Betraying India for China! by Rajinder Puri SignUp
Boloji.com
Boloji
Home Kabir Poetry Blogs BoloKids Writers Contribute Search Contact Site Map Advertise RSS Login Register
Boloji
Channels

In Focus

Analysis
Cartoons
Education
Environment
Going Inner
Opinion
Photo Essays

Columns

A Bystander's Diary
Business
My Word
PlainSpeak
Random Thoughts

Our Heritage

Architecture
Astrology
Ayurveda
Buddhism
Cinema
Culture
Dances
Festivals
Hinduism
History
People
Places
Sikhism
Spirituality
Vastu
Vithika

Society & Lifestyle

Family Matters
Health
Parenting
Perspective
Recipes
Society
Teens
Women

Creative Writings

Book Reviews
Ghalib's Corner
Humor
Individuality
Literary Shelf
Love Letters
Memoirs
Musings
Quotes
Ramblings
Stories
Travelogues
Workshop

Computing

CC++
Computing Articles
Flash
Internet Security
Java
Linux
Networking
My Word Share This Page
Betraying India for China!
by Rajinder Puri Bookmark and Share
 
The Supreme Court (SC) hearing Army Chief General VK Singh’s petition regarding his dispute with the government on his date of birth (DOB) observed that it did not doubt the General’s honesty and integrity. However, the court was constrained to function under the technicalities of law. Earlier during the day the government had withdrawn its order rejecting the General’s petition that his DOB was in 1951 and not in 1950. This created an opening for a settlement. The SC advised the General to withdraw his petition and settle the matter with the government.

China needs India much more than India needs China to maintain its economy. India is running an acute adverse balance of trade with China. The Indian economy is driven by domestic savings. The Chinese economy is heavily dependent upon exports. Blocking all imports from China could cripple China but allow India to survive temporary dislocation.
Given the delicate nature of the controversy and its far reaching ramifications the SC struck a balance by not wholly exonerating either the government or the General. It remains to be seen if even at this late stage the government is wise enough to achieve an honourable compromise. Otherwise the possibility of the Army Chief resigning cannot be ruled out. If so, it will be first time that an Army Chief resigns after General Thimmaya did during the days when India blundered into its disastrous 1962 engagement with China . In whatever way this controversy ends the government’s stupidity to jeopardize national security needs to be viewed in the current overall context.
 
On Wednesday this week India’s Foreign Minister Mr. SM Krishna iterated to the Chinese in Beijing that New Delhi recognized the Tibet Autonomous Region to be part of China. What was the need to repeat this?

Buddhist monks in Tibet have been immolating themselves to protest the illegal occupation of Tibet by China. Beijing accuses Dalai Lama of fomenting the Tibetan protest. Does Beijing believe Dalai Lama has only to snap his fingers for monks to commit suicide? The Dalai Lama is based in India. Therefore this cowardly anti-national government led by Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh feels compelled to reassure Beijing that his government will never alter the kowtowing to Beijing that started with India’s first Prime Minister Pandit Nehru. That policy was never abandoned.
 
Dr. Manmohan Singh’s attitude to China is inexplicable. Had the same policies been pursued by a CPI-M led government in Delhi critics would have criticized it for acting as an agent of Beijing. Critics should appreciate that these days it does not need ideological affiliation for politicians to sell the national interests of their nations to benefit other countries. That is what globalization and the power of trans-national lobbies has accomplished.
 
When media asked Mr. Krishna in Beijing whether he had raised the issue of increasing Chinese presence in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir he replied that the issue had been raised generally by New Delhi in the past. He said that New Delhi had told Beijing that Pakistan had illegally occupied Kashmir. He did not add that Beijing treated this assertion with contempt and recognized Pakistan’s case in Kashmir. Political observers might infer that the government’s inexplicable attitude to China is actuated by the Prime Minister’s obsession with the Indian economy. The critics would be wrong.
 
China needs India much more than India needs China to maintain its economy. India is running an acute adverse balance of trade with China. The Indian economy is driven by domestic savings. The Chinese economy is heavily dependent upon exports. Blocking all imports from China could cripple China but allow India to survive temporary dislocation. And yet India persists with helping China by providing it with its desperately needed export market without getting a single advantage in return.
 
