I agree. The degree is just getting you employed, doesn't guarantee success. The real knowledge comes from practice and experience. Street smart most times beats school smart. Chinese students, just like their counterparts around the world, are educated from childhood that only good academic can lead to one’s well beings in the future.
For those few figure out the rat racing trap. There are abundant opportunities waiting for them.
Minus how ridiculous your argument is, I want to remind you I was not arguing why China has the legitimacy to claim South Tibet. You are entitled to believe AP is part of India, I am entitled to believe South Tibet is part of China. I am asking you to honor your government's official stance over Xinjiang, which is acknowledged by your government to be an intergral part of China.
We are talking about international issues here, right? Government's offical stances of different countries are basically backbones of of these issues, What is the point of discussing all of these issues, if we disregard the offical stances, which are literally the only thing that matters. My suggestion is, instead of doing personal wishful thinkings, we should debate with each other under certain rules, which are repsecting official stance of our respective governments.
I toe the government line because we are discussing external affairs, most of the time, external affairs should be just handled by government, because I think, by showing respect to my government official stance over Sikkim, Kashmir, I am also respecting India.
Do I believe Sikkim is part of India, do I believe Kashmir is disputed land between India and Pakistan? No, I don't. But since our life is least affected by these issues, we just let the government handle it.
Since you have given me a good advice about free thought, I am pondering if I should take it. I hope I won't get banned if start promting the independence of the Kingdom of Sikkim and calling Kashmir part of Pakistan. You are right, we should never toe the government's line.
First, I wanted to say when I was waiting for the train from GZ to Shenzhen, I had personally seen a Arab girl wearing hijab next to me and I am sure it was not Friday.
Second, I don't believe Chinese take it offensive. I would rather say people are just curious. A girl wearing a hijab certainly will get more attention from people around since it is not common in China. I was staring at the Arab girl while waiting for the train before she found out. But I am pretty sure, no Chinese will approach her and stop her from doing that. I presume it is the pressure of being the center of spotlight that prevents her from wearing it, rather than the social castigation you are making up.
Going by the same token, you are entitled to call East Turkestan whatever you want, while I will continue to call it East Turkestan (refer to the title of the thread). Please do not drag governments' and their official stands. This is neither the Parliament of India nor the Politburo of CCP.
Did you finish reading all my posts before replying? Don't interpret my words out of the context.
You government recognizes Xinjiang to be an integral part of China. So I am asking you to respect that.
My government claims South Tibet, I am respecting government's stance. Once China stop claiming South Tibet, I will call it AP as you wish.
If you people still can't see the difference between the two, I am giving up.
The problem is I am looking at this issue from a historical perspective, not diplomatic perspective. There are two things to ponder:
India had long maintained that Tibet is a part of PRC, but there has been a recent comment where Tibet was clubbed together with Taiwan. Surely, Taiwan is not part of the PRC (http://hindu.com/2010/11/15/stories/...1562471200.htm). What I am trying to say is that the Government of India can change its stance at any time.
I do not know what you mean by China, but in my books, China + Tibet + East Turkestan + other occupied territories = PRC. Regions in PRC that have not historically had any Han Chinese population in significant majority cannot be accepted as part of China. This explains the policy of demographic change pursued by PRC.
Moreover, India is a democracy and I have the right to disagree with my government as long as I am not endangering the 'unity and integrity of the Nation' [sic: Constitution of India]; and I am not doing anything like that by using the term East Turkestan.
Indian government claims Aksai Chin on the basis that it was part of Jammu & Kashmir. Not to mention that part of land which Pakistan gave you (which was disputed territory between India and Pakistan, and which they had no right to give you). So why do you get agitated when Indian posters claim those lands as their own? Hey, after all, we are just "obeying the government line"
And you speak of the Chinese government's stand as if it is very consistent and honest. Officially, the CCP says that Kashmir is a bilateral dispute between India and Pakistan, but they have been trying to act smart in the last 2-3 years. Issuing stapled Visas to Indian Kashmiris, whereas issuing normal Visas to the residents of Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir. And executing infrastructure projects there too. Meddling in the Kashmir issue has historically raised hackles in India. Even the US and other Western powers are very careful not to make any stray comments on Kashmir, while the CCP is poking India with this kind of nonsense. With this background, we cannot trust the CCPs intentions with respect to other Indian territories, and the Indian public can be expected to react the way they are, raising questions on Tibet and Xingiang.
