and Parsuram Kund which are famous for Hinduism do not necessarily mean that those places belong to the Hindus of the plain area now. Every tribe in Arunachal has their own area or land of their own, whether the area had been cultivated or just uncultivated virgin forest area. Regardless of its cultivation status the land just belongs to them because they have a deep relationship with the land, the forest, the animals and everything that are found in the land since time immemorial. Similarly, the Lisu people have a deep connection with their own land, Moloshidi valley. Their songs, stories, folklore tales, proverbial sayings etc. had derived and had connection with the mountains, rivers, caves, streams, forest, animals and valleys of the Moloshidi valley (Vijoynagar valley).
No doubt, forest and animals should be preserved and parks should be created but not at the cost of human lives and forest rights of the local indigenous people. We should also learn how to care for human beings and respect their rights at least in their own land. Now, tell us who are the real encroachers into the Lisu land of Moloshidi valley? Will you still close your eyes and remain deaf because you are also a slave to Might is Right ghost?
Yours,
Philip Ngwazah
Shillong
April 18th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
@Buru
Always was very skeptical of “Retired Indian Army settlers” in the Vijoynagar area. Lisus are targetted for obvious reasons – small tribe and no political clout. I always suspected this whole Indian settler idea was a reaction to something which the Indians did’nt like in the ‘tri junction area’. After all Indians are never proactive by their conditioning, why would a bunch of them settle in a remote leech infested valley however picturesque. The Indian Army just copy pasted the neighboring Tatmadaw’s Pa-La-Na villages – settlers from retired army personnel in the Kachin area.
Are the Lisus under Chinese influence? I think yes as Phillip writes “Lisus are under Assam Riflles….gunpoint” This is unfortunate as the Chinese don’t really want Arunachal on top of all their aggresive posturing and all ‘border’ ethnic groups are just a pawn in the big border game between India and China.
April 18th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Sangos ” why would a bunch of them settle in a remote leech infested valley however picturesque”
good question..and imagine bearded and turbaned Sardarjis(sikhs) colonising Arunachal ! will the Sikhs allow us to take their land in Punjab??
April 19th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
Well personally I would not pick on them; for ex. there are Sikhs in Jorhat, Assam who are actually more Assamese than the locals themselves. But I get your point, its worrying when natives are forcefully removed at gunpoint to make room for outsiders. Obviously Indians cannot do that to the larger powerful groups in Arunachal, but this mindset creates all the social tensions. Particularly dangerous in a ‘disputed’ territory like Arunachal.
It might interest you to know that China exerts considerable influence over the Kachin, Wa and Shan etc. groups across its border in Burma. Thanks to the intolerant and ‘paternalistic’ attitude of the Burmese or to be more fair the Junta.
April 21st, 2010 at 4:12 pm
sangos,
there is actually Sino-Indian trade via Arunachal ! read http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/in-arunachal-pradesh-a-tiger-skin-is-worth-5-kg-of-rice-20538.php
now how do the PRC ‘influence’ the Kachins and Wa’s? u with **FA? 🙂
April 21st, 2010 at 5:02 pm
No am not 😉 ….at least not now. Yeah its kind of unfortunate how tough life can get high up the mountains in Arunachal. And even today all the trade exchanges are in the stone ages. The Nathula Pass has “29 goods” that can be traded between India and China, too laughable even to list here. Btw the restrictions are from the Indian side, so who’s selling weed is anybody’s guess. The Indo-Burmese list via Moreh is only slightly better.
Well the Kachin, Wa and Shans in Burma have full scale wars against the Burmese. All military logistics sourced from Yunnan in China obviously for exchange of resources from Burma. Ex. Chinese logging companies are all over Kachin. Matters get murkier with booty like the Jade trade ( the flesh trade is too shocking!). In trying to understand China and its neighbors especially in Arunachal’s proximity, IMO there is a pattern by which the Chinese exert their influence. I got most of my info from this excellent blog. Some very knowledgeable posters there, including on NE. http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/
And yeah the **FA was just doing the same thing.
April 21st, 2010 at 5:48 pm
wow sangos..nice blog there. You know, it really pi$$es me off when i think how much the SEA is integrating, cooperating and helping each other rise up..and then we are stuck with a fossilized behemoth mouthing patriotic rhetoric but otherwise doing all it can to strangle our SEA cultural-economic roots/connections.
re Burma I heard much the same about Yunnan-Myanmar area from my own source..in addition drugs is supposedly dirt cheap in the border; the Tatmadaws army is now running the dirty business there in conjunction with formerly antagonistic insurgent groups( now on Govt side)..much like our own SULFA and SNDFB 🙂
I will mention just one item allowed by Indian govt to be traded via Nathu La– Yaks tail hoohooha 🙂
re ***A I would say they lately have been near-decimated but I give(my reluctant) full marks to their top-level leaders for their firm conviction in the face of adversity( cf to how other parties ‘surrender’ at the slightest sign of trouble eg DHD)
April 28th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
I admire one thing about China – its aggressive no-nonsense pragmatic approach to the problem at hand. And I love their confidence (or arrogance, whichever way one sees it :))…this is something we badly need in the Northeast to catch up with E Asia. I would not beat my head much about Indians (just the opposite of the Chinese).
Btw all our NE “freedom fighters” screwed up overall looking at what a bunch of tribal women in Chattisgarh can do to India.
May 5th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
@ Buru – So the Tsangpo is actually being dammed in China. While just the districts of Arunachal(its Siang W/E right?) in which the Dihong flows maybe(not sure) be affected. Also the Brahmaputra in Assam has so many other tributaries NOT originating in China. I think all this Indian noise over the Chinese dam is just much ado about nothing. I don’t have the scientific data, but going by layman terms there is a similar situation with the Mekong river – again China Vs SE Asian countries. Pretty similar in land and climate to the Northeast and they seem to have serious problems. Whats your take?
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-05/mekong-nations-call-for-china-assistance-amid-drought-update1-.html
May 6th, 2010 at 8:07 am
Sangos,
AFAIK the dam in Tibet is a run-of-the river project, which requires minimal submergence and no or minimal siphoning-off of the water, so its not going to affect downriver flow.But then the PRC is not known for being open..
The Brahmaputra is creating problems in NE/Bangladesh due to excess seasonal water, so damming it will be good for said areas(but bad for riverine wildlife/flora).But Mekong downriver countries depend on Mekong for their irrigation,transport, fishing etc, so damming it would be damning for these countries and create much bad blood for China.
Thats my take.
Meanwhile heres another nugget re Indian Paternity http://www.assamtimes.org/Neighbours-World/3930.html
May 6th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Sort of a mafia daddy rather than a benevolent one :)….lets see what the Indians do now in Arunachal to match up China across the border. Am sure something crazy is coming your way – how about a few swanky airports in the valleys and sleek bullet trains in the mountainside like that of the Chinese! Re Dam – that dam or whatever it is in the highly seismic Tsangpo canyon, exactly on top of where the two earth plates crush into each other. So it better be run-of-the-river or you never know when a Tsunami-on -land comes crashing down on the Northeast.
May 14th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
@ Buru – http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100514/jsp/northeast/story_12445342.jsp. He got to be kidding about the drought part. Rest of it makes sense IMO.
May 24th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Ok here we go
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/24/chinese-hydroengineers-propose-tibet-dam
May 24th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
To the Indians here :
Please stop being proud of your “democracy” or “free media”.
Once on Blog, Time of India, they were talking about how people suffered under the chinese government, I suggested them to watch “Lakshmi and me”, the post was censored. The other time, a blogger asked “why our politicians cant think straight ?”, I posted ” How can you expect your politicians think straight when its job is making everyone like you happy ?” my post was censored.
Your so-called free media has only one voice, so give us a break about how free you are.
BTW, Tibet issue is about surviving, not human right, it has nothing to do with communism or democracy, only a political moron or an evil who cant take any good about China would link them together.
May 25th, 2010 at 6:14 am
Wahaha,
A Chinese Han guy from Henan was arrested yesterday in Arunachal/South Tibet–he was fleeing across from Tibet by foot; and his crime? –writing about Human Rights issues in China!! http://www.echoofarunachal.com/Arunachal%20police%20nabs%20suspected%20Chinese%20spy.htm
its sad to see the educated Chinese lap up their Governments propaganda, even expatriates…. the path to a solution starts with acceptance of the existance of a problem.
May 25th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
This blog is used to promote better relationship between nations (China and India for example), not hatred. Being said, China has its own problems (Tibet is an internal problem) and India has its own (unable to control population…). Let each other fix their own problems without using other nation’s problems to boost their own dumb nationalism.
We can debate how other nations affect us. The Tibet water source is being diverted from India to the dry North China. Is there a law on keeping the flow to India? The boundary line on the map was drawn by a Brit who sided with India at the time. Is it valid?
Chinese will not blame Japanese for the war as long as they do not falsify history. Chinese do not blame Indians for growing opium but the Brits to start the opium wars.
Today’s wars are not won by the larger number of people with clubs even the Korean war was not, but by airplanes and missiles. Otherwise, Israel would not exist by now.
Democracy and communism has such a blurred line. To me, US is run by socialism and China is run by capitalism. True democracy requires educated citizens and I do not think most Asian countries except Japan and S.Korea are ready. Without it, the government will be poor and corrupt. The big gap between rich and poor will not allow a strong middle class to exist to move the country to the next level.
May 25th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
A Chinese Han guy from Henan was arrested yesterday in Arunachal/South Tibet–he was fleeing across from Tibet by foot; and his crime? –writing about Human Rights issues in China!!
_________________________________________________
Buru,
In Thailand, millions of children sleeping on streets, 10 years no change.
What kind of human right ON PAPER can be more important than that ? NONE !!!!!!