China has not shown the slightest inclination to stop arming India’s neighbours against this nation. It is for all practical purpose siding with Pakistan on Kashmir. It is openly encouraging Pakistan inspired terrorism against India by using its UN veto to protect certain Pakistan-based terrorists. And all this while the UPA government is busy demoralizing the Indian army by a needless and unnecessary controversy it has raked up with the Army Chief. Dr. Manmohan Singh’s puppet government is busy weakening India’s defence morale while it crawls before Beijing. The Chinese must be laughing their heads off in Beijing. Mr. Krishna repeats that Tibet is part of China. Sure, the Chinese must be grinning, and Arunachal is part of Tibet!  
 
2-Sep-2012
More by :  Rajinder Puri
 
Views: 1282
Article Comment Dear RDASHBY,

I read article by Mr. Puri - "Assessing President Hu Watch his role in Pakistan and Tibet" (http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=4969) and suggest you to read it too.

Although, after reading it fully I still doubt that you would change your arguments/thoughts. The reason behind this doubt is the basic beliefs and conceptions you have shown in your comments on this article.

[with due respect and without intention to hurt, one first needs to understand that the earth is a sphere and then only he/she can understand why partial lunar eclipse shows moon with inner side an arc.]


Point# 1:
------------
[RDASHBY] "1. The number of Tibetan refugees is put at 150,000 in the exodus from Tibet into India in 1959, not 'millions'. The Chinese neither threatened nor carried out any slaughter of civilians as should have caused them consternation for their lives. The presence in Tibet of Chinese has always been, and continues to be, constructive."
------------

Yes, I remembered as 20 Lakh refugees instead of 2 lakh (Wikipeadia says 1.5 lakhs). I stand corrected.

But population of Tibetan in Tibet is apprx. 3 million (30 Lakh) and 1.5 lakhs is a sizeable population that chose to flee to India. Claiming that that population is hypnotized by dalai Lama and hence it fled into India sounds a poor basis. This question - why 5% population chose to remain in exile must be answered.
There are Tibetans near my residence, I would prefer to ask them directly !!


Further, Chinese need not slaughter them, because they are too small in population (with relatively very large land area) as compared to Chinese population. The Chinese govt can simply dilute the native Tibetan population by legal (according to Chinese law) infiltration into Tibet. Will this cause world community to raise alarm ? (I doubt). But, well, slaughter will definitely do.


Point# 2:
------------
[RDASHBY] "2. The so-called 'severe demographic distortion' by introducing Chinese skilled labour to supply the shortfall in a largely unskilled agricultural population can be misconstrued. The training of the indigenous people in modern skills will take time, but the equality of citizenship has to be axiomatic to the country now being a part of China. I would consider the analogy of the maharajas in India being absorbed into one nation more accurate than the Israel/ Palestine one. Tibet enjoys the security of China's military might, as Palestine does not of Israel."
-----------

A. Will Israel not resist any enemy trying to capture Isreali occupied Palestinian territory ?
(let's relate to situation of 10 years before, as Israel has retreated from various parts recently under international pressure)

So, the argument, to say that Chinese are present into Tibet to defend land of Tibet, stands void.

B. Tibet is occupied by China since more than 50 years now. 50 years back, or 40 or 30 years back, mainland China's status was not much better than Tibet in terms of 'modernity'.
- How come non-Tibet region grew faster than Tibet region, both under Chinese rule ?
- Why Chinese govt. is in hurry to 'modernize' the land of Tibet, even if Tibet's native people are not skilled ?
- We may recall that building roads, bridges and other infrastructure makes a ruler at more ease in controlling a region, simply because the forces can use them to increase their effectiveness.
- Noticeably, it is modernizing Chinese Occupied Kashmir too (Aksai Chin), do you think it is with intentions to provide better facilities to handful natives there ?
- A couple of years back only a few people died in Uighur region due to protests and clashes – ONLY 150 or so people died as they protested against Chinese. They must have been under hypnosis by some theocrat. After all, Chinese are in that region only to protect native Uighurs.

=========================

Finally, one may claim that Europeans came to America and built their empire to protect native Americans (also referred to as 'Indians' within USA).

The white Americans have stopped killing native Americans since 100 years or so. They have built infrastructure and best economy. All this is done to 'modernize' the native Americans that were otherwise backwards, right ?

So, what's wrong with Chinese occupying Tibet territory and modernizing them as well ?

Earth is a flat object not a sphere !

