Cactus

Intervene with what? Deltacomelately, you know India's ORBAT in 1950s - this discussion will at best simply degenerate into a useless exercise in "what ifs". While we are at it, we may as well start with, "What if Ole King Porus had a squadron of Hawker Hunters at Jehlum?"

Cactus

The Clinton Administration disjoined all the demands for minority rights in the treaty granting China the Most Favored Nation status in trade policies. Subsequent administration has made no attempt to reverse the policy either. So what the heck are you talking about?

Oh, while you are at it - you may care to remember that India effectively recognized Tibet as a Chinese Autonomous Province in reciprocation of Chinese recognition of Sikkim as an Indian state. The Dalai Lama, their effective government in exile, is now content to barter for point-by-point concession. The Tibetans are well and truly screwed for now.

Officer of Engineers

Sir,

You might be interested in this article

Five Lessons from China’s War on Terror

__________________
Chimo

Adux

I was talking about the populance in general and not the governments. As far as the Official line of the world is concerned Tibet is a part of China

Deltacamelately

Do you want me to take out this thread?
I don't find much similarity between India's capability in 1950 to intervene militarily in Tibet With Porus having a Hunter squadron. Far too Away.
Anyway, read this book..

"The Fate of Tibet: When big insects eat small insects" by Claude Arpi, Mr. Arpi shows that not only did the Nehru government betray Tibet, but it also severely destabilized India's national security. In 1947, India had special rights in Tibet, a legacy of the British Raj. In 1949, though clearly aware of China's strategic interests in Tibet, Nehru failed to get any assurance from China that it would not invade the region. However, what is worse is the fact that he did nothing to prevent China from committing blatant aggression against a weak and peace loving Tibet, in 1950. Mr. Arpi provides proof in his book that argument that India was not in a position to halt Chinese aggression in Tibet in 1950 is erroneous and misleading. India had three trade agencies with military escorts within Tibet and with the support and help of the democratic world could have checked the communist aggression. Paying more attention to the Korean War than the happenings in Tibet, Nehru gave an open and clear invitation to China that she could unhesitatingly conquer the poor and helpless nation. In one stroke, Nehru's government was single-handedly responsible for converting the Indo-Tibet border into the Indo-China border.

And Cactus, I am not doing a "what if" exercise. Mine was more of a pondering of possibilities against the decadence and possibly annihilation of a 2000 year old robust society and culture...

__________________
I am the DARK that Rise to Kill..And Soar to Redeem!

Cactus

The vast majority of the Western populace do live in democracies, so even if the governments' Tibet and China policies don't exactly reflect the populace's active views, they do reflect the populace's passive indifference and/or higher conflicting priorities. The same holds true for India. The net effect is the same for the Tibetans.

Adux

non-involment of people in democracy in most cases is not something new.

Adux

Sir,

That doesnt say anything. Wearing Jeans and T-Shirts I mean. Just because they watch satellite channels and are not religious doesnt mean they are not interested in the freedom of tibet. Its just the sheer over-crowding of media, business etc.

Then who is doing them? MTV?????

astralis

i don't know about this- if mao could fight the UN to a standstill in the korean war, would delhi be able to support tibet to independence in a china-indian war back then? as i see it, the logistics would be horrendous...

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Officer of Engineers

Stick to the topic you raised. You were talking cultural genocide. Not political independence.

I was going to say BAYWATCH but no, the Tibetans are doing it to themselves. They're watching what they want to watch and listen to what they want to listen and they're not watching the Dali Lama doing his chants.

Adux

.

Sir,

Political independence gives oppertunities to stop a cultural genocide. Tibetains have their legs and arms tied. The Han Chinese are steadily moving into tibet?


Dalai lama's sermons in Commie China????? Freedom of Media in China???

Adux

Both sides would have just lost lots of good men, and nothing would have been gained!!!!

Officer of Engineers

Numbers ain't on your side. 6% of Tibet's population is Han Chinese and most concentrated on tourist spots which by definition means that the Tibetan culture is their cash cow.

However, the one thing that you're NOT emphasizing on is that the Tibetans need to learn Chinese in order to do business with the rest of China. Those who do are doing extremely well. Those who don't are whinning that they're losing their culture.

In either case, the very fact that they voting with their wallets (ie, they're buying into the Western lifestyles) mean the old living god thing is dead on its track.

You telling me that they can't hacked the signal?

Cactus

... and the British Raj had special rights in Tibet as a legacy of Royal Navy. A navy that had already made its 12" marks all over the Forbidden City. Did the independent India have the legacy of such a navy? Hence the reference to the ORBAT. Rights are maintained only be the implicit ability to assert them.

It is a false premise that lasting national security is achieved so; the unravelling failure of a nation - almost exclusively run by people schooled in national-security matters - to your immediate west proves it on a daily basis. Some tactical advantages may be gained by such manouvers, but strategic security is never guaranteed by such theatrics alone.

In effect it amounts to the same thing. We just see absurdity better at a distance (unless you are also a script-writer, in which case you can't see absurdity at any distance!).

I don't think you can delete a thread by yourself, only posts.

Cactus

^^^ Here is the prime reason why I think it is a useless exercise in "what ifs":

If the Nehru administration was of the disposition to actively intervene in such conflicts, it would have have taken a very hawkish stance and invested in defense. Two possibilities:

1. If Mao expected an aggressive and well-prepared foe, would he attack so openly?

2. If there was enough investment in defense, the forces would be much larger and better prepared. Two possibilities:

A. If India spends enough on defense to really itimidate Mao, India goes completely bankrupt, the democratic government falls, and an Indian Mao takes over.

B. If India is suddenly productive and prosperous enough to sustain such defense spending, maintain democratic government and still have a hawkish foreign policy, India is at atleast as formidable as the UN forces in Korea with the added advantage of being a singular identitiy. Two possbilities:

... ad absurdum.