| Username |
Post |
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 30-Oct-00 01:12 PM
Hi all,
I am starting a new thread because the old one was getting long. My sincere apologies to everyone who feels that GBNC board should be used to discuss only the issues pertaining to Nepal. My sincere apoloies to the webmaster of this site for bomabarding this board with something that is not directly (or even indirectly) related to Nepal. But this discussion I am having with Biswo ji is so interesting that I just cant resist my temptation to reply everytime he writes something.
And my request to Biswoji-would you mind using plain, simple and colloquial English so that I don't have to spend hours thinking what's that you are trying to say.
Biswo ji wrote-
Trailokyaji::
1."You have been taking me as a person who believe in what CCP says.Wrong! I was penalized in Fang Da for my political opinion, for the whole four years, I was not
given my deserved yidengjiang(first prize) because I fearlessly spoke the evil of CCP in school.Almost Every Nepali student there in that period probably knows this."
Namaste Biswoji,
Good, you shouldn't be afraid to speak up. The feeling of satisfaction you derive from speaking out is far more rewarding than any prize.
"But it is not my idea to have bias against any party or system just because it have been unfair to me.What I repeatedly tried to understand is what people think about their government there."
Biswoji, think it this way-if the govt. can be unfair to you , then it can be unfair to the chinese population too. Again, things are changing in China and the CCP isn't as powerful and respected party that it used to be in the 50s, 60s and even the 70s. Even the Chinese communist scholars themselves agree this. There is an interesting article by Li Minqi--a chinese communist scholar--in Monthly Review (the most popular scoialist magazine in the US), Jan. 97 on Post-Tian'an men era China. Furthermore with the dismantling of the Danwei system, the local populace at large finds itself alienated. A recent survey by Prof. Andrew Nathan of Columbia University (the report was published at harvard's journal) had this shocking finding--only 21% of the population in Chinese Cities think think that the govt. still plays an active role in their daily lives!
"I always said this is a subjective issue. Chinese history is inherently an amorphous, with no clear shape to define its trend, with leaders capricious enough not to fit in a model.To understand Chinese history, I just don't need to enroll in American college."
Dear Biswo ji, I don't agree. Chinese history as a whole is subjective but when we talk about particular events, it becomes OBJECTIVE.
Regarding amorphousness of Chinese history, I again disagree with you. If you read Chinese history you see a trend there. The Chinese history is all about dynastic upheavals, peasant rebellions, internal palace feuds and above all suppression of people who didn't like the ruling dynasty--the Qin dynasty China was like this and the CCP China isn't very different either.
And one more thing. You do need to study history to understand it. The more you read or hear about particular events, the more you can think. The more you can think, the more you can develop a critical understanding of "issues".
"An intermittent visitor to Shanghai Church in Holiday Inn near Jiaoda, I have met several disgruntled religious persons.I have met several professors who didn't spoke highly of CCP.But along with them,
I also talked to people who lived in the lower rung of the ladder,who are concerned that their danwei is leaving them.I have my own share of dissidents and proCCP people in my long stay there."
You forgot to take into account one very important fact--People in China don't feel comfortable to talk with foreigners on political issues because of the fear of repercussions and even if they do, they don't want to say something that "might" put them in danger in coming years.
"The conclusion is: the way you understood China is probably not more realistic than the way I understood it.Shuttling between Hongkong, China and Nepal in my long stay there, I have pretty much access to the books
banned there, to the views of dissidents that are not allowed in Shanghai.My thoughts about CCP are based on all what I saw.It is not necessary that our views should converge."
If my approach of understanding China is unrealistic, then what's the most realistic way to understand China? There must be a realistic way to understand China and I would really appreciate if you shade some light on this. That will be highly appreciated.
And my views on CCP are based on what I saw, heard and read in China and in the US. Believe me nothing's coming out from top of my head.
And regarding convergence of our views--I tooo agree that it is not necessary that our views should converge.
(see we already have an agreement there:-)
Trailokya
|
| webmaster |
Posted
on 30-Oct-00 05:46 PM
To Mr. Trailokya Aryal,
>pertaining to Nepal. My sincere apoloies to
>the webmaster of this site for bomabarding
>this board with something that is not
>directly (or even indirectly) related to
>Nepal. But this discussion I am having with
I would like to welcome you to the elite group of people who post to this site! I encourage you to post to this site frequently and refer your friends and other "buddhijiwis" to this site as well.