Now, tell us how to help them, willl you ?
Your government cant, you know that, Are your government officers not as smarter as those in China ? 36% of engineers of NASA are indians, while your government cant help people. Why ?
No disrespect, but dont waving some useless papers on us, PLEASE DONT TAKE OUT SEVERAL DOZENS OF PEOPLE AS EXAMPLES TO PROVE HOW BAD CHINESE GOVERNMENT IS AND HOW MUCH YOUR GOVERNMENT CARE FOR PEOPLE, both of our countries have over 1 billion people. You prime minister is very smart, but he cant help people cuz his government doest have the power and money.
Without money and power, government cant help people, therefore hundreds times, thousands times more people will suffer.
May 25th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Let me give you an example how this “human right” hurts people deadly : ( you must know about dam over the Narmada River, right ?)
In a poor town of 100,000 people, there are two partys, and there has been no hospital, because government couldnt come up enough money to relocate the people. and the ruling party was always bashed for that. HRW has said nothing.
Finally, one party leader said ” enough is enough, people need hospital.” He and his party decided forcefully relocating the people for building the hospital. Wow, sky is falling, the opponent party, activitists, HRW all jumped out bashing the party for brutality, blah, blah, so plan was postponed for discussion. But the plan would never be carried out, as the opponent party would dethrone the party in the next election, before the construction could be started.
Afraid of losing power, the ruling party gave up. the thunder was over. No hospital, everything came back to normal, no complains from activitists, no complains from HRW, annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd people keep suffering.
May 25th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Also, dont claim you have a government for the people, you have a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich, which I proved in other thread :
___________________________________________
Irresponsibility is a disease. It starts with very few, then those very few infect hundreds times, thousands time of people.
Even 48 of 50 states in USA are in debt, that doesnt mean most american people were born irresponsible. But there were few irresponsible, they demanded unreasonably, no1 dared to say anything as it was legalized under the name of human rights.
Result ? well, if other people didnt follow, it would be unfair to them, therefore they were infected.
Some Katrina victims asked for 3 trillion dollars compensation, of course the claim was absurd and ignored. But if some can ask 3 trillion, then asking 3 billion becomes acceptable and reasonable, doesnt it ?
BECAUSE GREEDINESS IS CONSIDERED AS PARTY OF HUMAN RIGHTS, the goverment would never come up with the money needed, unless the country has been industrialized(high productivity), plus vast majority are middle class, plus very few poor.
Result ? to help people, the government has to borrow the money from the rich. But if the profit from a project is 10%, will the rich accept 5% ? of course they wont. So building a project for the poor is like building an ATM machine for the rich. Therefore to help people, the ELECTED government has to work for the rich. Borrowing money ? well, it is like loaning the money from bank to buy a house for yourself.
Result ? a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich (even if the elected only care for people, put people above himself and his families). Now think of the fact that most of the elected politicians are from rich families, what kind of government is it ?
May 25th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
BTW, this guy from Henan, he must be a DL follower, isnt he ?
Buru, would you tell me how India has treated activitists who were pro the independence of Kashmir ? DO YOU CONSIDER HIM AS A TRAITOR ?
May 25th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Wahaha,
your “examples” are certainly capable of “proving” some things, but they’re not of what you had expected, or had hoped for. But please, don’t let that stop you.
It’s ironic that you have no problem telling Indians to stop being proud of their “democracy” and “free media” when 2 blogs deleted comments from one blogger (you), but then object when someone cites “SEVERAL DOZENS OF PEOPLE AS EXAMPLES TO PROVE HOW BAD CHINESE GOVERNMENT IS”. You know, maybe that’s more than mere irony, but I’ll let you decide.
May 25th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
SKC,
what is ironic is you have nothing to say about #310.
BTW, google “dam, the Narmada River”, see for youself.
May 25th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
Wahaha,
Muhahahaa! I will reply you once you organise your thoughts and put forward a precise argument..you are just thrashing about looking for a fight where there is none.
This ‘guy from Henan’ is not a DL follower sorry… he was a follower of Lin Zhao http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lin_Zhao who had emailed to Shanghai authorities re Human Rights issues in China, and hounded by your country since then. He was in Tibet because he thought he wont be traced there..but when he was about to be cornered he crossed over to India on foot without a penny on him.Sad.
May 25th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Both India and China have serious internal issues – like Narmada Dam Vs Three Gorges; Kashmir Vs Xinjiang; Tibet Vs Northeast India etc. IMHO lets leave those issues to some other local forums and focus on the much more international issues of the India-China scenario. We can definitely reference issues if it directly affects the points raised here otherwise let them alone. I think Buru was only responding to the earlier comments when he mentioned about the ‘guy from Henan’ incident. Otherwise with our Chinese friends joining in we can have a very factual and fruitful discussion here…thanks
Edit: Btw maybe some belligerent exchanges are sort of interesting without getting personal…am entertained!
May 25th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Buru,
You know nothing about China.
Go ask people who have visited Chinese website, bashing government is everywhere in China. But there is a line, that is, you cant challenge the monoply of CCP, like Liu XiaoPo. If a person is arrested in China cuz of “Human right”, it is either cuz he tries to change the consitution (like Liu XiaoPo), or he is a FLG or he is connected with DL etc. OK ?
Now,
1) Disprove #311, I know you cant.
2) #310 is realty in India, right ?
3) You wont answer #312, will you ?
Cuz of #310 and #311, the so-called “human right ” is just a beautiful theory from Mar, like communism. In realty, that will never work well for majority of the people, especially the people who need help. It works well only for those lawyers, journalists and some lousy writers, cuz their livings depend on their tongues.
May 25th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
wahahoo,
1. There is nothing to disprove in #311–its just ur opinions on how bad is the U-S-of-A duh*
2. #310 what is realty where? U just gave an incoherent paragraph ..
3.what is there to answer? Read this thread in full ,lazy; I have already given my answer several times over.
You know nothing outside China?
May 25th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
2. #310 what is realty where? U just gave an incoherent paragraph ..
__________________________________________________________
The dam.
____________________________
You didnt tell us how India treated pro-Kashmir activitists. Actually, I watched a program on PBS that journalists were forbidden to take pictures of prisoners there.
#311 is also true in India, you do know the most expensive home on earth is in Mumbai, dont you ? a 2 billion dollar home in a city of millions of people living in slums.
Oh, I come here for expressing my opinions fun, not trying to win anything, so I wont write something then take 2 hours to correct them, or spend 2 hours puting down some words. I just write what I am thinking now.
May 25th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Kiddo,
make some points related to the topic at hand will you? Correcting your thoughts is what happens in a ‘democracy’ you see?
May 26th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
@ Wahaha #317: Make your points without the ad hominum attacks. Neither you nor Buru lives in China, so neither of you are really knowledgeable about life there. Buru does live in India, therefore he’d know more about life there then you or I would. Most of your arguments are hasty generalization fallacies.
This topic is about the relationship between India and China. It has nothing to do with the USA so please stick to the topic.
May 27th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Steve,
I didnt attack anyone, it is just what I said IS FACT and someone simply dont like to hear that.
__________________________________
Buru,
What I said is just proof that what you and others said about China has no point at all.
Few Chinese are big fans of CCP, most Chinese know what is bad about the system, WE DONT NEED SOMEONE REMINDING US DAY AND NIGHT. Like the oct 1st parade, when they broadcast Jiang and Hu’s speeches, I found it so funny and ridiculous and stupid.
But we have no choice but stick to CCP, for now. Why ? this so-called “human right” IN REALTY sucks, cuz it means people are entitled to be greedy, no1 can offend the rich, and it lets millions of poor people hang out there dry.
You know the earthquake last year in SiChuan ? it is a remote and poor area in China, but the road there can be compared the road in Yellowstone park, and 10 year-old students even started studying English (with the education, these kids have chance in the future to enjoy a decent lives). What can your democracy and human right provide for these people ? Big Zero !!!
May 27th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
@ Wahaha: Saying someone knows nothing is a personal attack, not a “fact”. Stick to the subject at hand.
Secondly, you’re not Chinese, you’re American so your use of “we” is inaccurate. I might be Italian American but when talking about Italy, I would use “they” and not “we” since I’m American and not Italian. To use “we” correctly you need to be a citizen of that country.
The purpose of this blog is for people to blog about China. How can they blog about China if they’re not allowed to discuss China? A blog with only one viewpoint would be a pretty boring blog. And no one mentioned replacing the current government in China until you did, so you’re arguing with yourself.
May 27th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
To Wahaha:
they’re “facts according to Wahaha”. There’s a difference.
BTW, making up random examples in support of your point is not “proof”. They’re just further examples of “facts according to Wahaha”. They may be proof of something, but likely not of what you had hoped.
The only reason why Chinese people have no choice but to stick with the CCP is because the CCP does not allow them such choice, in order to maintain its own existence.
May 27th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
LOL, SKC,
With your skills, you wouldve come up something if they are not facts, am I right?
An Indian scholar who lived in China for several years said it very clearly : CCP legitmizes its control by economic developement; Indian government’s legitmacy is by election.
CCP has provided better and better life for Chinese people in last 30 years, hence people see no point to replace it now. One day, that day will come, economy will be in trouble, CCP will be in trouble. At that time, if the economy in western society are most in trouble like Greece, then overthrowing CCP loses its basis. That is what I said before : the future of democracy in China now depend on the economic performance in democratic countries.
May 27th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
“With your skills, you wouldve come up something if they are not facts, am I right?”
—huh? No one is asking you to spend 2 hours to write a post. But can you spare 2 minutes, perhaps?
“CCP has provided better and better life for Chinese people in last 30 years”
—it has. For some more than others.
“hence people see no point to replace it now.”