[and I have not uttered a word about China's intentions and policies towards Pakistan and J&K]
Dinesh Kumar Bohre
02/13/2012
Article Comment Sorry, the correct title of the article posted on this website is: "Assessing President Hu Watch his role in Pakistan and Tibet"
My Word
02/13/2012
Article Comment Dear RDASHBY,

Please expect my reply point-by-point in sometime.

I am going to reply after reading the article by Mr. Rajinder Puri "Assessing Hu on Tibet..."

And there is an 'e' in the last place of my last name, instead of 'e' as mentioned by you.
Dinesh Kumar Bohre
02/13/2012
Article Comment All those who hold the view that Tibet is NOT part of China are advised to read my article "Assessing Hu on Tibet..."
My Word
02/13/2012
Article Comment Mr Bohra makes some wild generalisations, clearly out of a keen antipathy felt towards China for foreign policy concerning Kashmir and Pakistan as spelled out by Mr Puri, which he sublimates to China's 'aggressive' stance in Tibet - completely unrepresentative of the vast development of that country now underway. I will address his points as numbered:

1. The number of Tibetan refugees is put at 150,000 in the exodus from Tibet into India in 1959, not 'millions'. The Chinese neither threatened nor carried out any slaughter of civilians as should have caused them consternation for their lives. The presence in Tibet of Chinese has always been, and continues to be, constructive.

2. The so-called 'severe demographic distortion' by introducing Chinese skilled labour to supply the shortfall in a largely unskilled agricultural population can be misconstrued. The training of the indigenous people in modern skills will take time, but the equality of citizenship has to be axiomatic to the country now being a part of China. I would consider the analogy of the maharajas in India being absorbed into one nation more accurate than the Israel/ Palestine one. Tibet enjoys the security of China's military might, as Palestine does not of Israel.

When the chips are down, a theocratic feudalistic form of government is anachronistic, and what the Tibetan people should do is to acknowledge the future is being part of China. Tibet under the Dalai Lama is out of place in the modern world, and that is the lesson even the maharajahs had to accept.




RDASHBY
02/12/2012
Article Comment Dear RDASHBY,

All the points mentioned by you in comment are misplaced and ill-conceived. These logics can be put on the table by Chinese authorities and Chinese media - no wonder.

I guess you are not representing Chinese authorities, so let's have at least unbiased views, if not hostile views towards China.

Without going to details of each lines of your comments, let's ponder over a few facts:

1. There are millions of asylum seekers from Tibet, who came to India after Chinese invasion of Tibet. When does large population migrate from their homes? surely there must be compelling reasons to leave home.

2. Tibet region is under sever demographic distostion designed and enforced by Chinese govt. Fot every 1 Tibetean, there are 2 Chinese citizens placed in the region to dilute the Tibetean population. (Isreal did the same in Palestine till recent years until Isreal vacated the place (and destroyed houses they used to live in)).

When does any government adopt these tactics ? For sure, such tactics are not used by any govt on its citizens. Chinese govt itself treated and treating Tibeteans as hostiles, enemies, foreigners.
Dinesh Kumar Bohre
02/12/2012
Article Comment The only independence Tibet could ever have been said to possess, particularly in modern times, from 19 century on, was a de facto independence. I think the mistake is to conceive of Tibet in olden times in the modern definition of an independent nation. There were no such entities as nations then, only kingdoms, of which India itself was numerously comprised. One can hardly speak of an independent kingdom; a kingdom stands on the power of a king over his people to subjugate them. This is not the rationale of a modern nation whose priority is the status of its population. Just as India saw the dissolution of the maharajahs and absorption of their domains into one polity – it could be argued on historical grounds their ‘independence’ was being violated, and should be restored - so Tibet too, as a kingdom has been absorbed into China, having, as afore-stated, never possessed anything other than de facto independence as a nation in the era of nationhood.
rdashby
02/12/2012
Article Comment It is myopic to view Tibet as being 'illegally invaded by China', and as a comment suggests, this of a sudden in 1962. Tibet has been under Chinese suzerainty from the beginning, and I am talking centuries. One has only to read the history. Even under the Dalai Lama institution, Tibet has always relied on Chinese protection, if only to keep India out as a potential threat. Even the rule under the succeeding Dalai Lamas was, contrary to the appearance one big united religious community might give of an idyllic life for all, feudalistic in as oppressive a manner as symbolised by the gigantic proportions of the Potala palace to the humble dwellings of the people: it was funded by zealously extracted taxes as honorific tribute to the imputed repeated incarnation of the boddhisatva Avalokite?vara. It was true to say the Chinese formally liberated Tibet in 1951 from this elitist setup; and experienced a backlash from the Dalai Lama acting, as he still does, in the name of his serfs; till China was compelled to use greater force, culminating in the 1962 offensive to establish absolute control; and to absorb Tibet into a healthier context, to dispel the retrograde influences of the Dalai Lama's grip on the people of Tibet; to bring Tibet, as part of China, into the modern world, as the record proves presently achieved in the agricultural reforms and infra-structure development in Tibet.

