About India, China seek to resolve boundary dispute Page 5
|April 20th, 2005||#41|
| || |
But even if they were Tibetans, that doesn't make the territory Chinese, even if we accept ipso facto that Tibetans are an official Chinese minority. Over 1/3 of (Indian administered) Kashmir are Tibet ethnicity, and derivations of the same are found in all hill peoples of India.
What people don't realize that even in British India and independant Tibet -- not even ancient times -- there was no 'boundary' between India and Tibet. There were no borders, toll booths, border guards or gates. India melted into Tibet and vice versa. If ethnicity is a factor of nationhood, then India has more of a right than China to speak on behalf of the Tibetans.
Most parts of southern Tibet have until the invasion, never in history have even seen a representative of a Chinese empire, and yet places like Kailash, Manosarovar, etc. are places of pilgrimage for Hindus and Buddhists since time immemorial; in importance to them as Mecca is for Moslems. The places there have Sanskrit names, plains-Indian descended priests and monks, and Hindu and Buddhist temples in Indian architectural styles. There is even a Sikh temple in Tibet, established nearby. Nearly a thousand of Indian regularly made the trecherous trek through the mountains to these places -- and Tibetans making the opposite trek to Buddhist pilgramage places like Bodhgaya or Sarnath in India -- each year... until the Chinese invasion where now they are cut off. The PRC allows only 40 or so Indians to make this pilgramage. Here's a map that shows some pilgramage points:
All that aside, there is the whole issue that India has nearly as many ethnic Tibetans as China!
Incidently Tibetans are very well represented in the Indian Army. I created a photo thread informing about their contributions in another forum (that doesn't mind large imbeded picture links ). Feel free to check out
India's Tibetan Troops: Histories & Rare Photographs
|April 20th, 2005||#42|
| || |
What really pisses me off is that even after 50+ years and 5+ wars the Indian Government is living in some Gandhist la la land where every nation is a brother and the nation should turn the other cheek to attacks and plots against it. Just yesterday, Bangladeshi border guards shot dead an Indian border patrol man for no apparent reason, for the 50th time it seems in the last couple years... and India will refrain from beating the **** out of Bangla like every nation worth its salt should do (ref: every single major world power in every single similar incident) because India's politicos feel that it would "look bad" for India to push around a little guy.
Well such is geopolitics! Big guys push around little guys, or in China's case, push around other big guys who respond with a Nehruvian salute or a political hunger strike instead of pushing back.
Slowly as the older (Gandhi-influenced) generation dies out, India will be much more proactive in its foreign policy.
|April 21st, 2005||#43|
| || |
Never in history have even seen a representative of a chinese empire??
during tang dynasty, tibet was considered a good friend to have and there was mutual relationship between tang and tibet, even a royal marriage occured.
yuan dynasty, the mongols had esdablished a khante region governed by one of Kubilai Khan's brothers, the region had several representative of mongol tribes going into tibet to meet and discuss
ming dynasty, some trade, affraid i havent hard much about tibet during this time period, if anyone cna find it then it would be great
qing dynasty, tibet was considered a vassal state by manchu, there was plenty of diplomacy to last a long time, trade occured and several royal marriages took place
ever since there was a dala lama, every dalalama that has been chosen meets with chinese government
A signature is a little text that can be added at the bottom of the posts you make. It\'s limited to 300 characters (size 7 to 12) on 5 line(s) and 1 image(s) with none larger than 100x500 pixels and for a maximum of 20Kb. In your text, no more than 100 characters without space too.
|April 21st, 2005||#44|
| || |
I believe the point that he was trying to make was that the average citizen of Tibet was far more likely to have dealings with India than with China. Tibet have had a love/hate relationship with China going way back. The Tang had substantial dealings with Tibet, sure. They also seized a large portion of the Kingdom of Tibet in retaliation for ... I can't remember what.
The Yuan Dynasty is a pretty lousy basis for making any point at all. Their greater empire controlled the Middle East and all of modern day Russia, yet these are not claimed by China. China wouldn't dare. That's because the Mongol Empire was not a Chinese Empire. What they did or did not do outside of China (during their control over China) has nothing to do with China. Just because France today was once controlled by Rome does not establish any basis for France to lay claim to Egypt, just because the Roman Empire controlled it. Control over or dialogue with Tibet by the Mongols cannot truly be used by China, saying that it was them. It wasn't.