—well, they have no way to replace it now. We won’t know if people would see a point to replace it unless they were given the option. And the CCP is not one to give people the option.
May 27th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
—well, they have no way to replace it now. We won’t know if people would see a point to replace it unless they were given the option. And the CCP is not one to give people the option.
________________________________________________________
SKC,
Suharto.
May 27th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Great point! Since when did CHinese people become Indonesians?
May 27th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
The purpose of this blog is for people to blog about China. How can they blog about China if they’re not allowed to discuss China? A blog with only one viewpoint would be a pretty boring blog. And no one mentioned replacing the current government in China until you did, so you’re arguing with yourself.
_____________________________________________________________________
Steve,
Some people attack China by evilizing the chinese government, so legitmizing everything about “free Tibet” or making China next Thailand.
If saying “know nothing about China” is a personal attack, OK, I apologize.
May 27th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
@ Wahaha: I agree with you that some people do attack China by painting the government as evil and I don’t agree with that assessment at all. Like all governments, they have both good and bad points. Any one-sided view is always a stereotype so on that we agree.
Based on what he’s written in the past, Buru has expressed many positive opinions on China so I wouldn’t say he holds an extreme view at all. I’d say he’s written far more complimentary comments than negative ones.
May 27th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
While its great to be emotionally supportive of one’s own country, what we are trying to achieve here in the forum is to have an exchange of ideas based on hard facts. If someone bedevils the CCP/China as a Chinese you present the facts to prove otherwise ex. the Tibet issue is nothing to do with human rights, because Tibetans are having a ball etc. If someone says Indian goverment kills Kashmiris 24/7, they have to admit its true because it is and so on.
May 28th, 2010 at 6:57 am
Now that steve, wahaha and sangos have cleared the air I will answer his question on Kashmiri activists which he has been repeatedly asking to corner me( tho I have answered it in previous posts):
NO i dont consider them as traitors.If they want independence, hold a fair referendum and let them chose their future.I have similar views on other Indian insurgencies, as also Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia.
May 28th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
…. as also Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia.
__________________________________________________
Wow, wow, wow. Inner Mongolia ? This, tells me that what you want to see in China. Please save the crap of human right and democracy, THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU CARE !!!
Now, if you tell your fellow Indians that you dont mind the independence of Kashmiri, what will they think of you ? I saw on PBS how two Indian journalists react when they were told by a local that India wont be able to control Kashmiri where 98% are Muslin.
I guess you answer will be “I dont care.”
May 28th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
If I can ask a question to Buru, what would be considered “fair referendum”? In issues as contentious as “independence”, often it boils down to what is “fair referendum”. Losers may very well maintain that any system of referendum chosen by the power holder was designed to favor the dominant power holder in outcome. (and thus, unfair).
Then there is the question of “districting” for the referendum voting pool. “Districting” is often another tool used even in US for what is called “gerrymandering”, eg. redesigning the voting pool of each district so that it favors 1 group. In US, racial “gerrymandering” used to be a huge problem. Canada, Germany, Greece, Ireland also had “gerrymandering”.
Realistically, I don’t think “fair referendum” can ever really resolve a question of “independence”. (where people REALLY want independence). Even US fought a Civil War on the question of whether the South could declare independence.
May 28th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
#333 I can see that you are not interested in a civilised exchange of ideas . I have my own convictions on what constitutes right and wrong, I am not going to change it simply because of what my fellow countrymen will think of me. If ‘saving face’ is more important to you than your convictions pl dont expect others to follow suit.
#334 rv your points are valid but it should not be used as an excuse to withold Referendums.Almost any decision can be argued to be unfair if we used twisted arguments.Ideally budding nation states should be let go by the dominating/colonising power on realisation that their subjects want a separate destiny. Referendum is the next solution in line.Quebec,Singapore,ETimor,Croatia, Slovenia and Eritrea are examples.
May 28th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
If ’saving face’ is more important to you than your convictions pl dont expect others to follow suit.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Saving face ?
No, it is about saving lives of the country where you were born.
If Kashmiri becomes independent, it will likely unit with Pakistan. So in the future, if there is a war between these two countries, the war will be IN INDIA territory, millions of Indians will be directly under warfare.
Get a picture why the first thing West to do after collapse of soviet unions was the independence of those areas from Russia ? Russia had become a democratic country, there was no danger.
Your principle is nothing compared to the safety your government wants to give to India and India people, On Tibet issue, put aside whether it belongs to China or not, Chinese government must at any cost to keep the west (and indian) influence out of Tibet. Human right ? what a stupid excuse for evils or political first grade !!!
So you are wasting time talking like ” I am above you.” I personally have no such interest in “your highest on internet”.
May 28th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Buru,
Ideally, anyone should be allowed total freedom. Reality does not match.
Reality is, budding nation states are pawns (I believe you have already eluded to that). “Independence” is but another geopolitical tactic to carve out territories between enemies.
you mentioned Croatia, Slovenia as examples. Are they truly independent, or merely carved out to EU?
The reverse of your argument is equally true: Referendum should be used as an excuse for another form of imperialism. Even Hitler used “referendums” in Austria to solidify Nazi control.
May 28th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
rv,
I think both of us are informed enough to differentiate where Referendums have been misused by enemies and Referendums where it is genuinely peoples voice? I do think its better for Croatia and Slovenia to be in its present state of independence than risk a civil war.
wahaha,
you are speaking as if I am carrying India on my back. I am just an individual and my opinions are mine only. I am not trying to defend any country or offend another.I dont think our dialogue is contributing anything useful to the blog so take this as my last reply to you. Moreover I am not able to follow ur arguments( I find ur English difficult to comprehend, no offense).
May 28th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Buru,
You might be able to say “both of us” are informed enough, but can you vouch for all the people who might be involved in the “referendum”? I mean, seriously, it’s not like you and I are the people in charge of such “referendums”, or have any influence on the “referendums”.
As for Croatia and Slovenia, I’m not sure being geopolitical pawns is better “independent” or not. Nor do I think there is much “independence” to brag about, when they are but pawns to be used. They might avert a “civil war”, only to be caught in a war between the neighbors.
Again, reality of independence for some of these small regions is not so pleasant afterwards. Eritrea has been in blood feud over its borders with Ethiopia for a long time, and still not resolve. Did that independence really avert a “civil war”?
May 29th, 2010 at 7:32 am
rv,
I think u misunderstood my intent. I intended to say that both of us know where a Referendum was via peoples choice eg Singapore/Quebec and where it was a political weapon eg Hitler. I consider myself a ‘layman’ –and generally speaking most people should have enough sense to judge what is right or wrong.Having a bad apple in the basket should not make us discard the basket, only the bad one.
As for ur examples of Croatia and Slovenia being pawns I seriously doubt it.Perhaps they are in a bloc( a la smaller countries aligned with either power bloc during the Cold War) but thats better than being under civil war. Most small ‘sovereign’ nations have a similar arrangement with greater powers for mutual benefit.
re ur Eritrea example– both Eritrea and Ethiopia has benefitted from the Referendum– for they have long stretches of peace and few bouts of war now.All in all we should ask the people in Quebec, Singapore, Eritrea and Croatia if they prefer to be independent or continue with their past one..we cannot decide for them.
May 31st, 2010 at 3:38 am
These self-appointed defenders of Chinese policies are so cynical. I keep being surprised by that. I love cynicism myself, but there’s a limit. Maybe a tendency toward nihilism is natural when you find yourself defending certain things which are hard to defend …
Everyone in the world is a “pawn” in that they have to respond to the demands of all the other people, who collectively are much stronger than any individual. But small countries nevertheless seem to manage to enjoy their independence. When chatting with a Slovenian or a Croat, have you ever heard one of them comment that they would be better off if they were still part of Yugoslavia? Or perhaps the Austro-Hungarian empire? I guess the latter wouldn’t be so bad … at least it isn’t dominated by Serbs.
There was very little fighting in Slovenia, by the way.
May 31st, 2010 at 6:42 pm
you are speaking as if I am carrying India on my back. I am just an individual and my opinions are mine only. I am not trying to defend any country or offend another.I dont think our dialogue is contributing anything useful to the blog so take this as my last reply to you. Moreover I am not able to follow ur arguments( I find ur English difficult to comprehend, no offense).
__________________________________________________
It wouldnt be just opinions of yours if you were a journalist or a politicians, so your comments offend the interest of Chinese people. I dont think Indians wouldnt mind if Chinese journalists try to teach Indian government what they should do in Kashmiri.
May 31st, 2010 at 6:53 pm
These self-appointed defenders of Chinese policies are so cynical. I keep being surprised by that. I love cynicism myself, but there’s a limit. Maybe a tendency toward nihilism is natural when you find yourself defending certain things which are hard to defend …
___________________________________________________
Otto,
why dont you give a try to defend what indian government has been doing in Kashmiri. Is it too hard to defend ?
In future, if one day, China sends a nuclear submarine 50 miles from Britain and France, give me a reason why that will make Europe angry while chinese submarine is still in international territory.
Why on earth do you pretend that you ever give a fuck about wellbeing of Chinese people when you talk about China ?
or you only care about people in Tibet (as in your mind, Tibet is not part of China) but never care chinese people ?
Cynical? ha. ever heard of the Attack on Mers-el-Kébir ? Give a fucking reason to justify the action which was widely approved by British people and parliment (the action later was proved unnecessary), otherwise stop talking like a jerk, the policy in Tibet by Chinese government is widely supported by over one billion people.
Are you a fucking @$$ hole or one billion chinese people are jerks ?