All this has started only in the last 2-3 years, and it will only escalate, thanks to your CCPs hare brained policies. A country which was viewed largely as a benign rising power among its neighbours (even in India, despite the border disputes), is now one of the most reviled nations and the anti-China sentiment is increasing daily throughout the world. If you hear Indian members talking today about "freeing Tibet and Xingiang", it is the Chinese policies which are to blame. All Chinese need to understand this.
It is more than curiosity, people take offence to it and they let her know by shouting slurs. Islam for some reason makes migrant Chinese uncomfortable to the point they have to tell you shouting at your face.
Historically, Tibet was not part of China (there was anyway nothing like China, but Dynasties with boundaries).
Upon the death of Langdarma, the last emperor of a unified Tibetan empire, there was a controversy over whether he would be succeeded by his alleged heir Yumtän or by another son (or nephew) Ösung (either 843-905 or 847-885). A civil war ensued, which effectively ended centralized Tibetan administration until the Sa-skya period. Ösung's allies managed to keep control of Lhasa, and Yumtän was forced to go to Yalung, where he established a separate line of kings. In 910 the tombs of the emperors were defiled.
The son of Ösung was Pälkhortsän (either 893-923 or 865-895). The latter apparently maintained control over much of central Tibet for a time, and sired two sons, Trashi Tsentsän and Thrikhyiding, also called Kyide Nyigön in some sources. Thrikhyiding emigrated to the western Tibetan region of upper Ngari and married a woman of high central Tibetan nobility, with whom he founded a local dynasty.
After the breakup of the Tibetan empire in 842, Nyima-Gon, a representative of the ancient Tibetan royal house, founded the first Ladakh dynasty. Nyima-Gon's kingdom had its center well to the east of present-day Ladakh. Kyide Nyigön's eldest son became ruler of the Mar-yul (Ladakh) region, and his two younger sons ruled western Tibet, founding the Kingdom of Guge and Pu-hrang. At a later period the king of Guge's eldest son, Kor-re, also called Jangchub Yeshe Ö (Byang Chub Ye shes' Od), became a Buddhist monk. He sent young scholars to Kashmir for training and was responsible for inviting Atiśa to Tibet in 1040, thus ushering in the Chidar (Phyi dar) phase of Buddhism in Tibet. The younger son, Srong-nge, administered day to day governmental affairs; it was his sons who carried on the royal line.
Central rule was largely nonexistent over the Tibetan region from 842 to 1247, yet Buddhism had survived surreptitiously in the region of Kham. During the reign of Langdarma three monks had escaped from the troubled region of Lhasa to the region of Mt. Dantig in Amdo. Their disciple Muzu Saelbar (Mu-zu gSal-'bar), later known as the scholar Gongpa Rabsal (Dgongs-pa rab-gsal) (832-915), was responsible for the renewal of Buddhism in northeastern Tibet, and is counted as the progenitor of the Nyingma (Rnying ma pa) school of Tibetan Buddhism. Meanwhile, according to tradition, one of Ösung's descendants, who had an estate near Samye, sent ten young men to be trained by Gongpa Rabsal. Among the ten was Lume Sherab Tshulthrim (Klu-mes Shes-rab Tshul-khrims) (950-1015). Once trained, these young men were ordained to go back into the central Tibetan regions of U and Tsang. The young scholars were able to link up with Atiśa shortly after 1042 and advance the spread and organization of Buddhism in Lho-kha. In that region, the faith eventually coalesced again, with the foundation of the Sakya Monastery in 1073. Over the next two centuries, the Sakya monastery grew to a position of prominence in Tibetan life and culture. The Tsurphu Monastery, home of the Karmapa school of Buddhism, was founded in 1155.
The first documented contact between the Tibetans and the Mongols occurred when Genghis Khan met Tsangpa Dunkhurwa (Gtsang pa Dung khur ba) and six of his disciples, probably in the Tangut empire, in 1215.
