Ukraine - Russia Conflict
- Thread starter randomradio
- Start date
The Kashmir issue is purely the result of India's long history of Muslim-Hindus conflict. As for Tibet, guess how many times the CIA and British incited nobles and monks to launch rebellions in Tibet?
yeah mao zedong is reincarnated dalai lama . There was no wars between qing, yuans vs tibetans those are all fairy tales invented for entertainment. Infact hans & tibetans are same names ethnically but anthropologists have no other work so they categorized them differently.
That's not the point. The West created the rules of the partition and then broke the same rules when we stupidly went to the UN for arbitration. If the West followed their own rules, there would have been no Kashmir problem today.
Inciting rebellion does nothing. Pressure must come externally through the application of sanctions. Instead the West gave China money and technology.
Rightfully, both Pakistan and China should have been sanctioned.
The reason is simple. China carried out land reform in Tibet. The slaveholders and monks who had previously owned land and slaves were, of course, angry and resentful. Tibet's local Kashag government would also be unhappy with the loss of power. Of course they will be used by India and the West.
I as a Chinese know some basic history of Kashmir the Grand Duke of Kashmir wanted to join India because he believed in Hinduism. The majority of Kashmiris are Muslims who want to join Pakistan. This is the most important reason.
I have not denied the original history of Tibet. As a matter of fact, these histories are detailed in our textbooks. As for why Tibet belongs to China. Legally speaking, the People's Republic of China was the successor of the Qing Dynasty. Just as Indians now see themselves as the heirs of British India.
You can't justify an invasion by claiming life is slightly better in Tibet since before. That was always going to happen.
Even average Tibetans prefer life in India than in Tibet.
In fact, reality. Even now. Tibet's per capita gdp is also three to four times that of India. And Tibet is only a place with a little tourism resources. I have not met any Tibetan who said they like living in India. Both within China and abroad. Perhaps some Tibetans in exile would say something like this to curry favour with the Indian government. Tibet has also historically had far more cultural exchanges with China than with India. Tibet also belonged to China for hundreds of years. I have not seen any history of Tibet being part of India.
No. The king of Kashmir wanted independence. He signed a deal with both Pak and India. Then Pak broke the deal by invading. The king asked for help. India agreed only after the king signed a deal for ascension to India. That's how India got Kashmir.
Even the Muslim Kashmiris fought Pakistan and supported India. And they continued supporting India until terrorism started in the 90s. In fact in the 1965 war, the Muslim Kashmiris even handed over Pakistani commandoes to the Indian Army when they came over to incite rebellion.
That's not how India sees itself. We are not heirs of British India. And China is not heirs of the Qing.
The Qing are just a bunch of invaders. Your true boundary is a cultural boundary. If your culture is different from someone else, and your plan is to impose your culture on them, then you have no right to that land or its people.
All you have done is make up excuses to control your colonies.
Both Tibet and Xinjiang are Chinese colonies. The same with Inner Mongolia. If that's not the case, then you will have both civilian and military leaders from such places. But even those territories are controlled by Han Chinese. Now would you have a hukou system that restricts the movement of Tibetans.
If India is not the heir to British India. So why does India want to claim sovereignty over the Aksai Chin area? India's argument was that the British had used war to force the Tibetan local government to sign a cession of the Aksai Chin region. The treaty was not recognized by the central government. If India is not the heir to British India, then what is controversial about India's claim to Aksai Chin?
The Qing Empire was a multi-ethnic state. The emperors of the Qing Dynasty naturally became the co-emperors of the Manchus, Han, Tibetans, Uyghur and Mongols. Just as the emperor of Austria-Hungary was the co-emperor of Austria and Hungary. Of course you don't have to tell me how much India wants Tibet. China's brutal recent history has taught everyone in China. National power is everything. The international community is a jungle society, if India is strong enough. India has already gone to Tibet through wars.
Don't tell me, history of Indian propaganda. Find anything on the Internet about the first India-Pakistan war. We all know that during the first war, the local Muslims were very supportive of Pakistan. Even during the first India-Pakistan War, a significant portion of Pakistan's troops came from Muslims in Kashmir.
To be honest, I have a deep understanding of how outrageous the Indian government's propaganda is. There are many civil servants from Tibetans in Tibet. Around 30% to 40%. The governor of Tibet is also a Tibetan. Many middle and senior officers in the PLA are also Tibetan. Even some of the pilots were Tibetan.
Really? I'd be surprised if he even went there.
Google search:
0?
Who incited the Communist rebellion in 1949? The US and Britain were never enemies with China historically, remember that. US pilots were flying for the Chinese against Japan even before the US had officially entered the WWII.
Flying Tigers - Wikipedia
Aksai Chin belonged to India's Sikh Empire before British rule. It was conquered by an Indian king against Tibet. So a free Tibet can dispute the claim over Aksai Chin, not China. Also, in 2020,
Basically the region was taken by India before Xinjiang was reconquered by Qing or Tibet was annexed by China.
More importantly, we did not destroy Ladakh's culture or its people. And now they are part of a democratic system that has successfully retained the culture of the area.
The people ruling Ladakh today are Ladakhis. The people ruling Tibet and Xinjiang today are Han Chinese.
This is a Tibetan unit called SFF with a Tibetan flag. They were the ones who challenged PLA in Chushul in 2020.
India is not interested in controlling Tibet.
I agree with the rest, national power and jungle rules.
Anyway, my point was the West claims one thing and does another. They lost our trust in 1948.
Most Kashmir Muslims wanted independence. If given a choice, they chose Pakistan. But when Pakistan invaded, some areas surendered to the Pakistanis, but the main urban areas resisted. If the Kashmiris had not resisted, then Pakistan would have conquered Kashmir in weeks. India entered the war 3 months after the invasion, ie, after the accession of Kashmir.
How many in Beijing? How many in CMC? How many in Politburo? Can a Tibetan become Chairman?
When will Xi's position be taken over by someone from Tibet or Xinjiang or Inner Mongolia?
The Chinese have never denied the help that Britain and the United States provided to China during World War II. In China, there are many movies and TV series with this theme. But the Flying Tigers are also a mercenary force. It's made up of China buying American planes and hiring American pilots at high salaries. It's not just Western countries. The Soviet Union also provided a lot of aid to China. The most difficult year in China, 1939. The Soviet Union is China's only source of weapons. And the Soviet Air Force also organized the Soviet Volunteer air Corps to help China.0?
Who incited the Communist rebellion in 1949? The US and Britain were never enemies with China historically, remember that. US pilots were flying for the Chinese against Japan even before the US had officially entered the WWII.
Flying Tigers - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