May 31st, 2010 at 8:42 pm
These self-appointed defenders of Chinese policies are so cynical. I keep being surprised by that. I love cynicism myself, but there’s a limit. Maybe a tendency toward nihilism is natural when you find yourself defending certain things which are hard to defend …
___________________________________________________
Otto,
why dont you give a try to defend what indian government has been doing in Kashmiri. Is it too hard to defend ?
In future, if one day, China sends a nuclear submarine 50 miles from Britain and France, give me a reason why that will make Europe angry while chinese submarine is still in international territory.
Why on earth do you pretend that you ever give a damn about wellbeing of Chinese people when you talk about China ?
or you only care about people in Tibet (as in your mind, Tibet is not part of China) but never care chinese people ?
Cynical? ha. ever heard of the Attack on Mers-el-Kébir ? Give a reason to justify the action which was widely approved by British people and parliment (the action later was proved unnecessary). You know, the policy in Tibet by Chinese government is widely supported by over one billion people, are you saying that they are cynical ?
May 31st, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Steve,
In #336, I gave clear reason for why China has to do in Tibet. and someone who has nothing to discredit the argument foolishly claimed “defending certain things which are hard to defend ” and “cynical.
If someone talk to you like that, I think you will think he is an @$$hole or jerk, though maybe you would not call him that on internet as you are .. well, a well-educated gentleman, right ?
May 31st, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Wahaha,
The thing that was cynical — or, to be more accurate — nihilistic about your comment #336 is not where you described the reasons for Chinese policies in Tibet, but where you said, “Human right ? what a stupid excuse for evils or political first grade !!!” You moved from a specific situations where you feel exigencies demand specific actions to a blanket dismissal of “human rights”. That said, it was primarily r v’s comments that I was reacting to in #341.
I have no idea why you brought Kashmir and Mers-el-Kébir. I have no interest in defending them. And I don’t care what X number of Chinese people think should happen in somebody else’s country.
May 31st, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Otto,
You want me to believe you are a moron politically?
you are not that naive and stupid.
Of course if you think Churchill was an @$$ in attacking french ships, I will be speechless.
May 31st, 2010 at 11:23 pm
Not sure why newbie English speakers feel the need to drop f-bombs…it’s not like they add to the strength of an argument.
So China apparently has to keep “western influence” out of Tibet “at any cost”. That’s perhaps a statement. An “argument”? Not so much. But even as a mere statement, how do you put aside “whether (Tibet) belongs to China or not”? If Tibet “belongs” to China, then at least the response to “western influence” is a decision for China to make; but if Tibet doesn’t belong to China, then the decision to accept or reject “western influence” belongs to Tibet, and not to China.
I imagine it’s quite easy to minimize “human rights”, or to deprive others of it, when one has moved to another country to lap in its luxury. I suppose if arguing for human rights represents evil, then the champions for the oppression thereof are probably saints. If that’s the case, then I wonder why the “saintly” Chinese folk often don’t live in China.
May 31st, 2010 at 11:34 pm
So China apparently has to keep “western influence” out of Tibet “at any cost”. That’s perhaps a statement. An “argument”? Not so much.
____________________________
SKC,
the attack of Mers-el-Kébir.
Go argue with the soul of his greatness Winston Churchill.
May 31st, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Umm, we’re talking about China. If you want to talk about other stuff, please, for heaven’s sake, don’t let me stop you.
June 1st, 2010 at 1:17 am
Umm, the concept of “human right” was not invented by Chinese.
June 1st, 2010 at 2:37 am
@Wahaha: I’m really interested in WWII and things like the attack on Mers-el-Kébir, but sometimes I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Could you link this to part of your argument, like how it relates to China’s Tibet policy?
June 1st, 2010 at 3:48 am
When you think about it, what’s the point of trying to have a civil discussion with nihilists, anyway? If what you believe in boils down to power, then that makes things nice and simple … either I am strong enough to kill you or take what I want from you, or you are strong enough to do the same to me. The only complication is that we might temporarily decide to cooperate against a third party. So, what’s the point of having a conversation unless you are telling me why it’s in my interests to do what you want, or vice versa?
It reminds me of a character who called himself Cao Mengde who used to be active on certain China-related blogs. He declared himself in favour of, in so many words, “less jaw-jaw, more war war” (a reference to Wahaha’s hero Winston Churchill) … but of course he was jawboning on an internet forum himself at the time!
June 1st, 2010 at 4:34 am
“the concept of “human right” was not invented by Chinese.”
—most spectacular factoid. Do Chinese have the capacity to incorporate things they did not invent?
June 1st, 2010 at 5:35 am
Whether in countries or companies, it seems to be a common anti-pattern…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Invented_Here
June 1st, 2010 at 1:19 pm
WKL,
a government will do whatever it takes to protect the country and people, and such actions enjoy wide support from its people, no matter human or inhuman.
What Otto and SKC claimed that China should follow the rules established by West society (the so called human right), otherwise they will call you uncivilized or nihilists. They obviously exclude the rules that dont favor their argument.
This, is so called talk by civilized people : they want building up a good theory to justify their intention of building a military threat in your backyard.
June 1st, 2010 at 1:29 pm
“the concept of “human right” was not invented by Chinese.”
—most spectacular factoid. Do Chinese have the capacity to incorporate things they did not invent?
_____________________________________________________________________
Of course Chinese have the capacity, it is just Chinese has thousands of years of civilization, so Chinese dont incorporate new things blindly, especially after the communism and collapse of soviet unions, Chinese are no longer addicted to some beautifully colored tissue. But when Chinese ask those tissue-sellers what are on the other side of tissue (of course the tissue sellers refuse to show the other side, they can smell it), the tissue sellers said Chinese are so rude and uncivlized. How could chinese not see the beautiful flowers on the tissues ?
June 1st, 2010 at 5:03 pm
“SKC claimed that China should follow the rules established by West society”
—when did I claim that? It would be fantastic if China followed the rules established by Chinese society, as opposed to being obligated to follow the rules established by the CCP.
“building up a good theory to justify their intention of building a military threat in your backyard.”
—oh brother. Shadows around every corner….things going “bump” in the night…
“such actions enjoy wide support from its people”
—do they? wrt the CCP, you know this how, exactly?
“so Chinese dont incorporate new things blindly”
—did someone ask them to do so blindly? If Chinese people in fact have the capacity, then they should simply exercise that capacity…except that they can’t do that freely, can they?
Your analogies, as usual, are as base as their author.
June 1st, 2010 at 6:13 pm
“such actions enjoy wide support from its people”
—do they? wrt the CCP, you know this how, exactly?
___________________________________
About Tibet ? yes.
June 1st, 2010 at 6:15 pm
“so Chinese dont incorporate new things blindly”
—did someone ask them to do so blindly? If Chinese people in fact have the capacity, then they should simply exercise that capacity…except that they can’t do that freely, can they?
_______________________________________
They did, in America : several hundreds splited into dozens of parties and attacked each other.
June 1st, 2010 at 6:17 pm
“building up a good theory to justify their intention of building a military threat in your backyard.”
—oh brother. Shadows around every corner….things going “bump” in the night…
_________________________________
As always, you wont talk about it, as it is the other side of the beautiful tissue.
June 1st, 2010 at 6:19 pm
“SKC claimed that China should follow the rules established by West society”
—when did I claim that? It would be fantastic if China followed the rules established by Chinese society, as opposed to being obligated to follow the rules established by the CCP.
______________________________________________________________
I dont know what rules you are talking about besides one-party system.
June 1st, 2010 at 9:26 pm
“wrt the CCP, you know this how, exactly? —About Tibet ? yes.”
—last time I checked, “yes” is not really an answer for a question of “how”. Oh well.
“They did, in America : several hundreds splited into dozens of parties and attacked each other.”
—huh? How does this have anything to do with Chinese people’s capacity for incorporating new things in China? Focus, my friend, focus…
“As always, you wont talk about it”
—what’s there to talk about? You have irrational fears, similar to that of shadows and things that go “bump”. Can’t help you with that one.
“I dont know what rules you are talking about besides one-party system.”
—we were speaking about human rights. Then you jump to western society’s rules. Then you say you don’t know what rules I’m talking about? I wasn’t talking about rules…you were. I was just responding to you. Your train of consciousness is amusing, but at some point the train passing through now should communicate with the one that came before it. BTW, the one-party thing is a CCP rule, not a CHinese one. The CCP may not be capable of anything else, but I suspect Chinese people are.
June 1st, 2010 at 11:50 pm
I admire the Chinese because I like their no nonsense pragmatic approach of getting the job done in dealing with life’s problems. The way this blog is going recently am feeling confused. Looks like China has got some of its neighbor’s(meaning Indians) flu now 🙂
June 2nd, 2010 at 2:49 am
@sangos: I think the idea of this blog originally was that Westerners and Chinese would have a dialogue, but it’s mostly Westerners and Chinese Americans. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but Chinese opinion as a whole is quite different from the spectrum visible here. I guess I could write a post about that… But it will have to wait.
Update: There is usually a confusion here because many Chinese Americans still refer to themselves as “Chinese” on these forums, but in general, their viewpoints are not the same from people who’ve actually lived in China most of their lives (which is different from those who immigrated to the US in their childhood).
June 2nd, 2010 at 4:03 am
I think the best place to have opinions and dialogue from Chinese or any other demographic group living in China would be to go to the forums and blogs typed in Simplified Chinese script. Even then, you all have to be a little cautious as on the internet, a lot of misunderstandings and vulgar language are abundant. I still think that if anyone wants to understand Chinese opinion, just go to China and find out yourselves. Talking with Mainland Citizens may not be enough.
If you go to any English language site about China, most of the talk will still be by Overseas Chinese (China citizens included as well) and Foreign Expats.
June 2nd, 2010 at 4:13 am
I think everyone will have to get used to the reality that Chinese means more than a person from China. It may be confusing, uncomfortable and not “orthodox” but human beings aren’t confined to such definitions. As it is with every diaspora group in the world.