After the death of Genghis Khan in 1227, the Tibetans stopped sending tribute to the Mongol Empire. As a result, in 1240, the grandson of Genghis Khan and second son of Ögedei Khan, Prince Godan (or Köden), invaded Tibet. Prince Godan asked his commanders to search for an outstanding Buddhist lama and, as Sakya Pandita, the leader of the Sakya school of Tibetan Buddhism, was considered the most religious, Godan sent him gifts and a letter of "invitation" to come to his capital and formally surrender Tibet to the Mongols. Sakya Pandita arrived in Kokonor in 1246. Prince Godan received various initiation rites and the Sakya sect of Tibetan Buddhism became the religion of the ruling line of Mongol khans. In return, after a third Mongol invasion in 1247 led to the submission of almost all Tibetan states, Sakya Pandita was appointed Viceroy of Tibet by the Mongol court in 1249, marking one of the occasions on which the Chinese base their claim to the rule of Tibet.
The Indian position is based on its traditional opposition to separatist movements and to foreign intervention in support of such movements.
The Tibet issue is rooted in the histories of the three countries – India, China and Tibet. Tibet has existed throughout history as a distinct civilization with rich culture, language, religion, polity and identity. Through the centuries India and Tibet have maintained strong religious and trade ties, and have shared a peaceful border. But the advent of British power in the Indian sub-continent altered the nature of this relationship.
The British policy was shaped by the Great Game that was to prevent Russian expansion to the South.
Independent India inherited the British Agreement which in essence meant that Tibet was a buffer zone and de facto an independent country with Chinese suzerainty. Though India tried to dissuade China from aggression into Tibet, China invaded Tibet.
Nehru during his 1954 visit to China raised the issue of incorrect map, which Chou en Lai took pains to explain that they were old KMT maps, which PRC did not have time to revise.
On December 14, 1958 letter, Nehru in a letter to the PRC govt once again raised the issue of Chinese maps depicting the border alignment inaccurately. This time the Chinese gave a different response. Chou en Lai wrote back on January 23, 1959 stating that the Sino-Indian border was never delimited and that China has never recognised the McMahon Line.
Consequent to the 1962 India-China war, China began to claim some 90,000 square kilometres of Indian Territory in the eastern sector and 38,000 square kilometres in the Aksai Chin area. These claims flow directly from China’s control over Tibet and China’s internal apprehension over Tibet wherein they had started consolidate its rule over this rebellious territory.
Between 1947 and 1954, India’s position on Tibet was based on recognising it as an independent nation. Tibet represented itself as an independent country at the Asian Relations Conference held in New Delhi in March-April 1947. But India subsequently gave up this position on April 29, 1954, when it signed an agreement with China on trade and intercourse between India and Tibet. Under the terms of the agreement, India gave up all extra-territorial rights and privileges that it had inherited from the British Raj and recognised Tibet as part of China. This, in effect, was a unilateral concession without the Indian government gaining anything in return.
If you feel my comments are ridiculous, I would not like to enjoin on this issue, since I do not attack an unarmed man suffering from Encephalopathy infirmities.
As has mentioned by many posters, Indians are not Thought Serfs of their Govt, which apparently the Chinese are. They are more adept to parrot their Govt’s view with greater adroitness than Long John Silver’s parrot.
The fact that you are an ardent fan of ground rules incorporating govt’s views alone as the bottom line, indicates by assertion that you all are Thought Serfs and incapable of exercising freedom of individual thought. That is the divergence of your being incapable of comprehending the difference in citizenship rights of a democracy versus that of a totalitarian regime. The problem is accentuated with you all because you are exposed to some freedom i.e. the internet (with controls) and you all have gone berserk in this little whiff of fresh air given by your autocratic govt. It has gone to your head and you all are a trifle dizzy in your exuberance and ever so grateful to your govt for small mercies and have become their greatest votaries and propaganda front. I am not using the word ‘propaganda’ in its negative connotation.
In India, we do not think as per Govt’s dictate. I will concede that his has its plusses and the minuses.
External Affairs are surely handled by the Govt, but that in no way inhibits any Indian from having his own views.
Yes you are allowed free thought. You will not be banned. This forum is the first in the world where we don’t ban. Unless you use foul language and are totally off your rocker with rants, I fail to find reason for you to be shown the door. And as I said, there is no ban.
As far as promoting independence of Sikkim, if one wishes to cause a rebellion, then I am afraid, such posts will have to be pre- moderated.
You will appreciate that we don't wnat bloodshed in our land and this forum will not be a source prompting mayhem, notwithstanding that the people of Sikkim on reading such posts, would laugh their way to the mentally ill asylum that any such person would be posting from.