When virtually the exacty thing happened: A semi-barbaric group invaded, conquered and controlled China -- the Manchus, the same would seem to carry over. What they did or didn't do can't be claimed as being actions of China itself. The difference occurred simply because the Qing (Manchu) Dyansty did not collapse quickly like the Yuan (Mongol) Dynasty. Maybe you have a basis for redefining "what is Chinese?" Then again, maybe you don't. Who decides what rules this is going to be based on?? As mentioned before, I can use the Yuan to claim China's "absolute right" to control the Middle East and Russia if I want. That doesn't mean that anyone else is going to take me seriously, and it most certainly does not give China the right to to conquer those lands.
The PRC was militarily strong and forcibly conquered much territory. Does that make the conquered ethnic groups Chinese? I suppose that it does. It does not, however, make them ethnic Chinese. I will say this: Having to keep track of 56+ ethnic groups is tedious. People aren't going to bother. They'll just call them Chinese because they live in China, and call it good. But ethnicity doesn't magically change the moment that you are conquered and held. There isn't a specific amount of time of control that people within a given region magically alter they ethnicity.
I think that the lazy approach to it is perhaps the least problematic: If I live in the USA and I am a citizen, I'm an American. If I live in China and am a citizen, I'm Chinese. Going farther than this always seems to make a mess of things.
"It is well that war is so terrible, else we should grow too fond of it."
- General Robert E. Lee
Warning, critical pebkac error in the iD10t!! pebkac\wtflolurpwnzd\snafuroflmao.exe called iD10t, iD10t failed to respond!! System in danger!!
"It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. I am NOT a big man." -Chevy Chase
|April 22nd, 2005||#45|
| || |
lol, ok, here, i'll explain why so many semi-babaric FIRSt empires because CHinese later
basically the mongols, kublkai ghan ( sry for my spelling) and later mongol leaders, have followed the pattern of absorption into the chinese empire, since being in the chinese civilization had softened many and these mongols have often adopted chinese ways ( not saying its superior but its more enticing)
ever since teh mongols became more chinese and then are considered chinese, the yuan empire esdablished its capital in beijing, had its official language in chinese.
same with the manchu, at first they were fierce warriors, then they became absorbed into the chinese civilization, made their capital in china, spoke chinese, wrote chinese, used chinese culture and eventually they became chinese
all throughout history areas severely influenced by chinese culture is called chinese, even tibet if you dont believe it
|April 22nd, 2005||#46|
| || |
When Marco Polo came to China, it was during the Yuan Dynasty. He concluded the Kublai Khan was Chinese for all intents and purposes. Why? Because he ruled from a capital located within China and had adopted the role of the Emperor of China, and all that it entailed.
Did that make him "Chinese" in the eyes of the Han Chinese he ruled over? Absolutely not! The secret of the Ming's rise to power was centered upon, "Throwing those filthy, nasty, disgusting and above all else non-Chinese barbarians out of China." While they did succeed in removing the Yuan Dynasty from power, many ethnic Mongols remained. Many also left. They were still regarding with disgust and loathing by the Han Chinese, no matter which side of the Great Wall the lived.
Interaction between the Ming and the colonial powers was quite limited, but there certainly was some contact. This was the late Ming, and therefore extremely isolationist.
The Manchu (Qing) Dynasty took over, adding what the Ming had controlled to their growing empire. The Qing would be more similar to the Roman Empire than any other Dynasty: A warlike group, bent on conquest who succeeded in dominating many diverse lands. Just like Rome, they intentionally stopped once they felt they controlled as much as they could hold (hence, not making the same mistake as the Mongols.) Tibet was one of those conquered, though they were never considered anything more than a vassal kingdom by the Qing. Modern day Mongolia, and Taiwan were also taken over and held. It was this Empire that came into much more direct contact and interaction with the colonial powers of Europe, especially in the 1800's.
So did the Europeans call all of the Manchu Empire "China" and "Chinese"? Sure, why wouldn't they? Its a simpler method of referring to the people and lands of the Manchus' Empire. They also wouldn't have known any better, in all truth. And how much contact did they have with the diverse lands controlled by the Qing Dynasty? Pretty limitted in all truth. The British had some limitted contact with Tibet via India, but for the most part, all dealings with Qing controlled China was through the coast. If the Qing drew a line on a map that included Taiwan, Mongolia and Tibet, and called it China ... well, so be it. So if Europeans accept this by default simply because they were almost entirely ignorant of Southeast Asia's history, does that validate the PRC's claims to such lands? I don't think that recognition based upon 1.) ignorance and 2.) just plain not caring about the mattter, qualify as proof that Tibetans and Mongolians are ethnic Chinese.