June 2nd, 2010 at 4:26 am
I think the topic was India:Freind,Enemy or both?This has nothing to do with Westerners but the relationship between two Asian neighbours.I am an Indian but live overseas but looking at the present trend i feel India and China have come a long way from what the relationship used to be before.Even though Indians in general still feel a bit nervous and jittery about their giant neighbour’s intentions and their growing military aspirations.
The world knows that the two big economies will be China and India and if these two countries can keep the world stable from economic downturns and recessions it will do them good and earn respect from the international community.At present its China leading the way and obviously they will come across people or nations not to happy about their rise and their clout.In simple terms a lot of it from sheer jealousy or not accepting the fact that the balance of power is now moving towards Asia and particulary towards China.
Many ages ago in the times of the ancient civilisations China and India were one of the richest and the most powerful countries in the world.There was a lot of knowledge shared between these two great neighbours and i read a lot about it in my history books in India.If these two countries can handle their relationship well with India accepting the fact that China is the bigger neighbour and China taking its rightful place in a responsible manner we will probably see a fascinating decade ahead of probably more industral revolutions and revelations.
June 2nd, 2010 at 4:31 am
I don’t have a problem with a nationality being more complex than just being born in a nation, or any group considering themselves in diaspora to comment about their ancestral country. My main point is that people abroad won’t know their ancestral country as well as people who actually live here, and I often take their viewpoints with a grain of salt, especially when they claim others don’t know what it is like there… Often they don’t know themselves.
I like your references to Israel. There are quite some similarities between Jews and Chinese, and the overseas communities that debate their home land. Internally, of course, they are very different (note that I haven’t been to Israel, so I’m basing this on second-hand information for that case…).
June 2nd, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Hi S Lanong, welcome to the blog! Yes, we’re off track but that’s common after so many comments. Right now it’s a free flowing conversation but we’re more than happy to hear your opinion of the original subject matter. 🙂
I agree with Wukailong’s interpretation. If a person from a certain nationality no longer lives in that country, they are no longer that nationality but a combination of that culture and the country where they live. I’m an Italian American. When I cook, it’s mostly Italian and actually very authentic Italian. My family structure is Italian in that we’re a very close family that’s always getting together to do things. I have other cultural traits from the “old country” but I am in no way an Italian. I’ve been to Italy several times, had meals with relatives and seen the birthplaces of my ancestors, but I’m American through and through.
What I’ve seen from Chinese Americans are many of the Chinese cultural traits combined with a western exceptionalism that doesn’t exist in China. Yes, the Chinese are proud of their culture, food and family structure but I never heard anyone talk like some of the people on this blog who claim to be “Chinese”. They simply don’t think that way. As with me, visiting the old country, meeting with a few relatives and taking in the sights doesn’t qualify you to be a native. Even after living in China and Taiwan and being married for a couple of decades to my wife, my understanding of the culture is limited by my own culture.
My wife came to the States when she was 28 and has lived here ever since, excepting the time we spent as expats. A few years ago she was in a night market in Taiwan with her sister who lives there, and after talking to the girl working a particular booth, the girl looked at her and said, “You’re not from Taiwan, are you?” Somehow she could sense an American attitude in my wife, though her Chinese is perfect and her understanding of the culture is complete. My wife was very surprised when this happened but I wasn’t, as I had detected the difference between her and her former countrymen when we lived there.
Each generation of Chinese that migrates from China has a different attitude. The ones who left China as adults are different from their kids who were born in China but came to the west when they were children. Their children are completely different. None of them are like the people living in China, though they all share commonalities to some extent. It seems no one wants to actually admit this but it’s pretty obvious to an independent observer. As No99 aptly said, “…if anyone wants to understand Chinese opinion, just go to China and find out yourselves.” You have to live there to really understand, and then you still only get a piece of it. Sometimes I feel that western Chinese only see the good but miss the warts, while many foreign expats (certainly not all, as Wukailong has shown us) only see the warts but miss the good.
June 2nd, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Agree with Steve’s pointers. That said Asians are very involved in the country of their roots, they actually have little trouble getting back to them after years in their adopted country. Like the scores of Indians in the silicon valley after the dotcom crash, returning to India and also recently as India emerges economically. While its good to have the word from the horse’s mouth. most of these expats have a fairly accurate study of their country of origin. The trouble arises when they impose their own POV over reality. I suspect most American Chinese have their own model of China, which is quite evident in the forum. Like it or not the CCP is the political reality in China and thats what matters in the relationship with India, period.
June 2nd, 2010 at 4:09 pm
“They did, in America : several hundreds splited into dozens of parties and attacked each other.”
—huh? How does this have anything to do with Chinese people’s capacity for incorporating new things in China? Focus, my friend, focus…
_________________________________________________–
SKC.
????
They were chinese democratic advocate in America, that is way they behaved when they had the so-called freedom.
You want to know the situation in China ? OK, ever heard of 凯迪 ? : read the following :
http://club.kdnet.net/newbbs/dispbbs.asp?boardid=1&star=1&replyid=26137866&id=2203890&skin=0&page=1
READ THE SLOGAN ON TOP OF THE PAGE :”客观，公正，理性，宽容”. then READ THE COMMENT BY THOSE PRO-DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE !!!!
BTW, you must heard of NanDu, the only chinese newspaper interviewed Obama, now 凯迪 was acquired by NanDu.
Now will you give me a break and use your effort to teach chinese democratic advocates the rule of democracy ?
June 2nd, 2010 at 5:46 pm
If you trust my opinion, I have to say that most overseas Chinese in western countries are pretty much integrated in their countries. A lot of them can see the good, bad and neutral parts of China. A lot more don’t have any interests outside their own communities. If one was to take a 100 overseas Chinese and ask them what they think or saw in China if they’ve been there, there’s a high chance you might end up with 100+ different opinions, some of them similar and some contradictory. If you all think about it, that’s how most people around the world are. Depending on the individual themselves, because there’s quite a lot who have spent time back in China for various reasons so it’s not like their opinions are entirely subjective. I’m pretty sure most people know when to take opinions with a grain of salt. Usually they are very obvious.
In China, I would feel just as different as any foreigner despite my appearances and labels used in the States as “Chinese”. It’s totally normal.
Asking people who are actual natives of the land can be a little tricky as well. Everyone has their own opinions but the other thing is that when one is used to a certain mainstream viewpoint or lifestyle, there’s a lot of little variables a lot of Natives might overlook or not bother to take into account. I’ve done it a lot of times, with people from Asia and Europe. If people ask Americans about their own issues, it’s kind of similar. That’s kind of why I suggested the best way to know is to go see it for yourselves.
June 2nd, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Back on the topic, both India and China will have to work together if they want to move forward and prosper. The friend and foe label won’t be quite as important as being partners. I mean, you all don’t have to be a friend or enemy with your co-worker, right? It can happen but the point of the relationship is to make things work and get whatever job done.
I’m thinking that one of the most ardent issues is water. As many of the main sources of water in Asia flow from the same place, there’s not a lot the countries can afford to fight about when a basic necessity to survival is involved. People fight for resources all the time, but water is not something simple where you can go in and take it. So in a sense, due to geography alone, they are partners with certain common goals for eternity. That’s what I think.
June 2nd, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Off topic again and not so serious, for Steve.
I don’t care what you look like or how well is your knowledge. Assuming how you type is what you actually think and live like, I will always consider you as Chinese as any of my cousins or uncles that are from Asia. No matter what traits you wife exhibits, she will always be a Hua Ren. I like the fact of how much of a humble attitude you and others on this blog have. Humility is good for everyone, which basically means being no more and no less than who you are. Outside of the “official” definitions, people’s identities are always determine by themselves and their relationships.
June 2nd, 2010 at 7:17 pm
#374.From my fortune cookie yesterday. You do not know how valuable water is until the well is dry.
Or my son uses up all the hot water before I take a shower (and I do not need a cold one to cool me down).
Or I need one after running 1 mile (sorry for my old age) in a hot afternoon.
June 2nd, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Hi No99~
Thanks for the compliment! When I was over there, sometimes I’d hear someone say I must have been Chinese in a previous life. I always told them since I was Italian American, I must have been Marco Polo’s uncle Maffeo in a previous life. 😉
June 3rd, 2010 at 12:31 am
Hey Steve,
I guess that’s one of the cool things about a “civilization-state”.
A few generalizations; What are the Chinese known for…everything you can think of. What are the Chinese good at…anything you put your heart into. Who is Chinese…anyone you can relate to.
June 3rd, 2010 at 4:36 am
To 372:
“They were chinese democratic advocate in America, that is way they behaved when they had the so-called freedom.”
—I thought you said earlier that Chinese people did in fact have the capacity to incorporate things they didn’t invent. Are you now saying that they do not have the capacity to “behave” properly when availed to freedom?
And are you now using comments on a blog to determine whether Chinese people as a whole are suitable for, and capable of, a political system rooted in democratic principles? I didn’t realize that comments about an accident involving Chinese students in Germany would constitute the entirety of the required sample needed to determine whether 1.3 billion Chinese might be capable of a system other than that forced upon them by the CCP.
Do you think it would be fair, for instance, if someone came to this blog and read what you write, and decided that that would be the extent of what Chinese people are capable of?
June 3rd, 2010 at 12:49 pm
You still dont get it ?
These democratic advocated are less capable of incorporating new ideas THAN CCP.
About the blog, why dont you give a try ? try posting on 凯迪 something different from “people’s opinions”, and see the reaction.
June 4th, 2010 at 7:02 am
“These democratic advocated are less capable of incorporating new ideas THAN CCP.”