We do not have any bars on the topic of discussion as long as the discussions show respect and dignity towards individual values and are not discriminatory.
I do urge posters, when they 'reply' to a discussion, that they 'snipe' out (delete) as much text from earlier posts as possible. This makes it easier for readers to browse thru postings without having to go over repetitive text from previous sections.
Best Regards,
San
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 30-Oct-00 06:11 PM
>And my request to Biswoji-would you mind
>using plain, simple and colloquial English
>so that I don't have to spend hours thinking
>what's that you are trying to say.
I am really sorry to ask you This: Please do not make comment
on my choice of diction.Let's make this understanding
that we will not comment on what word one uses, rather
we concentrate on what one is trying to say.Deal?
>Good, you shouldn't be afraid to speak up.
>The feeling of satisfaction you derive from
>speaking out is far more rewarding than any
>prize.
>Biswoji, think it this way-if the govt. can
>be unfair to you , then it can be unfair to
>the chinese population too. Again, things
>are changing in China and the CCP isn't as
>powerful and respected party that it used to
>be in the 50s, 60s and even the 70s.
Trailokyaji: be assured that I have spoken up whenever
my conscience revolted.But, Not with prejudice, not
with intimidation.I spoke when I was in danger of
losing scholarship, and it is going to be continued.
>
>"I always said this is a subjective issue.
>Chinese history is inherently an amorphous,
>with no clear shape to define its trend,
>with leaders capricious enough not to fit in
>a model.To understand Chinese history, I
>just don't need to enroll in American
>college."
>
>Dear Biswo ji, I don't agree. Chinese
>history as a whole is subjective but when we
>talk about particular events, it becomes
>OBJECTIVE.
>Regarding amorphousness of Chinese history,
>I again disagree with you. If you read
>Chinese history you see a trend there. The
>Chinese history is all about dynastic
>upheavals, peasant rebellions, internal
>palace feuds and above all suppression of
>people who didn't like the ruling dynasty--
>the Qin dynasty China was like this and the
>CCP China isn't very different either.
>
>And one more thing. You do need to study
>history to understand it. The more you read
>or hear about particular events, the more
>you can think. The more you can think, the
>more you can develop a critical
>understanding of "issues".
I find that you are assuming that I have been writing
stuffs without much study.Chinese history, Chinese
literature , everything has been part of my interest.
My ISc result was good enough to provide me alternative
to China Scholarship, still my enchantment for that
country made me decide to go there.I have myself
written some publications on China, on the condition
of peasants and citizens,which were published in Garima
and Kantipur in the past.In my extensive thirst for
Chinese reality, I have travelled more than 20
provinces including the inner hinterlands.
We can agree to disagree on this matter.I see a
haphazard placement of events, one marked by weak
and strong kings, impromptu rebellions, foreign
occupations.I don't see how people could predict the
cultural revolution, nor the subsequent opening up
of economy.Even now, it is difficult to say when the
CCP will step down.
The same events ,when you see, looked like serial
emplacements to you.I don't see any thing wrong with
that approach.You identify trend in them,that is fine.
>You forgot to take into account one very
>important fact--People in China don't feel
>comfortable to talk with foreigners on
>political issues because of the fear of
>repercussions and even if they do, they don'
>t want to say something that "might" put
>them in danger in coming years.
It may be.But I have met a few outspoken people also.
Furthermore, once inside liuxueshenglou(foreign
students building),people were quite frank also. Quite
frankly, the government doesn't take people
into custody just because of intimating their
disgruntlment with a foreigner.
>"The conclusion is: the way you understood
>China is probably not more realistic than
>the way I understood it.Shuttling between
>Hongkong, China and Nepal in my long stay
>there, I have pretty much access to the
>books
>banned there, to the views of dissidents
>that are not allowed in Shanghai.My thoughts
>about CCP are based on all what I saw.It is
>not necessary that our views should converge.
>"
>
>If my approach of understanding China is
>unrealistic, then what's the most realistic
>way to understand China? There must be a
>realistic way to understand China and I
>would really appreciate if you shade some
>light on this. That will be highly
>appreciated.
