Thread: Dalai Lama row sparks new France boycott calls

Originally Posted by Cactus

People in Arunachal Pradesh are Indians. They are not moving about any more than any other Indians. Ever since the 1870s successive governments have imposed various restrictions on people from other parts of India from settling in those areas (for cultural and security reasons... it is also true for select parts elsewhere in India as well). The latest version is called the Inner Line Permit (ILP; see http://www.indiamike.com/india/other...states-t47667/). In fact looking at the laws and knowing something of the general trend, it would be safe to say they move into other parts of India more than people from other parts into those areas.

And now we also know that either you lie through your teeth or make up bull-cr@p to equate PRChina's actions with India's (as in China's demographics game in East Turkestan and Tibet). If India adopted PRChina's policy, its problems in Jammu&Kashmir and the North-East would be over as fast as the trains can run from UP or Bihar to those places!

All that being said, listen to this: the Chinese side is keeping a close watch on its territory called Zangnan or Arunachal Pradesh. A very bitter war was fought there between China and India.

Originally Posted by zraver

The only time Pakistan, India and Bangladesh were ever united was under the British. The Subcontinent was a mix of powers- the princely states and the Mughals

Nope. Indian sub-continent, before the emergence of modern India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, was a mixture of British-ruled areas, princely states (the concept is British), tribal areas (like modern Pakistan's FATA) and small European outposts (like Portuguese Goa, French Pondicherry etc.).

Originally Posted by Shuimo

For Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, the sure thing was that the subcontinent was fully colonized by the Brits for several hundred years.

The British crown assumed responsibility for ruling areas of India from the British East India Company for a period of 89 years, starting from 1858-1947. If you wish to count BEIC rule, as well, consider that the last major kingdom in Indian sub-continent, the Sikh Empire, fell to the British in 1842 - so a period of 105 years.

Originally Posted by Shuimo

No. Tibetans will be Tibetans, as Mogolians will be Mogolians....have lived under the roof of the Chinese grand family since times immemorial.

The Manchus? The histories of Japan and SE Asian countries seem to be one long run from the "Grand Family"... (I presume the family didn't like it very much when Japan did come for a visit?)

Originally Posted by Cactus

Nope. Indian sub-continent, before the emergence of modern India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, was a mixture of British-ruled areas, princely states (the concept is British), tribal areas (like modern Pakistan's FATA) and small European outposts (like Portuguese Goa, French Pondicherry etc.).



The British crown assumed responsibility for ruling areas of India from the British East India Company for a period of 89 years, starting from 1858-1947. If you wish to count BEIC rule, as well, consider that the last major kingdom in Indian sub-continent, the Sikh Empire, fell to the British in 1842 - so a period of 105 years.



The Manchus? The histories of Japan and SE Asian countries seem to be one long run from the "Grand Family"... (I presume the family didn't like it very much when Japan did come for a visit?)

You surely knows more about about that subcotinent!
But isn't 105 years long enough for colonial rule?

Manchurians still live in China today, but I think 99.9% of them speak Mandarin Chinese today. But I doubt whther Tibetans and Inner Mogolians will follow suit. The unlikelihood is 100%, particularly for Tibetans, who mostly live in Qingzang Plateau, quite remote from the mainstream Chinese.
But Japan and SE asians countries are quite different from the ethnic minorities in China.
The Japanese do prettify their visit to China. We all know the role of Japan in World War II. China-Japan relations even have trouble today because of that!:(

Originally Posted by Shuimo

what is your indirectly formulated question entropy ?

How do you know the people of Tibet wanted to be liberated by you?

Originally Posted by Shuimo

No. Tibetans will be Tibetans, as Mogolians will be Mogolians....have lived under the roof of the Chinese grand family since times immemorial.

If memory serves... I do remember the Mongols owning you some time ago. A memorial time.

Originally Posted by entropy

How do you know the people of Tibet wanted to be liberated by you?

Is surfdom and theoratic rule what a normal person what?)

Originally Posted by zraver

Ina couple of generations there won't be a Tibet or Tibetans outside India. The Chinese are borrowing a page from America. can't force them out, then marginalise them and breed them out.

Seems like it. The Tibetan culture will only be remembered by the die hard followers of the philosophy.

As for Dalai Lama, I know some people who have talked to the man in person. It appears that there are less known spiritual figures who are more qualified and "better" than Dalai Lama. He is just a face.

Originally Posted by entropy

If memory serves... I do remember the Mongols owning you some time ago. A memorial time.

We consider Mongols, at least those in Inner Mogolia, as part of our Chinese family. It is not a matter of owning or not owning.

Originally Posted by entropy

How do you know the people of Tibet wanted to be liberated by you?

Tibet was and is not only populated by Tibetans, that is the case before 1950. There are other ethnic groups besides Han.

Gents, this type of one liner exchange will produces nothing meaningful, I suggest everyone just ends it.

Originally Posted by entropy

As for Dalai Lama, I know some people who have talked to the man in person. It appears that there are less known spiritual figures who are more qualified and "better" than Dalai Lama. He is just a face.

I agree. There are anti-Dalai Lama lamas within Tibetans themselves.
Don't tell me this is done by the Chinese gov.)
I feel Dalai Lama can no longer be called as a really spiritual figure.
He is now a totally politicized figure.

The other day, I watched a video, and it was the speech given by Dalai Lama at the EU parliament (I think Dalai Lama needs to improve his English to a better level, like grammar,pronunciation).
He repeated he was not seeking independence for Tibet but genuine autonomy over and over again. But he just didn't tell us what his genuine autonomy really mean.
But we know what he means. He had representatives have a talk with the Central Gov of China.

Originally Posted by xinhui

Gents, this type of one liner exchange will produces nothing meaningful, I suggest everyone just ends it.

As Tibet issues are so liked and concerned by people on the interantional stage, let us just be frank and discuss it, and make more people know what a real Tibet is.
As another netizen friend said, it is important to have the opinions of different parties heard. Without the Chinese participation, any talk of Tibetan issues will not be meaningful indeed.)

Originally Posted by xinhui

Gents, this type of one liner exchange will produces nothing meaningful, I suggest everyone just ends it.

I agree.