—and you say this because…? You know, I don’t want you to have to spend 2 hours writing a post, but if you could at least give ONE (1) reason why you think that, then we can talk about it. As it stands now, we’d be at the level of “yes they are”; “no they aren’t”. A fun exchange, to be sure, but I think we both out-grew that stage of life several decades ago. Well, I know I did.
And while you’re at it, perhaps you can give us an exhaustive list of examples of the CCP incorporating democratic ideas (I mean for her people, not just for herself). That, i know, shouldn’t take you anywhere near 2 hours.
As for that blog, please let me know how they have come to represent democracy itself. Thanks!
June 4th, 2010 at 7:51 am
@Wahaha: I know there’s been infighting among the Chinese democracy movement abroad, but it still doesn’t prove much more than that people from the student movement might not be the best people to become politicians. And that link still only shows there’s a small group of people who write stupid comments, not that the democracy movement as such consistently consists of idiots.
June 4th, 2010 at 10:34 am
SKC,
“I didn’t realize that comments about an accident involving Chinese students in Germany would constitute the entirety of the required sample needed to determine whether 1.3 billion Chinese might be capable of a system other than that forced upon them by the CCP.”
well, Wahaha determined the orientations of 1.2billion Indians after 2 comments of his were censored in an Indian blog. So I dont see him needing many more samples to upgrade to 1.3billion Chinese. Seriously, the fellow does not follow even half your arguments so no need to exert yourself.
Cao Meng De,
you still around? http://www.articlesbase.com/culture-articles/the-punishment-2197411.html
This year-1995 story gives a good example of the effects of Indian military garrisons in Arunachal. Its a true-story narration by a military officer– its quite entertaining while illustrating the carrot &stick policy of the military with regards to the natives.
June 4th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
WKL,
Do you know what happenen in the last 2 weeks before 6/4 ?
The student leaders were fighting for powers.
____________________________________________
SKC,
Someone in China said whoever still admire Mao are psychos; another scholar claimed that Deng’s “cat theory” was roots for the problems in modern China.
Can Chinese democratic advocates tolerate similar comments to HH or Ai Weiwei ?
Recall what I said : The democratic advocates are less tolerate of different opinion than CCP.
__________________________________________
Buru,
I guess you need the suffering of 3 billion people to convince you that the concept of “human right” wont provide help to the poor people in the world. As India has only 1.2 billion people, there is long way to go.
June 4th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
wahaha,
pl go back to China and argue from there.Hypocrite ‘traitor’.
June 4th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Buru,
Remember I mentioned that 36% of NASA engineers are indians? I think that clearly showed I have no evil or sick intention towards India.
What I am saying is that we better talk to each other with mutual respect. While you admire western democracy, I dont. That doesnt mean western democracy is 100% garbage, but we dont need evidence to show that the “human right” on paper and “human right” in realty are light year apart.
Do you know the stock market in Hungary dropped a lot ? some said they are having the same crisis like Greece. I think USA is on the same path (debt just past 13 trillion on 6/1/2010), and I blame this on “human right”, as it legalized @$$holeness. In other word, I believe the current understanding of democracy has been a major reason for the recent downfall of America.
Do you know that the japanese minister just resigned ? in last year, among democratic countries, 10 prime ministers have resigned. How can you expect this kind of government solve any problems ?
So please allocate some of your attention from “human right” on paper to “solving the problem” in real world. An impotent government = weakning the country + more suffering by the people.
June 4th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
“Remember I mentioned that 36% of NASA engineers are indians?”
pl quote your sources. This sounds nonsense to me.
“I think that clearly showed I have no evil or sick intention towards India.”
I never said you have such intentions, or have I?
“What I am saying is that we better talk to each other with mutual respect”
Really? Great. I was trying to all this while.
“While you admire western democracy, I dont. That doesnt mean western democracy is 100% garbage, but we dont need evidence to show that the “human right” on paper and “human right” in realty are light year apart.”
Then why dont you go live in China where you wont get ‘Western democracy’ ? Actions speak better than words.
“Do you know the stock market in Hungary dropped a lot ? some said they are having the same crisis like Greece. I think USA is on the same path (debt just past 13 trillion on 6/1/2010), and I blame this on “human right”, as it legalized @$$holeness. In other word, I believe the current understanding of democracy has been a major reason for the recent downfall of America.
Do you know that the japanese minister just resigned ? in last year, among democratic countries, 10 prime ministers have resigned. How can you expect this kind of government solve any problems .So please allocate some of your attention from “human right” on paper to “solving the problem” in real world. An impotent government = weakning the country + more suffering by the people.?”
The last I heard living standards of USA and Japan are still ‘light years’ ahead of your non-human rights-loving countries like China, North Korea and Vietnam…and even Greece and Hungary are waay ahead. I also heard the migration to these countries are unidirectional.When these 3 non-human rights-loving country draw level pl let me know.
* BTW the only person who made a song-and-dance out of Human Rights here is you.Nor did I give a blanket approval of ‘Western Democracy’.
June 4th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
“Remember I mentioned that 36% of NASA engineers are indians?”
pl quote your sources. This sounds nonsense to me.
___________________________________________
Buru,
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2853178.cms
and indian government cant help its people, if it is not cuz of the system, then what ?
so
Watch “Lakshmi and me”, tell me how many indians are now living like her or stop waving the paper of “human right” like an idiot.
June 4th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
@ Wahaha & Buru: Wahaha, thanks for that link. I did a little checking and it seems it’s not quite accurate. Here’s an editorial by a NASA engineer who’s actually Indian. It’s not long so I’ll give you all of it:
Singhs & Guptas In NASA!
Inflating the number of Indians at NASA is an excuse for spending more on higher education in India
SUJIT SARAF
D.PURANDESWARI, MINISTER of State in the Human Resource Development Ministry, is a happy woman these days. Against all odds, and among colleagues whose incompetence is legendary, her performance is drawing raves from all over the world. Thanks to her tireless campaign, 36 percent of the scientists at NASA are now Indians, as are 38 percent of doctors in the United States, according to a statement she made to the Rajya Sabha, as reported in The Times of India on March 11. But wait, there is more good news. As many as 34 percent of the employees at Microsoft, 28 percent at IBM, 17 percent at Intel and 13 percent at Xerox are Indians. Unfortunately, I was not present in the House of the Elders at this climactic moment, so I do not know how the elders reacted. I imagine that some pumped their fists (Chak De India!), others clapped, and the more sedate nodded knowingly. Aamchi NASA, finally.
Indians living in the United States are accustomed to reading such stories about themselves in the Indian media, and tend to treat them as harmless jokes. We know, from reading Indian newspapers, that we have taken over Silicon Valley, and that Americans spend much of their free time worrying about the Indian takeover of their country. We do not bother to rebut such claims, and sometimes even help to widen the gulf between perceptions of India in the US and perceptions in India about perceptions of India in the US.
These new numbers, however, are the results of a “government survey” and were presented by a minister, so I shook myself awake. Ah, my blinkered vision! In all my years as a research scientist for NASA, how had I missed the large number of Indians — four out of ten — whom I must have passed in the hallways? Had I not noticed the hordes of Guptas, Venkats, Singhs and Srinivasans? Given her reputation for punctiliousness, the minister no doubt looked at the numbers from all NASA centres combined. So I went where individuals not affiliated with expensive government surveys go — to http://nasapeople.nasa.gov/Workforce/default.htm — and clicked on demographic information, which brought up a chart for the workforce profile at NASA.ce.
There is no racial or ethnic category called “Indian” in American organizations. They usually list White, Black, Hispanic, Asian (meaning those from eastern Asia), Native American, Pacific-Islander, and Other. Indians usually tick the Other box. A few organisations use South-Asian or East-Indian, but this is uncommon even in small software companies where 36 percent of the engineers may indeed be Indian. Instead of Other, NASA uses the more polite Unspecified. So, I searched across all NASA centres after selecting S&E (science and engineering) employees from the chart. The number of Unspecified employees is zero. This perhaps means that Indians are grouped under Asian or Pacific Islander.
THAT NUMBER is 886 out of a total of 11,157. I threw in the 34 Multiracial employees — D. Purandeswari will certainly want to claim those who have only one Indian parent. The number of such scientists was about 8 percent of the total, of which a significant fraction are likely to be Indians. If you further restrict the search to those holding PhDs, the count is 293 out of 1,919, which is 15 percent. These numbers, of course, do not tell the whole story. Many NASA scientists are sub-contractors, as was I, and are not counted as employees. Even if you include them all, however, and make the most generous assumptions about the number of Indians who have any connection with science at NASA, that number will likely lie between 3 and 6 percent of the science workforce. Many of these Indians will be US citizens, of course, but D. Purandeswari does not fuss over detail. An exact count almost certainly does not exist, except in the government survey cited by the minister, which was probably conducted by standing outside a California theatre showing Jodhaa Akbar and asking everyone, “Are you a scientist at NASA?”.
Now, you might ask why D. Purandeswari would put her foot in her mouth over a meaningless statistic. The answer to this is far more disturbing than the fantastic numbers in her survey: she was using the number of ex-Indians at NASA to justify expenditure on higher education in India. Now all we need to do is transfer D. Purandeswari to the Department of School Education and Literacy.
Saraf was a research scientist for NASA for a few years
June 5th, 2010 at 12:55 am
Buru,
Its no point wasting your time.He’s too thick-headed to understand.
Hey am returning to india for the first time in Nov-Dec 2010 for 7 weeks.Will be in shillong mostly but will also travel to Mokokchung,Nagaland to visit extended family and catch up with some freinds in Assam and also travel to Arunachal if i can find some of my mates who used to work for Neepco at the Doimukh project.