Trailokyaji, I wrote that your approach was probably
not more realistic than that of mine. I didn't say
your was unrealistic.
>And my views on CCP are based on what I saw,
>heard and read in China and in the US.
>Believe me nothing's coming out from top of
>my head.
>And regarding convergence of our views--I
>tooo agree that it is not necessary that our
>views should converge.
>(see we already have an agreement there:-)
>
>Trailokya
China in itself is inherently an esoteric epistemology.
The more we try to unravel its inherent character,
the more we find ourselves in an unending morass of
logics, and truisms.
Even Hongkong governor Chris Patten was frustrated when
he tried to implement democracy in Hongkong.Tory
leaders back in London were not supporting him.Even
the foreign minister had serious disagreement with him.
Every body had their own idea on how to understand
China and how to predict Chinese behavior.
USA is in similar dilemma.Engagement or containment?
There are an equal number of intellectuals who think
engagemnt is better, or containment is better.
Who knows how much CCP will run? And it is equally
unknown to us, unpredictable to us whether the whole
nation will remain integrated after that. It is still
unsure whether Taiwan will unite with China after China
changes its political system.(I say , it will not.)
Furthermore, for me, it is still difficult to say that
Tibet will be independent after China will be free of
CCP.Ditto about Xinjiang also.
By the way, it is nice to hear your opinion about the
China you saw in your study and short term visits.
Nothing is greater that reading thoughtful and frank
arguments in this great website.Hai na?
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 30-Oct-00 07:49 PM
>
Let's make this
>understanding
>that we will not comment on what word one
>uses, rather
>we concentrate on what one is trying to say.
>Deal?
OK. DEAL. I won't comment on your choice of words from now on.
>
>Trailokyaji: be assured that I have spoken
>up whenever
>my conscience revolted.But, Not with
>prejudice, not
>with intimidation.
Good. That's how and what it's supposed to be. You have to speak up without any prejudice.
>
>
>I find that you are assuming that I have
>been writing
>stuffs without much study.Chinese history,
>Chinese
>literature , everything has been part of my
>interest.
>My ISc result was good enough to provide me
>alternative
>to China Scholarship, still my enchantment
>for that
>country made me decide to go there.I have
>myself
>written some publications on China, on the
>condition
>of peasants and citizens,which were
>published in Garima
>and Kantipur in the past.In my extensive
>thirst for
>Chinese reality, I have travelled more than 2
>0
>provinces including the inner hinterlands.
Again, GOOD. I wasn't assuming that you write or were writing without any knowledge. You sure seem to know a lot. What I am saying is its always good to look at books that present a very different view than your's to develop a critical understanding of any given issue.
>We can agree to disagree on this matter.I
>see a
>haphazard placement of events, one marked by
>weak
>and strong kings, impromptu rebellions,
>foreign
>occupations.I don't see how people could
>predict the
>cultural revolution, nor the subsequent
>opening up
>of economy.Even now, it is difficult to say
>when the
>CCP will step down.
Good points. However, the opening up of economy was drafted by Zhou before the triumph of 1949! (and was approved by Mao). It didn't work out because the US didn't want to deal with a communist country during the early years of Cold War.
The Cultural Revolution too was predicted by some. That's why Zhou had already warned his writer friend not to write "counter-revolutionary" articles/stories. After the disastrous failure of the Great Leap Forward (da yao jun, 1954-58) and the purge of Peng Dahuai, had created a feeling of dis-satisfaction towards Chairman Mao in the CCP politbureau. And Mao felt threatened. Mao to show that he still had command over people, especially the young people, asked for the Cultural Revolution (wen hua da ge ming) which only pushed China 20 years backwards in terms of development and growth. But the official rhetoric is something like this "chairman mao was not happy with the bureaucracy and a growing class trend in Chinese society, and feared that 'revisionists' were taking over the Party, so he asked the youths of China to fight all this--growing bureaucraticism, class trend and revisionist tendencies".
About the CCP stepping down, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to make comments at this point. Suffice to say, that there hasn't been a single party or govt. that has ruled forever whether in China or elsewhere.
>It may be.But I have met a few outspoken
>people also.
>Furthermore, once inside liuxueshenglou(
>foreign
>students building),people were quite frank
>also. Quite
>frankly, the government doesn't take people
>into custody just because of intimating
>their
>disgruntlment with a foreigner.