It was never the case that Tibet was truly 'independent', but historically dependent on China; the reality has been fulfilled in its absorption into China. What has been lost is the myth of an independent Tibet symbolised in the Dalai Lama and the Potala. The continuing wail of a lost Tibet comes from the elitist Dalai Lama, who cunningly divests himself of all awe, to gain sympathy from 'his people'. The media blows out of all proportion the immolations of Buddhist monks, which are isolated incidents, a form of cultic fanaticism; in any case, without any major influence on life in Tibet in its proper context of China, outside of which it could never exist, in reality, has never existed.
rdashby
02/10/2012
Article Comment SM Krishna, the Hon'ble External minister's utterances regarding the status of Tibet is unfortunate. It hurts the sentiments of million peace-loving people in India and abroad. Instead he should have demanded China to hand over the land it has occupied in 1962 war. Besides UPA govt can't ensure the support of the entire nation on this issue, specially after China's open support to Pakistan against India. Pakistan and India are two brothers and once shared the same plate to eat, and now China plays the role of a villain!
Kumarendra Mallick
02/10/2012
Article Comment Dear Sir,

Thanks for highlighting the issue in a clear and simple manner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This govt is anti national. It is acting against India's interests from day 1 in office since 2004.

Yet, there are praises and comparisons between NDA and UPA !!

Are those journalists and media agencies not equally anti-nationalistic by not providing right picture to the common man ??

People say that Mr. MMS is a great economist, well this is what a great economist ensures as PM - a huge trade deficit of $25+ billion per annum !

Yet, it is reported that MMS is a great economist and good for Indian economic growth.

(It is noteworthy that the bilateral relations are mentioned in news when some European country looses sale of a $100 billion deal of defence machines to India. Such deliveries are completed over a few years, means around $25 - $30 billion USD one side trade matters so much even to developed countries !!)

But here, we have a trade deficit of $25 billion for those goods that India can live without altogether. To name some - toys, furniture, cheap electronics. No consumer in India needs them desparately. If those goods disapear from markets, they will be replaced by their Indian equivalents. But this point is out of understanding of our great economist PM.

-----------------------------------------------------------

While one could believe that NDA was correctible on such mistakes, UPA is hopeless because they are aware of what they are doing and its long term results.

Still, we should re-elect for UPA. Afterall, the NDA is communal, it promotes communal clashes, it has one such instance available as indicator, while the kangress is truely secular because those 167 instances of communal clashes during its rule at center/state can hardly be recalled by journalists and media agencies.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry to sound like an election campaigner. But I will through NDA out of window the day I get a better alternative in national interest (in which my own interest lies)
Dinesh Kumar Bohre
02/09/2012
 
Top | My Word







    A Bystander's Diary     Analysis     Architecture     Astrology     Ayurveda     Book Reviews
    Buddhism     Business     Cartoons     CC++     Cinema     Computing Articles
    Culture     Dances     Education     Environment     Family Matters     Festivals
    Flash     Ghalib's Corner     Going Inner     Health     Hinduism     History
    Humor     Individuality     Internet Security     Java     Linux     Literary Shelf
    Love Letters     Memoirs     Musings     My Word     Networking     Opinion
    Parenting     People     Perspective     Photo Essays     Places     PlainSpeak
    Quotes     Ramblings     Random Thoughts     Recipes     Sikhism     Society
    Spirituality     Stories     Teens     Travelogues     Vastu     Vithika
    Women     Workshop
RSS Feed RSS Feed Home | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Site Map
No part of this Internet site may be reproduced without prior written permission of the copyright holder.
Developed and Programmed by ekant solutions