BTW is this blog still about India-Freind,Enemy or Both? 🙂 🙂
June 5th, 2010 at 1:42 am
Hi S Lanong~
Yep, it’s still about India: Friend, Enemy or Both? but this post is coming up on a year old so I guess I ought to write another one covering the India/China relationship so we can have a fresh start. Plus, this page takes forever to load. 🙁
It’s been great from my POV to hear the Indian perspective and I’d like to keep everyone involved in the future. I’ll cast around for a new subject to hold together a post. Coming soon…
June 5th, 2010 at 3:50 am
To #384:
it’s like deja vu all over again.
“The democratic advocates are less tolerate of different opinion than CCP.”
—and the reason you say this is because…? Now, the CCP is not very tolerant of opinions contrary to her own, so on the surface, your statement really says something. Would you care to share with us the basis for your statement, so that we may judge for ourselves? I’m not really one to take your judgment at face value.
That notwithstanding, I’m interested in Chinese people as a whole, and not any particular group of “democracy advocates”. So, do you think Chinese people in general are capable of tolerating a divergence of opinion, moreso than the CCP? Don’t know about you, but I try not to doubt the capability of Chinese people.
June 5th, 2010 at 5:34 am
@Wahaha (#284): “Do you know what happenen in the last 2 weeks before 6/4 ?”
Yes, I know about that. I said this, exactly: “I know there’s been infighting among the Chinese democracy movement abroad, but it still doesn’t prove much more than that people from the student movement might not be the best people to become politicians.” However, there’s been 21 years since that happened. If you don’t believe thing changed, then why shouldn’t you take the CCP to task for creating the Cultural Revolution? What about not reporting SARS cases?
There are going to be problems everywhere. You can always find examples to prove any view. The real challenge is to actually go beyond isolated examples and argue coherently for a certain point. If democracy meant “human @$$holeness” and human rights is about “accepting greed,” then I certainly wouldn’t be advocating them either. But if they are so bad, then, as Buru suggests, why aren’t the leading countries in the world one-party states?
And if you point to Thailand as an example that democracy isn’t working, you might as well point to North Korea to show that one-party states don’t work. There are tons of example like those.
June 5th, 2010 at 5:38 am
Focus on the Topic Guys….discussion has now gone into internal politics of China.This blog is about China-India relationship and its future!
June 5th, 2010 at 8:08 am
@S Lanong: We usually allow some leeway after about a hundred comments, but I agree this is more suitable for the open thread and won’t pursue it further here.
June 8th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
SKC,
One question for you : are you capable of incorporating the idea that something is seriously wrong with western democracy ?
BTW, here is a link to how democratic advocates in China sell democracy :
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_47098f8f0100irw5.html?tj=1
无论是刘备曹操或者诸葛亮，一生都不幸福，因为他们不懂得民主法治的道理，即使目标正确，当程序不正确的时候，他们的目标也会变了味道。这就是人治与法治的区别，也是聪明和智慧的区别。
June 8th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
WKL,
It is not an isolated problems, it is like greediness being a disease.
You know that in the riot in Bangkok, several buildings were set on fire, People ? no. just SEVERAL a##holes.
You see, cuz of several individuals, the meaning of democracy changed completely, in real world. the 1992 california riot, same story.
If 1992 california riot could happen in America, what would happen in China would be 10 times worse at least.
June 8th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Steve,
Thx, I was amazed too at the “36%”.
June 8th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Not really surprising. Indians have traditionally been the manpower fillers for shortages in the West. Today its been replaced by the service industry.
Btw democracy has not been a 100% solution in India largely because Indians are not an ethnic monolith like the Chinese. There are too many local issues geographically, culturally, politically, economically etc to really work at a larger national level. Unlike even the US where the states have absolute power on a majority of local issues, Indian states are almost totally subservient to the Central goverment. In the same coin had China been democratic they would have fared comparatively better. But definitely overall the CCP IMO has been a success story. What the Chinese want next is upto them really.
Edit: Ok some news on our old blog topic
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6570KQ20100608
June 8th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
“are you capable of incorporating the idea that something is seriously wrong with western democracy ?”
—sure. No system is perfect, nor have I ever suggested that they were. Have you ever conceived that the CCP’s authoritarian system might also be fraught with some issues? The question is not about the pursuit of perfection; the question is about allowing people to pursue that which they prefer. The CCP’s system is particularly crappy at that…or have you not noticed?
Again, I’m not sure what you think those blogs of “democracy advocates” are supposed to represent, above and beyond their own views. Like I said, you wouldn’t want people to look at what you write and extrapolate that to represent the entirety of what Chinese-Americans are capable of.
What do the California riots have to do with “democracy”? Are you suggesting that riots can’t happen in the CCP-state, because the state would simply crush it? I suppose you would have a point, since such proclivities were on display about 21 years ago.
June 11th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
sure. No system is perfect, nor have I ever suggested that they were. Have you ever conceived that the CCP’s authoritarian system might also be fraught with some issues? The question is not about the pursuit of perfection; the question is about allowing people to pursue that which they prefer. The CCP’s system is particularly crappy at that…or have you not noticed?
____________________________________________________
SKC
In the future, please dont give such answer again, the reason is simple :
sure. No system is perfect, nor have I ever suggested that they were. Have you ever conceived that the western democratic system might also be fraught with some issues? The question is not about the pursuit of perfection; the question is about allowing people to pursue that which they prefer . The democratic system is particularly crappy at that…or have you not noticed?
and What do 99.99% people pursue ? not some beautiful idea from Mar, that is for sure.
June 11th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
and read following, I was talking about almost all democratic advocates in China, not several, OK ?
南方系集体沉默论–写在韩国发射火箭失败之后
———-
作者: 坚韧的石头
华岳论坛 – http://www.washeng.net/
只要略有知觉的人就都知道：这回韩国火箭发射失败，是没有核心技术的缘故，韩国政府束手无策，单会去哀求美国，而老美却向来是喂不熟的。身土不二啊核心技术啊，无奈，单靠断指抗议或跪地慰安是换不来的，但一面竟要专制独裁的俄罗斯买火箭，这才能够安心山寨核心技术。这真是一个莫大的杯具。不料杯具背后竟然又连接着餐具。
韩国今日宣布发射部分失败，但表示将继续试验，直到完全成功为止。正所谓必死则生，必生则死，失败是成功的妈妈。
本来韩国人推迟了回家的脚步，地球人民压力很大，已是已经可怜之至。不料南方扑食系竟然不顾中国人民的睦邻友好精神和向韩国人发射失败表示遗憾和安慰的良好愿望。几个南方门户网集体缄默：KD（凯迪）不给发罗老号发射失败的贴，TX（腾讯）禁止对罗老号发射失败进行评论。让对罗老号有强烈围观兴趣的广大网友莫名其妙担上了“国人莫敢言，道路以目”的罪名，可以想像其结果，必然“防民之口，甚於防水。水壅而溃，伤人必多，民亦如之”了！
好一个“关闭评论”！南方某报利用干旱制造92岁老大爷跪求修路假新闻，他们不关闭评论；TX捏造了个《前驻波兰大使：波兰政府为了节约只有一架专机》，他们不关闭评论。扑食精神号召下美国的连年伊战，奸杀虐杀，加沙危城，人道危机，墨西哥湾漏油，本世纪最大生态灾难，他们也不惊诧。韩国火箭发射失败了，他们就关闭评论了！
好一个“中国最后一个有良知的媒体”的“南方扑食系”！竟是些什么东西！莎士比亚说过：魔鬼为了他们的目的可以背诵圣经。其实南方扑食系早撕掉了他们的“文明”的面具。又何须对国人摆什么关闭评论的臭脸孔呢？ 就在地震期间全国协力抗震救灾的时候那个背后发扬泼屎精神的不正是奥巴马钦点的新闻喉舌吗？
“友邦人士”一出状况，我们的南方系就怕了，“就关闭评论，堵塞民意了，” 好像韩国人火箭失败了，中国倒象吃了个哑巴亏一样，闷声闷气谁也不响，一片寂静。于是中国倒愈像一个黑暗帝国，失了民意，失去了评论，被代表，被沉默了。南方系们倒愈像一个整齐划一的组织，可以博得“友邦人士”的夸奖，永远“扑食”下去一样。
南方系这个做法，说得明白极了：怎样的组织，怎样的“扑食”。“南方系们”要我们人民身受宰割，寂然无声，略有“越轨”，便加屠戮；南方扑食是要我们遵从这“友邦人士”的希望，否则，他就要“关闭评论了”，美国财政部外国资产控制办公室(OFAC)主任舒宾周公开表示将互联网作为颠覆他国政权的重要手段，鼓励他国反zf势力利用美国互联网企业从事颠覆活动，从而来实现美国外交目标，因为“友邦人士”是知道的：铁幕“无法攻破”，但可以有堡垒内部瓦解的“颜色革命”？每年数亿美元的特别经费，上万的特殊津贴工作者，作什么用的呀，“第五纵队”呀
June 11th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
and in case you dont know 杯具=悲剧, 南方扑食系=南方普世系
June 12th, 2010 at 5:26 am
Very international blog indeed…..
khun ka aeit! Da bei!stut liya!
June 12th, 2010 at 7:19 am
To #401:
your capacity for independent thought is staggering. I’m so impressed that you were able to take what I wrote, and exchange a couple of words. Well done! I just stipulated that no system is perfect, and then you ask me if I realize that a democratic system has its own issues? Umm….I believe I already answered it before you asked it. You make me look like I can predict the future…so thanks for that. But next time you feel a dearth of originality coming on, at least make sure that it makes a little bit of sense, OK? Cuz as I say, we wouldn’t want anyone to think that what you do is representative of the extent of what Chinese-Americans are capable of.