So who decides what "Ethnic Chinese"? The people of China have decided that they get to write their own rules for this one. "56 ethnic groups within China, but all of them are Chinese." That is valid only insofar as the established government does indeed control the borders containing them. But if I find a village on the shores of Lake Baikal that is 100% ethnic Mongolian, does that make them Chinese? What if that group decides that they are Mongolian-Russians and not Chinese? Does that merit a public outrage and demands for immediate invasion of Russia and seizure of all regions dominated by ethnic Mongols, just because China has decided to define Mongol=Chinese??
|April 22nd, 2005||#47|
| || |
Arunachal Pradesh angry over PM's silence on Chinese claims info
|April 23rd, 2005||#48|
| || |
In addition to godofthunder9010's great posts, if being invaded by an nation makes the invaders a historical part of invadee nation, then India has as much claim to Tibet as China for the same reasons alone -- not counting even historical/cultural links.
The Mongols came to India several times, Kushans, Sycthians, and not to mention the most famous, the Moguls. Their empires extended well into E. Turkestan (Xinjiang) as well as Tibet, Persia, etc. This is not counting various Indian empires invasions of Tibet, like the Sikhs, Mons, Gorkha, etc.
Using Chinese logic, India can very well claim Xingjiang, Tibet, because not only has invaders politically claimed parts of India (and hence vice versa thru that logic), but India has had overweening continual cultural and spiritual relations with these countries. India has a greater claim to Tibet, Xingjiang than China!
As for Tibetan's spiritual guidance to titular Chinese kings, dude, the various Sakhya and Red-Hat sects of Tibetan Buddhism are an offshoot of Indian Vajrayana Mahayana Buddhism expounded by sage Shakyamuni which came to Tibet from India. This came to Tibet from Indian sage Padmasambhava (Guru Rinpoche) who defeated Chinese Buddhist emmisaries in great debates and established Indian Tantric Buddhism as the most powerful religion in Tibet. Tibetans literally view India as their "spiritual mother" and religious contacts between various Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh leaders (titular and spiritual) lasted until the Chinese invasion and closed borders. (A famous Maharashtran from the early 1900s saint still has followers in Tibet, though most fled to India after invasion.) And this is not to mention the various Turkestani peoples, who are far more liberal Moslems than their neighbors, have their origins in the N. Indian Moslem peoples and traditions! Sadly, due to Pakistani interferance in Xingjiang, these people are rapidly becomng Deobandi and Wahabi.
Long story short, while Chinese kings looked to Tibetan Lamas in a form of guidance in the Cho-Yan (transliterilation of Sanskrit's Guru-Chela or "Teacher-Disciple"), Tibet in turn followed and to this day follows the same Guru Chela relationship with India. Further more, the Cho-Yan relationship where the Chinese emperor is a spiritual student of the Tibetan does not somehow translate, in any leap of logic, to Chinese politically lording over Tibet or its people... quite the opposite, and for the Chinese to claim this as reason for its 'historic' ownership of Tibet is the height of arrogance.
|April 23rd, 2005||#49|
| || |
lol, first of all previously the area around lake balkal, outher qingling ranges and north east were chinese territory
hey i dont get it, this is just sad, chinese empire was suppose to be alot bigger than today, including monogolia and parts of mancuria, yet you still cry about it, why??? probably because of ur fear of the rise of the dragon, otherwise you wounldnt be commenting on it
rajkhalsa, dont go and make such posts claiming tibet is also as much indian as chinese, ur previous posts makes me feel suspicious about ur sources. btw, the tibetian language is alot more similar to madrain than punjabi
|April 23rd, 2005||#50|
| || |
Is there anything in any of my previous posts that is NOT 100% verifiable, un-exaggerated, fact?
As for sources? I can get plenty. What I have said is common knowlege. Is there any fact in particular you want me to reference?
PS: Resorting to unsubstantiated or hot-air rhetoric about "the rise of the dragon" (*waves hands*hooooooh) won't work here.