There are quite a few people like this. I agree but you can't just draw conclusions based on what they say. You have to examine their backgrounds, why they think the way they think and many factors. Obviously, you won't hear the same thing from two people of very different backgrounds. In China's case, you won't hear the same thing about the CCP from a cab-driver in Shanghai and a neo-rich at an expensive Nanjinglu restaurant!
>>
>
>Trailokyaji, I wrote that your approach was
>probably
>not more realistic than that of mine. I didn'
>t say
>your was unrealistic.
OK, Now let's work together to find out the most realistic approach to understand China. Deal?
>
>China in itself is inherently an esoteric
>epistemology.
>The more we try to unravel its inherent
>character,
>the more we find ourselves in an unending
>morass of
>logics, and truisms.
Let me first ask you if I understood this paragraph correctly. Correct me if I misunderstood. My English isn't that good, so do me a favor here.
If i understood correctly, you are trying to say--
" knowledge of China is limited to a small group of designated people"
My answer-That's why I chose Chinese Studies as my major, I am still in my learning phase so that I would be able to understand China as those "designated/initiated" do.
>USA is in similar dilemma.Engagement or
>containment?
>There are an equal number of intellectuals
>who think
>engagemnt is better, or containment is
>better.
I don't think the US would go back to it's containmnet policy regarding China. Don't forget that it was Nixon who went to China to end the containment. And the US's MFN and other policies reagrding China, at least to me, tell that the US won't--unless something terrible happens--go back to its policy of isolating China.
>Who knows how much CCP will run? And it is
>equally
>unknown to us, unpredictable to us whether
>the whole
>nation will remain integrated after that. It
>is still
>unsure whether Taiwan will unite with China
>after China
>changes its political system.(I say , it
>will not.)
>Furthermore, for me, it is still difficult
>to say that
>Tibet will be independent after China will
>be free of
>CCP.Ditto about Xinjiang also.
Nobody can predict the future. However, we can still make speculations. Taiwan will, one day eventually merge with the mainlad because of its economic interests. Negotiations are underway regarding Taiwan's eventual integration with the Mainland and I think it's too early to predict anything.
Regarding Tibet, even the Dalai lama himself is saying that he "is not asking for the total independence of tibet" all he wants his "true autonomy" and "inclusion" of Amdo and Kham which were cut off from Tibet in the 60s. This is His Holiness's demand which is clearly stated in his 5 points peace proposal for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize.
>By the way, it is nice to hear your opinion
>about the
>China you saw in your study and short term
>visits.
And I enjoyed reading your's.
>Nothing is greater that reading thoughtful
>and frank
>arguments in this great website.Hai na?
Exactly. Ho. Shi de.
Trailokya
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 30-Oct-00 10:24 PM
>OK, Now let's work together to find out the
>most realistic approach to understand China.
>Deal?
That's fine.Let me think about that before proposing
any fast solution.
>>China in itself is inherently an esoteric
>>epistemology.
>>The more we try to unravel its inherent
>>character,
>>the more we find ourselves in an unending
>>morass of
>>logics, and truisms.
>
>Let me first ask you if I understood this
>paragraph correctly. Correct me if I
>misunderstood. My English isn't that good,
>so do me a favor here.
>
>If i understood correctly, you are trying to
>say--
>
>" knowledge of China is limited to a small
>group of designated people"
Almost,you got it,man.I know you know these words.
>I don't think the US would go back to it's
>containmnet policy regarding China. Don't
>forget that it was Nixon who went to China
>to end the containment. And the US's MFN and
>other policies reagrding China, at least to
>me, tell that the US won't--unless something
>terrible happens--go back to its policy of
>isolating China.
I also think the policy of engagement will be continued
for a long period to come, at least until the status
quo is maintained across Asia pacific.
In this point, I want to suggest you to take out some
time, and read previous threads on Safa Tempo.i wil
appreciate your comments on that subject, especially
you can ask Adam about Safa tempo.
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 31-Oct-00 01:51 PM
Thanks Biswoji,
It was a great discussion. I learned a lot from you. Though our views didn't "converge" but nonetheless it was a great learning experience.
I hope you will have other topics to dicuss in the near future.
Trailokya
|