As you point out, it’s a matter of perspective. The way I view the CCP system might be how you view the US system. Fine by me. So riddle me this: where and how do Chinese people get to express their view? You are enamored with the CCP system, which is of little relevance to me. I despise the CCP system, which is also of little importance. The crux of the matter is what Chinese people feel about the CCP system, and what they can do about it. Under the CCP system, not a heck of a lot. I’m so happy that you find that to be ok. Interesting that you would not grant Chinese people such choices, but have not subjected yourself to the same restrictions.
As for what most CHinese people would pursue, I certainly wouldn’t pretend to know. Which is why i think it’s best to let them decide for themselves. I guess that’s too much to ask of some paternalistic authoritarian parties, or of some Chinese-Americans. Luckily, the latter don’t matter. As for the former, time will tell.
June 12th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
The people who decry “普世价值” are the worst, the ones who (unwittingly or not, I’m not sure) defend the 既得利益者 and take any mistake in any democracy to be proof of the inherent superiority of the current authoritarian system.
June 15th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
The crux of the matter is what Chinese people feel about the CCP system, and what they can do about it.
________________________________________________________________________
SKC and WKL,
How many PEOPLE want to say something about the system ?
Watch “Lakshmi and me”, tell me if Lakshmi give a damn about system .
Tell me why do people protest.
Do you know why western democracy is fair but authoritarian system is not fair ?
Simple, authoritarian system only allows a small group of people being greedy, therefore it is not fair to other peope; on the other hand, western democracy allows everyone to be greedy, hence, it is fair. THERE IS NOTHING HOLY IN IT.
But haveing right of being greedy doesnt mean you will get your fair shares of the cakes. So when you are talking aobut what people want, use the group of people in lower 50% of the society, dont talk about those journalists who live on their tongues or those who have political ambitions. I dont give a damn about what they want, why ? cuz I dont see them caring for POOR people under democratic system.
and you know what ? a psycho in China killed several children cuz he couldnt find a girlfriend, and thos democratic advocates in China tried to find excuse for him and blamed it on government. Well, you can always find some connections, cant you ? and ARE YOU GOING TO CALL IT HUMAN RIGHT ?
June 16th, 2010 at 4:16 am
“How many PEOPLE want to say something about the system ?”
—once again, I wouldn’t pretend to know. Which is why it would be nice if the system allowed people to say what they wanted, then we’d see how many people would exercise that right/privilege.
For the umpteenth time, no one has said one system is holy, or that the other isn’t. Holiness doesn’t even come into it. If Chinese people would characterize the CCP authoritarian system as unholy, yet still throw their support behind it, then I think that would be fantastic. What’s missing isn’t a label of holiness or unholiness; it’s the option of supporting it or not, and the presence (or in this case, absence) of alternatives.
When have I put a premium on what “journalists” want? I mean seriously, dude, is it so elusive to rebut what I do say that you need to argue against stuff that I haven’t said (and that no one else has either, if memory serves). Along those lines, no, I can’t attribute a psychopathic killer’s mental illness to the Chinese government. That you would conflate such a thing with “human rights” is the clearest indication to date that you have a very tenuous grasp of the concept.
June 16th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Along those lines, no, I can’t attribute a psychopathic killer’s mental illness to the Chinese government. That you would conflate such a thing with “human rights” is the clearest indication to date that you have a very tenuous grasp of the concept.
_______________________
SKC,
Dude, I was talking about the f@#$ing journalist, not the psycho.
Option ? that is why I asked you to watch “Lakshmi and me”, did Lakshmi have option ? Servants in Mumbai have to work 7 days a week otherwise noone would hire them, Do they have options ?
THEY ARE POOR, HENCE THEY DONT HAVE OPTION, GET IT ?
Those miners in China., why do they take that risk ? cuz they are poor. You think once they can vote (the optiion you talk about), then the owners will take care of the safety ? it is if the society (or government) can provide the miners other opportunities to make money, if there are, then the mine owners have to pay much higher salary and put on more safety.
Ever heard Bacha bazi of Afghanistan ? young boys are sold to rich family to become dancers and sex slaves ? why did their family sell them ? THEY HAVE NO CHOICE BECAUSE THEY ARE POOR !!!!
Oh, yeah, those journalists cry a river cuz they cant stir the pot, and talk about how much he has suffered, give me a break. To poor people, option is like a lottery, very attractive cuz it is cheap,but poor will never cash in.
I suggest you to find a place where you have to share toilet with 10 people (that was Shanghai 20 years ago), then talk aobut misery and tell me what the options you mentioned can change that.
June 17th, 2010 at 1:08 am
“I was talking about the f@#$ing journalist, not the psycho.”
—which journalist?!? You know what, much more often than not, I can’t say that I’m at all certain of what you speak. Chalk this up as another one of those times. Like I said before, no one expects you to devote 2 hours to writing a comment. But if you could devote, say, 2 minutes, that might be helpful. Otherwise you come across as so rabidly angry that you hardly seem to know of what you speak, which makes it all the more challenging for the reader.
“THEY ARE POOR, HENCE THEY DONT HAVE OPTION, GET IT ?”
—what is there to “get”? Moreover, how does this nugget of information contribute to what you are talking about? In fact, what on earth are you talking about anyhow?
How does a system of government relate to the jobs of servants and miners? News flash: in democratic countries like the US and Canada (and I imagine in many others), there are still servants and miners. Those occupations don’t disappear in a democracy. Nor does the system of governance determine the existence of such occupations, or others. So once again, what’s your point?
OK, so it seems you’re suggesting that a democratic China can’t be counted upon to improve the lot of miners. If that’s the case, then I’m sure you’d agree that the authoritarian CCP in China is responsible for the current plight of miners, what with poor wages, atrocious safety record, numerous mining accidents and deaths annually. To me, it’s actually not the system of governance; it’s just that the CCP is lax when it comes to regulation and enforcement of workplace safety/conditions, which isn’t directly attributable to her authoritarian nature.
The Afghanistan example is colourful, as your examples often are. But it still has nothing to do with democracy. What? There are poor people in democracies? Gosh, who knew? But there are lots of poor people in China too, so the system of governance doesn’t seem directly related to the wealth of her citizens. If you are to decry the existence of poor people in the world, that is laudable indeed. It also has nothing to do with any discussion remotely related to democracy.
So, would a “poor” person want to live in an authoritarian state, or in a democratic one? Hmm, I don’t know. Why not ask them and let them decide for themselves? Oh, I forgot, some people can’t seem to grasp the concept.
Sometimes I wonder about your method of “argument”, and the genesis of those oh-so-wonderful “examples”. At the same time, I stopped wondering a long time ago.
June 17th, 2010 at 1:15 am
Fools Mountain…..It truely is…:)
June 17th, 2010 at 4:11 am
I agree with S Lanong; this conversation has become not only pretty foolish but completely off subject. Can we get it back to India/China relations again? I was on holiday but am back now and will try to post something by this weekend dealing with India/China relations so we can put this thread to rest and begin anew.
June 17th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
the relation between China and India ?
Simple, if Pakistan had been a close friend of west, India and China wouldve been good friends.
______________________________________________
SKC,
Ok, okokokokokok
You dont understand ? okokokokokok.
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/randomaccess/entry/the-chinese-think-big-we
(no disrespect to India and indian people.)
June 18th, 2010 at 6:32 am
Dear god, you certainly take the root of the first word of this blog’s moniker, and embody it to the fullest, don’t you?
What on earth was your goofy link supposed to demonstrate, pray tell? China thinks big, and so she should. She has a strong military that uses submersibles to patrol a lake, and good on her. Could she not do these things under the auspices of a democratic government? (you do remember that to be the topic of discussion, do you not?)
Sometimes I wonder how your thoughts are conceived, not that I would ever seek to reproduce such a system, for it clearly resides where it belongs; but as a case-study, and as a cautionary tale.
June 18th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
You not follow ? okokokokokokok.
How the heck can the communist bastards know better than those oxford and cambridge graduate?
Do you follow ? still not ? okokokokokok.
If not cuz of the system, how the heck can the communist bastards know better than those oxford and cambridge graduate?
Please dont bring us to Mars, there are no O2 and HO2 there.
June 18th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Gentlemen, please end your nonsensical discussion. Continued further comments in this vein will simply be deleted.
June 19th, 2010 at 1:57 am
LOL. Perhaps this thread should be closed?
June 19th, 2010 at 2:04 am
Yeah Mate..it should be closed.Will miss you “wahaha”.You really got this blog up an running in the last few weeks.
okokokokokok…..i need some O2!(or watver that is supposed to mean!)
:)cheerio!
June 19th, 2010 at 4:07 am
S L,
me and SKC have been good friends for long time (dont we, SKC?)
If you feel good about your intelligence by posting several one-liners, be my guest. such posts have never bothered me and well never bother me.
cheerio!
June 19th, 2010 at 6:01 am
“How the heck can the communist bastards know better than those oxford and cambridge graduate?”
—do you consider yourself to be one of the former?
For me, it’s so simple even you should be able to understand it. Let Chinese people decide what they want, and not just the privileged members of the CCP, and certainly not a bunch of Chinese-Americans who appreciate the CCP system so deeply that they left it for other pastures.
June 19th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
These discussions are really something – from the relationship between China and India to movies, poor people, Mars and molecules.
As for HO2 (which apparently doesn’t exist on Mars), you can get it by having water and ozone react with each other:
HO2 + O3 -> 2HO2
I’m not sure what it’s used for, though. Mars can probably get on without it.
June 19th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
It should be H2O + O3 -> 2HO2 above, of course. Sorry for the confusion.
June 19th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Wukailong #417, good suggestion. I’m closing the comments since this thread outlived its usefulness some time ago.